Jump to content
This guy is on our Historic "Preservation" committee and he wants to remove our historic structures. Nice!
Apparently, this guy is got a bad back and it goes out on him around well rounded ladies. But he's a good firefighter.
I think he would make a better Captain.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This guys is hilarious!!! Oh man! I hope the cabaret theater folks are keeping good notes of all of this. Thanks for keeping me thoroughly entertained Kevin and Kathy! You sailor, you!!
Sorry River_tam but if the architects had designed a good looking building from the beginning they wouldn't have needed to make changes. I think the city facilities should be our most attractive and environmentally friendly buildings to set a good example for the rest.
Let's not throw the geothermal out the window without first asking questions. How much have we already spent on geothermal. If we get rid of it we save 250k now but how much our we losing in savings over the life of the building in utility fees.
The editor's arguments for a no vote on 44 are not a very convincing one. It appears that they struggled to find reasons not to support this amendment and actually voice their support for reform of these laws. Here's an example: "We would welcome reform, including appropriate decriminalization of certain drugs such as marijuana." To me, it appears that the editors for this paper actually support this amendment but are afraid of what the community would think of them if they voiced support. Here's another example from their opening paragraph: "We believe that America's 30-year war on drugs has been a costly and unproductive national failure. We believe there has to be a better way and that the progressive decriminalization of certain drugs may be a significant part of the solution." I'm confused!!!!!
Last login: Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |