| Author | Post |
|---|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:26 am |
|
LN writes...
They, like 4GNC and Pete, immediately connected the the two as being one and the same.
Feel free to prove in black and white I did. Use copy and paste like the honest people do.
If some on the Council want to be petty in their decision-making, and not fund good programs that reap benefits to their community and constituents than that is unfortunate. If they have other, more objective reasons, so be it.
If you are referring to the upcoming vote tomorrow, then if they approve to change their mind about how much Main Street will be funded with additional money, they best better do it for the Sheriff's department, and the Board of Education, and everybody else they cut back.
Since when is Main Street more important than the Board of Ed, or the Sheriff?
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:15 am |
|
With the exception of Sue, you all have things so laughably wrong and twisted (Pete's favorite word) that it's barely worth commenting.
As I stated very early on, the sign in the window was in no way related to Main Street, nor would have Main Street supported it. As you can already see with the discussion below, the sign angered some on the Council. They, like 4GNC and Pete, immediately connected the the two as being one and the same. WRONG.
It doesn't matter that the City was also behind the liquor law change 100%, as was the Town of Secretary. Will some on the County Council cut-off all funds for Cambridge or Secretary just because they were "on the same side" as the Developer in liquor law battle? Of course not. That's why it's unfortunate that the Council would want to rebuke Main Street just because of one individual's opinion about their decisions. They, above all, should be subject to political challenges and questions and commentary on their decisions. Government 101.
If some on the Council want to be petty in their decision-making, and not fund good programs that reap benefits to their community and constituents than that is unfortunate. If they have other, more objective reasons, so be it.
|
dumplin
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 01:44 am |
|
SueCarol wrote: Yes, but it they had already voted to approve it.
Or that is was my understanding as I listened to the meeting.
I think I heard the same one you did Sue. But I thought the council man had a problem with it because they had already asked for and received funds from the county and from the state for the same thing that they were asking again. He said there was no need to give i to them again and then he started with his personal opinion on it and how he felt. Please don't quote me though, thats what I thought I heard but I haven't thought about it since the meeting so I could have some things confused.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 12:54 am |
|
| Once again, the fallacy of MainStreet. They are wanting taxpayer (county) funding, yet they are using the organization for political purposes. How can this be? 501 c3 status means that they stay out of politics. We have seen them in action on the Liquor Law, and know they are politically involved. In the economic times we find our selves in, and with budgets being cut everywhere, Mainstreet money should be cut just like everyone Else's. Let's see where this goes!
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:43 pm |
|
Yes, I think you are right, but I don't think they agreed to the whole amount. They just about everyone back, every department, agency, etc.
Note the forest conservancy board is asking too.
So, this looks like Main Street wants the full funding. But I don't feel they should get it based on - do it for one you have to do it for all.
Even the Sheriff did not get his full funding.
God bless,
Pete
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
Yes, but it they had already voted to approve it.
Or that is was my understanding as I listened to the meeting.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:32 pm |
|
Sue here's the whole line:
Managers Comments
[size=]Reconsideration-Budget Appropriations - Cambridge Main Street, Dorchester County Forest Conservancy [size= ]District Board
If they give money to Main Street they have to give to others that want reconsideration.
Sue, you should know what this is. The council is not reconsidering, but are being asked to reconsider. IT IS A REQUEST FOR MONEY NOT IN THE BUDGET AND MAIN STREET AND THE FOREST CONSERVANCY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT.
I say no.
It would not be fair.
Wonder if the developer will show up tomorrow on behalf of Main Street and ask for money - but, by George, I'll still work to vote you out. Biting the hand that feeds you.
God bless,
Pete
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:25 pm |
|
My reaction to what you wrote, Pete, came from a previous county council meeting I watched on Bay Country.
The vote had already been taken to fund this project and Councilman Nichols spoke out against it.
He never once spoke out against the project itself, ONLY the fact that the money would be going to Main Street which he admitted he held a bias against.
So, my opinion on this is that if they are going to "reconsider" their funding it can only be to remove it from the budget and prefacing Councilman Nichols remarks that evening, it seems evident his personal feelings are what is prompting this revote.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:17 pm |
|
Sue writes...
This seems to me to be a retaliation against Main Street and the only thing that should be considered is whether the project they were asking funding for is a good one or not.
Why are you twisting what I wrote? Are you related to Loch Ness?
You state...This seems to me to be a retaliation against Main Street...and the VOTE IS NOT EVEN TAKEN YET! Shows where your mind is at.
And, they should not grant this request because they will be obligated to reconsider all others!
The point of my post was to show the hypocrisy of some--not all on Main Street.
Man, you have been doing the twist with Loch Ness.
God bless,
Pete
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:11 pm |
|
Personal feelings and agendas should always be kept out of decision making by elected officials.
Whether you like someone or not should never be a consideration.
This seems to me to be a retaliation against Main Street and the only thing that should be considered is whether the project they were asking funding for is a good one or not.
I wish I could feel that this is how it will be done but since the funding was okayed and now they are going back and "reconsidering" makes me believe this is personal.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:06 pm |
|
Oh, guess what's on the county council's docket tomorrow...
Reconsideration-Budget Appropriations - Cambridge Main Street, ...
Ummmm, feed me cry some (NOT ALL)of the creatures of Main Street, but we will be glad to bite your hand at election time.
IMO, all such requests no matter where they come from should be denied.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 09:07 pm by Pete Macinta
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
luv it writes...
Whomever took the time to lookup the quote at the bottom should have put the effort towards checking out about the liquor license. Aye. Exactly.
If this thread survives by Wednesday I intend to put forth a riddle unto all of you tuesday night or Wed morning.
God bless,
Pete
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
greydog wrote:
If you don't like what happened you have the right fight back and get it changed, again. I garentee that it will not get changed back by posting on newszap, it will have to be worked a bit harder than that.
YOU ARE RIGHT WE WILL NOT CHANGE IT ON NEWSZAP ALONE.
YOU ALL NEED TO READ THE BANNER.
THEY ASKED FOR EMAIL AND NEWSZAP COMMENTS. THAT PUTS EVERYTHING WRITTEN HERE IN THEIR POSSES ION. PROBABLY TO USE IN A STORY.
THERE ARE THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF THESE FORUMS.
AS MANY AS POSSIBLE WILL BE INVOLVED. THERE WILL BE A GROUP EFFORT TO CHANGE NOT ONLY THE LAW BUT THE LAWMAKERS THAT DID IT.
THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. ONE CAN NOT PROVE A LIE.
I AM FAR FROM A LEADER IN THIS MOVEMENT. THERE ARE OTHERS FAR MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN I WHO WILL DIVULGE THE TRUTH.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
The change TO the 300 ft buffer law was only done in the 90's.
Previous to that there was NO buffer setbacks on the books anywhere in Dorchester County.
So creating the buffer WAS the change and now it has been changed back in two municipalities. The rest of the county is still under the 300 ft buffer law.
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:13 pm |
|
greydog wrote: luv it the way it is wrote: greydog wrote: 1st let me state that he should have done his homework on the local law relative to the liquor license. So he went thru the process to get the law changed and did, so it is possible that he realized that Cambridge didn't deserve the effort any longer for him to move forward. Better luck next time when another new business tries to come to town. We already missed Lowe's, Home Depot and almost lost Denny's, just to mention a few. So as the saying goes "we have seen the enemy and they are us"
I just read the sign again. Whomever took the time to lookup the quote at the bottom should have put the effort towards checking out about the liquor license. Maybe he/she is so quailfied that they should run for office. I can't stand people who think they know what is better for someonelse That's what most of these Mainstreeters do and it make me sick.
Well I'm not as sure as you that he had to look up that quote, but I'll give you that one. Sometimes favorite quotes just stay in peoples minds, this could be the case with this one. But maybe not. No point for argument. But once he found out that he had trouble getting the liquor licence, he worked to change the law.
People in the US do that all the time, womens right to vote, segregation, prohibition, drinking age, military draft, death penality, etc. He just worked for change and in this case it happened to go his way. Apparently the people that had the power to change it, changed it. (now you could call that the golden rule: ( Those With All the Gold Rule) and I didnt have to look that one up.
If you don't like what happened you have the right fight back and get it changed, again. I garentee that it will not get changed back by posting on newszap, it will have to be worked a bit harder than that.
I don't care one way or another. Its just seems that peolpe move here to get away from whatever and then bring whatever with them. Example: People move to Hoopers Island then get zoning changes so that the watermen must put up fences to hide the crabpots. I remember when I was crabbing, a baltimoron bought a house on the river and then threw a fit because I was crabbing behind it early in the morning. He said not so nicely that he was going to make me stop. Just reinforced sterotypes of city people. These are the same type of people that are running downtown. I just resent when someone thinks they know more are enlightent compare to local.
|
greydog
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1252 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
luv it the way it is wrote: greydog wrote: 1st let me state that he should have done his homework on the local law relative to the liquor license. So he went thru the process to get the law changed and did, so it is possible that he realized that Cambridge didn't deserve the effort any longer for him to move forward. Better luck next time when another new business tries to come to town. We already missed Lowe's, Home Depot and almost lost Denny's, just to mention a few. So as the saying goes "we have seen the enemy and they are us"
I just read the sign again. Whomever took the time to lookup the quote at the bottom should have put the effort towards checking out about the liquor license. Maybe he/she is so quailfied that they should run for office. I can't stand people who think they know what is better for someonelse That's what most of these Mainstreeters do and it make me sick.
Well I'm not as sure as you that he had to look up that quote, but I'll give you that one. Sometimes favorite quotes just stay in peoples minds, this could be the case with this one. But maybe not. No point for argument. But once he found out that he had trouble getting the liquor licence, he worked to change the law.
People in the US do that all the time, womens right to vote, segregation, prohibition, drinking age, military draft, death penality, etc. He just worked for change and in this case it happened to go his way. Apparently the people that had the power to change it, changed it. (now you could call that the golden rule: ( Those With All the Gold Rule) and I didnt have to look that one up.
If you don't like what happened you have the right fight back and get it changed, again. I garentee that it will not get changed back by posting on newszap, it will have to be worked a bit harder than that.
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
EFFECTIVE TOMORROW THE 300 FOOT LAW IS CHANGED.
NOW THE TRUTH WILL BEGIN TO SURFACE.
WAS IT JUST COINCIDENCE THAT THE GOVERNOR WAS HERE A FEW DAYS AGO?
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:01 pm by Y O Y
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 06:43 pm |
|
greydog wrote: 1st let me state that he should have done his homework on the local law relative to the liquor license. So he went thru the process to get the law changed and did, so it is possible that he realized that Cambridge didn't deserve the effort any longer for him to move forward. Better luck next time when another new business tries to come to town. We already missed Lowe's, Home Depot and almost lost Denny's, just to mention a few. So as the saying goes "we have seen the enemy and they are us"
I just read the sign again. Whomever took the time to lookup the quote at the bottom should have put the effort towards checking out about the liquor license. Maybe he/she is so quailfied that they should run for office. I can't stand people who think they know what is better for someonelse That's what most of these Mainstreeters do and it make me sick.
|
greydog
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1252 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:55 pm |
|
| 1st let me state that he should have done his homework on the local law relative to the liquor license. So he went thru the process to get the law changed and did, so it is possible that he realized that Cambridge didn't deserve the effort any longer for him to move forward. Better luck next time when another new business tries to come to town. We already missed Lowe's, Home Depot and almost lost Denny's, just to mention a few. So as the saying goes "we have seen the enemy and they are us"
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:46 pm |
|
It was a state law but I think many communities were unaware of it.
I know we were in Secretary until it almost cost us the opening of the old store.
So I believe the people in Cambridge thought they were giving out correct information because their zoning laws do not have any setbacks, but the state law superceded their zoning until the change was made.
So it was an honest mistake.
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:43 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: For the one millionth time....he did go to the zoning dept. in Cambridge, they misunderstood the law and told him he did not have to worry about any setbacks and he proceeded on that information.
When it became evident he was told incorrectly the process began to try and change the law.
It was a law that should have been changed for a variety of reasons.....mostly having to do with a municipalities right to make decisions for their community under their zoning laws.
So whether this reastaurant became a reality or not does not change the fact that the law was impeding many towns from making their own decisions.
Who exactly is supposed to make the decisions?
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:40 pm |
|
For the one millionth time....he did go to the zoning dept. in Cambridge, they misunderstood the law and told him he did not have to worry about any setbacks and he proceeded on that information.
When it became evident he was told incorrectly the process began to try and change the law.
It was a law that should have been changed for a variety of reasons.....mostly having to do with a municipalities right to make decisions for their community under their zoning laws.
So whether this reastaurant became a reality or not does not change the fact that the law was impeding many towns from making their own decisions.
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 03:36 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: They could dumplin in Cambridge and Secretary. Those are the only two towns that are exempted from the 300 ft. law.
However, as for the retaurant at the location in Cambridge, no he is not going to reapply.
He got fed up with the bull crap and moved on.
Maybe that the best thing for him to do, It's only bull crap because he didn't like the law. He shpuld have done hes research, plan and simple, kinda like the main street people!!!
|
countryfanatic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:39 pm |
|
P.S. A lot of locals can't move on when they have problems and bull crap to put up with.! (I'm reminded of those who went without their roads and phone service for nearly 3 years after the Nor. Dor. storms).
|
countryfanatic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 641 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:30 pm |
|
This is my first (and poss. last) comment on this, but you mean after getting his way on this issue and starting all this uproar and dividing everyone he is not following thru with anything????? Sounds like his level of committment is questionable.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 11:04 am |
|
They could dumplin in Cambridge and Secretary. Those are the only two towns that are exempted from the 300 ft. law.
However, as for the retaurant at the location in Cambridge, no he is not going to reapply.
He got fed up with the bull crap and moved on.
|
susan reeves
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 05:13 am |
|
| Sign in window says cobra and rick are crooks. cobra_121, corn nut,rick and who ever else you want to pretend to be, if I was being falsely accused of hacking into your computer the way you are falsely accusing people here I would post all your information all over newszap for everyone to see.
|
dumplin
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 124 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 02:51 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote: loch ness wrote: Actually, 4GNC, my posts have not been limited to Main Street. And as Sue Carol correctly notes, the liquor law was not a Main Street issue, but a County-wide issue, which was why the Chamber of Commerce AND the Town of Secretary got involved. You and Pete rarely seemed to see the big picture of it all, and also fell back on the same rhetoric over and over.
It's done, and that law was changed. This thread was about the sign in the window, you have the right to criticize it, the developer has the right to say it and post it, and we all have the right to comment on it all.
I'll monitor the forum from afar and look to see when you have something geuinely positive to say about the City, the community, or things that happen downtown. I will not hold my breath though.
Happy Sunday.
This is exactly where the untruthfulness starts. The Liquor law debate came about because the developer ( a Mainstreet Voting boardmember) wants to lease his property to a Restaurant desiring to serve Alcohol, in a place (300 ft from a Church) that state law would not allow. In steps Mainstreet..All of it's Newsletters form August-September of last year had a blurb in it about the Liquor law, and it needing to be changed. It only became a county issue, after the developer, and Mainstreet made it one. You say I and Pete, as if we are the only ones that see this. We are not, as has been seen by the County Council and BOLC vote. Also the Churches that have spoke out and numerous individuals that have spoken out against this, which seem to disappear, when those in favor talk about a "Majority".
However, you are correct, the law did get changed, nothing we can do about that now. However the sign gives every indication that the fight for our City, and County is far from over. MainStreet/developer is not going to stop until the Council and BOLC are stacked with proponents of their agenda. They know full well that the current make-up of most of the BOLC is trying to follow State law. This is being fought. They also know that the current BOLC will not issue Carte-Blanche licenses, to who ever wants them, wherever they want to put them...Thank God!
Please do monitor the Forums, Had you been paying attention, you would see many things that I do agree with, and approve of. Liquor will NEVER be one of them!
So, the state did change the law about having to be 300 feet from a Church? Does that mean the restaurant can now apply for a liquor license and receive one?
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
What exactly do Salisbury and Caroline County have to do with this law.
It is determined by each County and then resolved though the State.
What either of those places does have no bearing on what we did.
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 11:17 pm |
|
DON'T BE TOO HASTY WITH CLOSING THE DOOR ON REINSTATING THE LAW.
THE SALISBURY AND CAROLINE GROUPS ARE GETTING SET TO MAKE A MOVE.
STAY TUNED FOR THE BIG BANG.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 07:08 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: Actually, 4GNC, my posts have not been limited to Main Street. And as Sue Carol correctly notes, the liquor law was not a Main Street issue, but a County-wide issue, which was why the Chamber of Commerce AND the Town of Secretary got involved. You and Pete rarely seemed to see the big picture of it all, and also fell back on the same rhetoric over and over.
It's done, and that law was changed. This thread was about the sign in the window, you have the right to criticize it, the developer has the right to say it and post it, and we all have the right to comment on it all.
I'll monitor the forum from afar and look to see when you have something geuinely positive to say about the City, the community, or things that happen downtown. I will not hold my breath though.
Happy Sunday.
This is exactly where the untruthfulness starts. The Liquor law debate came about because the developer ( a Mainstreet Voting boardmember) wants to lease his property to a Restaurant desiring to serve Alcohol, in a place (300 ft from a Church) that state law would not allow. In steps Mainstreet..All of it's Newsletters form August-September of last year had a blurb in it about the Liquor law, and it needing to be changed. It only became a county issue, after the developer, and Mainstreet made it one. You say I and Pete, as if we are the only ones that see this. We are not, as has been seen by the County Council and BOLC vote. Also the Churches that have spoke out and numerous individuals that have spoken out against this, which seem to disappear, when those in favor talk about a "Majority".
However, you are correct, the law did get changed, nothing we can do about that now. However the sign gives every indication that the fight for our City, and County is far from over. MainStreet/developer is not going to stop until the Council and BOLC are stacked with proponents of their agenda. They know full well that the current make-up of most of the BOLC is trying to follow State law. This is being fought. They also know that the current BOLC will not issue Carte-Blanche licenses, to who ever wants them, wherever they want to put them...Thank God!
Please do monitor the Forums, Had you been paying attention, you would see many things that I do agree with, and approve of. Liquor will NEVER be one of them!
|
HarveyC
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 190 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:58 pm |
|
| Change the sign to trespasser's will be shot cooked and fed to the wild dogs on taylors island.
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:48 pm |
|
Actually, 4GNC, my posts have not been limited to Main Street. And as Sue Carol correctly notes, the liquor law was not a Main Street issue, but a County-wide issue, which was why the Chamber of Commerce AND the Town of Secretary got involved. You and Pete rarely seemed to see the big picture of it all, and also fell back on the same rhetoric over and over.
It's done, and that law was changed. This thread was about the sign in the window, you have the right to criticize it, the developer has the right to say it and post it, and we all have the right to comment on it all.
I'll monitor the forum from afar and look to see when you have something geuinely positive to say about the City, the community, or things that happen downtown. I will not hold my breath though.
Happy Sunday.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 10:53 am |
|
Many of us have given you truth 4G but you still continue to spin those facts to create a scenario that fits your view.
I and others were in the middle of this issue, we went to the meetings, we spoke with our state representatives and tried to work with our local ones.
We were treated unprofessionally and in many instances quite rudely.
Whether you are for or against an issue you should at least admit that is not the right way for people in power to behave.
You have consistently accused many of us of wrongdoing when there is no such evidence to prove that.
I understand you are against this and that is your right....what is not your right is to make false accusations and continually charge others with insinuations that they are on the "take" or trying to circumvent the law.
That was never the case....in fact everyone worked within the law to try and make the changes necessary through DUE PROCESS of the law.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:09 am |
|
| Thanks Loch Ness for dropping by. I have noticed that we really on see you when something about MainStreet pops up. I have no issue with you personally, nor MainStreet, However surely you can do better than responding with the same old "negativity, and complaining" argument. People want real, honest, answers, and don't really seem to get any. I have offered numerous questions, scenario's and, yes, solutions...all have fallen on deaf ears. I am not alone, in my feelings, and thoughts. You yourself know this. It would appear that you want to call legitimate, honest posting's "negativity" and "complaints", rather than offer an amicable solution. I suppose this must mean that you do not desire one, or you just plain chose to overlook the truth.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
LN
I love you guys, and I'm sure God does too. Of course He does. He loves you too.
I just think you have way too much time on your hands and spend much of it complaining.
We just think the developer at 450 Race has better things to do and spend his money on instead of being vindictive.
I stayed away from this forum for a long time because it was producing a lot of "negative energy" as the Hollywood people say. It depends what you do with it. I find it mostly positive. A good way to get the truth out, which I often back up with copy and paste when need be.
I think I'll go back to not posting again for awhile because I was much happier when I didn't waste my time speaking to brick walls. Enjoy.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 10:10 pm |
|
I love you guys, and I'm sure God does too. I just think you have way too much time on your hands and spend much of it complaining.
I stayed away from this forum for a long time because it was producing a lot of "negative energy" as the Hollywood people say. I think I'll go back to not posting again for awhile because I was much happier when I didn't waste my time speaking to brick walls.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
By following Lochness's ideology of Hatred towards Mainstreet, I suppose we could conclude that the developer "Hates" 3 Members of the Liquor board, and 3 members of the County Council?
Of course I know he does not hate these people, he just disagrees with their stance towards Mainstreet, and he does not like it. ( there are much better ways to get this message across). Much in the same way I disagree with Mainstreets agenda, and vendetta against these elected and appointed officials. I also disagree with Mainstreets involvement in local politics. This is not negative, nor hatred, anymore than the developer taping up the sign is.
The weeding and planting and other "improvements" are diminished when visitors come to town (tourists) who really didn't even know a Restaurant was supposed to go there, and find a facetious sign. These folks can't vote, and don't care. the sign is aimed at City and county residents telling them who to vote out, and who to leave in. Of Course the Main Street supporters are NOT on that list.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:38 pm |
|
LN
just read the comments and form your own opinion.
Ok we'll go with that and I would like to see anyone prove by copying and pasting that 4GNC hates Main Street.
Why copying and pasting? Because it will show the truth in seconds.
And, no I am not dense. It's very clear you have presented a false charge against my brother.
God bless
Pete
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 09:37 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: Pete, Pete, Petey Pete...just read the comments and form your own opinion. 4GNC started this entire thread with "I see Main Street is at it again..."without any evidence that Main Street was somewhow involved with this sign (they weren't). The subsequent comments were pretty obviously slanted against Main Street. Big deal, who cares?
If you're too dense to realize that 4GNC has an axe to grind, then once again, that's your problem.
Also, way to ignore my comment that Main Street VOLUNTEERS spent the entire morning and afternoon weeding City-owned flowerbeds and property just to make the town look nice. They didn't even ask for a thank you.
Once again, you incorrectly skew my post's to make them look as though I hate MainStreet. It is nice that the volunteers do the things you mention, but this does NOT mean that this "good" you speak of, gives the organization the right to run City and County Politics. Just because I pick up trash along side the highway, does not give me the right to tell the SHA how to run it's business. I have done my share of work, and volunteering. While they are weeding, I may be making a difference at the Hospital, Nursing Home, or Jail. No one has ever said that these folks don't do things that help the community, not ever!
What I have been saying, since you just don't get it, is this: Just because the organization, or Developer does some good deeds, does not give them the right to tell the rest of the City or County how to run their affairs. They should stick to weeding, planting flowers, and searching for a variety of businesses to come here, not just bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and stay out of Politics...plain and simple.
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
Pete, Pete, Petey Pete...just read the comments and form your own opinion. 4GNC started this entire thread with "I see Main Street is at it again..."without any evidence that Main Street was somewhow involved with this sign (they weren't). The subsequent comments were pretty obviously slanted against Main Street. Big deal, who cares?
If you're too dense to realize that 4GNC has an axe to grind, then once again, that's your problem.
Also, way to ignore my comment that Main Street VOLUNTEERS spent the entire morning and afternoon weeding City-owned flowerbeds and property just to make the town look nice. They didn't even ask for a thank you.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:53 pm |
|
Translation - you are incapable of proving that 4GNC hates Main Street.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:49 pm |
|
Who needs to cut and paste? That's your skill, Pete, not mine. I think it actually makes your posts hard to read.
If people can't read the posts that came before my comments that I'm referring to, that's their problem. I'm a big picture person.
God Bless,
Loch Ness
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
Up from the briney deep doth come the Loch Ness creature.
Churning, twisting.
Incapable of copying and pasting any words of hatred toward Main Street that 4GNC has allegedly said.
Twist and churn.
God bless,
Pete
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 334 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
My only problem with you 4GNC is that you seem to hate Main Street for some reason. You want to act like you care what happens in this town, yet you hate a group that is trying to do good things, and I have seen nothing that YOU do.
On my way back home before I wrote this, I saw Main Street VOLUNTEERS weeding city flower beds, mulching and landscaping the entire downtown, and sprucing up the traffic islands at the foot of the drawbridge.
Say what you want, but I think you are a sad, sad person and I rarely see you say anything positive on here. Say what you want about the devloper too..he's got big shoulders and had every right to say what he said with his little political sign. Political debate and commentary is as old as this nation.
Have a great weekend.
|
not i
Member
| Joined: | Wed Dec 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 07:53 pm |
|
the sign doesn't say anything, you have to read it 
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2183 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 06:55 pm |
|
loch ness wrote: Wonderfully negative, 4GNC. Thank you. Keep it up. Whatever you're doing is certainly helping Cambridge to move forward.
Your response should have said "wonderfully Truthful". How is the Truth negative?? The truth is neither negative nor positive, it is only...truth.
The sign IS actually negative, as it does not tell the entire truth of what actually happened, and why.
|
HarveyC
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 190 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 06:29 pm |
|
| Whats the big deal about a sign in a window you might think michael jackson died or something?
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:55 pm |
|
His name is in the public records, in the papers, online at several sites.
He has made a public statement with his sign. He has made many public statements regarding his desires etc.
The people of this State have a right to disagree with anyone personally that accuses their elected officials of wrong doing.
How many times has the owner of Point Break been revealed here with detrimental quotes?
Are we only allowed to have rhetoric and no facts?
If so this site is garbage.
I think NOT!
|
HarveyC
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 11th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 190 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:45 pm |
|
| Now mr dog you should know all about bashing people and their property.
|
Current time is 02:14 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|