BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

^Is this the only rebuttal you can come up with?
It isnt comedy hour for you. It was an appropriate comment and the only right one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

Pot meet kettle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

Strip clubs are legitimate too.

Yes, they are.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

Pot meet kettle

I’m not cutting down anyone. And I agree with the PPP. There was no rebuttal necessary. If “something profoundly wrong with you” can’t come up with a sound rebuttal then they can refrain from slinging insults. Aren’t we all adults here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

^Is this the only rebuttal you can come up with?
It isnt comedy hour for you. It was an appropriate comment and the only right one.

See this is where we differ. I don’t believe any comment I make is “the only right one.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when you start slinging insults like that and insist you’re right, it’s clear there is no rational conversation to be had here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

Pot meet kettle

I’m not cutting down anyone. And I agree with the PPP. There was no rebuttal necessary. If “something profoundly wrong with you” can’t come up with a sound rebuttal then they can refrain from slinging insults. Aren’t we all adults here?

Act like an adult then, hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

It is disqualifying to a lot of people who know drugs are not a good thing.
Legitimate business, my ass.

You're also against antibiotics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

^Is this the only rebuttal you can come up with?
It isnt comedy hour for you. It was an appropriate comment and the only right one.

See this is where we differ. I don’t believe any comment I make is “the only right one.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when you start slinging insults like that and insist you’re right, it’s clear there is no rational conversation to be had here.

As you sling insults under the guise of being righteous.
You are so disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

DP. I voted for Montoya.

me too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

It is disqualifying to a lot of people who know drugs are not a good thing.
Legitimate business, my ass.

You're also against antibiotics?

What a stupid and irrelevant question out of desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

It is disqualifying to a lot of people who know drugs are not a good thing.
Legitimate business, my ass.

You're also against antibiotics?

NP. Marijuana and antibiotics are not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

DP. I voted for Montoya.

me too

Lots of weed stench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

^Is this the only rebuttal you can come up with?
It isnt comedy hour for you. It was an appropriate comment and the only right one.

See this is where we differ. I don’t believe any comment I make is “the only right one.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when you start slinging insults like that and insist you’re right, it’s clear there is no rational conversation to be had here.

As you sling insults under the guise of being righteous.
You are so disingenuous.

Please point out my insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita is all about the weed and she just became the PTA president for this race. AND she is a apple ballot candidate. I will not be voting for Rita.

The Montoya-as-legal-advocate-for-supply-chain-safety-of-medical-marijuana = dope-dealer-who-wants-pot-in-our-schools trope is really over the top. You're as bad as the one here who screams that right-wingers are so subhuman as to have no business even considering a run.

The real problem with Montoya is that the only experience she has to recommend herself as a BOE candidate is that she has been PTA president for NCC ES for a few months. That's not good enough.

But she is an advocate for marijuana.

Yes, she is. And good for her on that. Because that is outside the universe of K-12 public education oversight, it is another reason why she is not a good choice for the board of education

On the contrary she's an excellent choice for school board. This seems irrelevant since lobbying for a legitimate business interest isn't disqualifying.

It is disqualifying to a lot of people who know drugs are not a good thing.
Legitimate business, my ass.

You're also against antibiotics?

Weed kills strep?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I won’t be voting for any incumbent nor Montoya. She will do nothing about the pervasive drug problem in our schools since she smokes weed and advocates for the weed industry!

It is possible to smoke or do an occasional edible as an adult and not want weed or other drugs in schools. Certainly the case for us and among our parent friends. It is legal for adults, just like drinking. i'm sipping a glass of wine right now....don't want my underage kids to drink yet.

Something is profoundly wrong with you.

DP
I mean I get you’re trying to cut down PP but it’s falling flat. Their take is extremely reasonable. Is the only rebuttal you can come up with an insult?

^Is this the only rebuttal you can come up with?
It isnt comedy hour for you. It was an appropriate comment and the only right one.

See this is where we differ. I don’t believe any comment I make is “the only right one.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But when you start slinging insults like that and insist you’re right, it’s clear there is no rational conversation to be had here.

As you sling insults under the guise of being righteous.
You are so disingenuous.

Please point out my insults.

Read your comments, disingenuous hypocrite.