gingerella

Comment history

Letter: Keep project on older routes

Why would Mrs. Brantley be asking asking these questions on her web site - doubt it is so she can give the count to BPA for lollipops. It couldn't possibly be because of EMF could it??
Now she wants to give lollipops to the "downtowner" kids.

COUNT THE CHILDREN
We are asking for you to send us a count of how many children reside in your home. We would like to present these numbers to BPA to show them how many children these lines would affect if they indeed do come through the proposed route segments that have no existing BPA easement on their property.

If there is a neighbor who is not involved, but who has children and could be affected by these lines, please add their numbers to your list. All we ask is that you be sure to tell us you have added an additional family or two, or three, etc.

Please count the children and help us fight for you to keep our area's beauty intact.
Send your replies with your BPA route segment number included to cheryl@abetterway4bpa.org

April 26, 2011 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Keep project on older routes

Isn't this the same lady who testified before the Clark County Board of Commissioners that if the line came through her area, she would have to move as she did not want to have have her grandbaby subjected to the potential health risks that these lines might cause. Wow! it is ok for other peoples' childeren to be radiated.

She is about a naive as they comne - Mark Korseness will tell the people what they want to hear (and has done so repeatedly in the past). What was not said is that BPA makes it's decision on many factors and is not solely based on the purchase of ~1200 acres of mostly unpopulated tiomberland owned by large Corporations like Weyerhauser. If it was so simple, why would BPA have spent over $14 million to date to figure out where to put the line?

Stop being a NIMBY trying to cloak yourself as a tree hugger which you are not.

Get with the program and work in the spirit of co-operation for ALL citizens to move this line to where it has the least impact. The environment includes people as well.

April 26, 2011 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Assault on poor and needy mounting

And why would you pick out ONE item from the letter to carp about?

BECAUSE FOR YOU RIGHTIES, IT'S ALL ABOUT ABORTION. Anything and everything is, in the end, about a woman's right to choose.

Nevermind that the kids we have now can't read or write, are ill-nourished, and WHOSE PARENTS HAVE NO INCOME, IT'S ALL ABOUT ABORTION - which translates to "keep them at home, pregnant, ill-educated and needy, then we can control them better."

March 31, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our Readers' Views

**JMAC**

"It is with great pleasure that I get to comment on Rep. Herrera. She has created jobs!!!! Unfortunately they are in Alaska. But it is close. She voted lock step to fund the bridge to nowhere. A small $183 million earmark. Thanks Jamie, you are wonderful. oh I forgot to include the oil industry tax breaks. Thanks again Jamie, I will think about you every time I pay for gas. Accountability, I only hope we hold her to it."

JMAC, do you really think all these people who actually voted for Jaime - those republicans - are going to hold her accountable for any damn thing? No. They (AND SHE) care only about making sure no gay decides to co-habitate, and all funding for Planned Parenthood is wrong, and all that money, the huge amounts of dollars that are given to the oil companies to DRILL FOR OIL ON OUR LAND, THEN SELL IT TO THE WORLD AT A HUGE PROFIT, will be stopped?

I don't think so. Republicans are a pretty dumb bunch. They think that giving billions of dollars (our dollars) to the oil companies will shield them from the likes of Democrats who want to tax their windfall profits for the good of the citizens of this country. OUR OIL, OUR LAND, and OUR TAX DOLLARS are given to oil companies by the republicans.

Do you really think Jaime will be held accountable? I doubt it.

March 7, 2011 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our Readers' Views

**ALLYCAT** Your 10:34 post (last paragraph) is truly hilarious. Every woman, when reading that paragraph, laughs at your total ignorance.

What women look for first and foremost is a man who will make a good and stable father to the children she expects to have. Anything else is icing on the cake. Her definition of "good and stable" is what her background makes the definition to be.

I expect what gay people look for is a good and stable PARTNER to enrich their lives, children or no children.

I expect the "losers" under "their thumbs" were LOSERS to begin with. Most men I know and have met in my life would never allow themselves to end up "under" someone's thumb. They have a modicum of SELF-RESPECT that precludes that.

March 7, 2011 at 11:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our readers' views

shelrama, you've got your head up where the sun don't shine. The firemen EARN their pensions. The money that goes to the pension fund is money the DO NOT GET IN CASH ON THEIR CHECKS.

The same as money you put into an IRA. You EARN that money, but it goes into a fund for you to use when you are ready to retire. You don't use it when you get it.

Don't you think it's about time that people stop using the word GREED when discussing the public servants who after all live and work FOR US. They are NOT GREEDY. They have learned that they are the only ones who will look out for THEMSELVES, it certainly won't be the city/county.

March 6, 2011 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our readers' views

daven - Spending???? Like spending on the defense budget???

The only way "under control spending" is going to happen is when the republicans are voted out of office. Because the defense budget is what is blowing out the economy. And as I've mentioned before, They (repubs) won't cut spending on the defense budget until they are OUT OF OFFICE.

Any other spending cuts will be made at the expense of the poor, like having the heating budget cut, or the medically needy, like the Arizona transplant people.

It's only the defense budget that will save this country. And that will happen when the defense budget is one-half of what its is today. That's only a start.

March 6, 2011 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our readers' views

Who cares what JFK voted on when a senator? It's what he championed as president and what got passed because he was murdered - that's what counts.

Also, what counts is that the republicans don't want to touch the defense budget. Notice how many of them think we should intervene in Libya. They need that huge monolith, the "defense industry" to supply THEM with jobs, so they can lobby the other republicans (who the uneducated, non-medical-insured, non-unionized fox news low-information voters elected) in office to supply THEM with MORE money and MORE jobs.

They've already got the cannon fodder. Those will be the uneducated, non-medically insured, non-unionized, fox news low-information voter who are not educated enough to land any other job except that of cannon-fodder.

Backwards. That's conservatism.

March 6, 2011 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our readers' views

**NAILINGIT**I agree totally with your observation that Obama lacks the backbone - to do most anything.

As far as "trickle down economics" is concerned, JFK would never have thought of that. It was Reagan who first suggested that, and he got it from some rich economics guru. He was an implementer, not a strategic thinker.

JFK decided to lower taxes because he COULD, the tax bill for the richies at the time was 90%. That was good political thinking in those days.

Reagan just wanted to use that as a basis for his "smaller government" ideas. The less money you have the less you spend. That was his thought about government. But unfortunately, he was wring, because he spent until the cows were on their way home. Have a look at the growth of the national debt from Eisenhower's time to the present day.

Too bad so many people, including people in this county who supposedly are educated, vote against their own best interests. I'm talking about republicans who vote to lower taxes on the top 1% and then raise it for themselves in the form of no schools, no medical care, no roads to drive to look for a job, no teachers for their kids, and no job to go to. Then, to beat all, actually believe fox news when they are told that the richies WILL supply jobs for them. HA. No they won't. Too expensive for the company to supply insurance for them, so they close up and re-open in another country where the tax base supplies the medical care, or the workers just die because of no medical care.

When those people totally control any form of birth control (and they do now mostly, look at the insurance business) - and all teachers are OUT of unions, and can be fired at will, when no one of us can really afford to go to college, then and only then will jobs re-appear on our shores. The republicans will have a captive work force which will toil for slave wages, and too bad if they get sick there will always be another uneducated, hungry person to work for them.

March 6, 2011 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Our readers' views

Sorry, Fiscoltiger, I misspelled your avatar name.

March 6, 2011 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )