| Author | Post |
|---|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
farmer writes...
Pete, with all due respect, I don't believe downtown restaurants are competing with Burger King, Wendy's, McDonald's, Hardee's, Denny's, Dairy Queen, Arby's, etc. Possibly Plaza Tapitia and Ocean dessy, perhaps Peking House and Cambridge Diner. But, even those draw a "different" clientel, IMO. And I think your opinion is correct.
Yes I do realize the delveloper was shooting for a fine dining restaraunt. Is, and I really don't know, Snappers in the same league with that or Bella Luna? I forgot- that new French Restaraunt too?
Thanks,
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:31 pm by Pete Macinta
|
DorCouNtyGirL
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 953 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:29 pm |
|
| I would have to agree Farmer...let's see...what do I want for dinner...Wendys? or Canvasback?!? Hardly not.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:25 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: luv writes...
They ( county officials) may have did them a favor!! I heard that several of the new resturants are not doing so well. Ist that true? I don't know it for a fact, but that was my other point in opposing the restaruant. The Cambridge area has over 35 of various types. Downtown in a way is in competition with the Rt 50 corridore sp? There needs to be other things downtown first before more restaraunts pop up.
Off from down town is snappers and Portside. I think those two are doing well, but not sure.
God bless,
Pete
Pete, with all due respect, I don't believe downtown restaurants are competing with Burger King, Wendy's, McDonald's, Hardee's, Denny's, Dairy Queen, Arby's, etc. Possibly Plaza Tapitia and Ocean Odessy, perhaps Peking House and Cambridge Diner. But, even those draw a "different" clientel, IMO.Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:26 pm by Farmer
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:25 pm |
|
So funny! Loser.
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:21 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: LOL. Yeah, that's me: I'm a real badass! 
YOU MIS SPELLED THE LAST WORD. IT SHOULD BE SADASS!
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:19 pm |
|
luv writes...
They ( county officials) may have did them a favor!! I heard that several of the new resturants are not doing so well. Ist that true? I don't know it for a fact, but that was my other point in opposing the restaruant. The Cambridge area has over 35 of various types. Downtown in a way is in competition with the Rt 50 corridore sp? There needs to be other things downtown first before more restaraunts pop up.
Off from down town is snappers and Portside. I think those two are doing well, but not sure.
God bless,
Pete
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:14 pm |
|
| LOL. Yeah, that's me: I'm a real badass!
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:13 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: LOL! Oh, heavens, no Farmer. Sorry about that. I was reacting to YOY and his/her blatant misrepresentation of what actually happened at the meetings that I also believe is heavily influenced by their dislike of Sue.
Whew!! Thank you. I'd rather deal with Octavine, on a bad day, than make you mad!!
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
hmmm. Last time called some a possible liar, (I think I had two options) that person complained to the webmaster and I got my wrist slapped.
Be careful !
God bless,
Pete
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
| LOL! Oh, heavens, no Farmer. Sorry about that. I was reacting to YOY and his/her blatant misrepresentation of what actually happened at the meetings that I also believe is heavily influenced by their dislike of Sue.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:06 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: The Council and Liquor board were professional and couteous to everyone.
You are a liar. Or you were not there. Which is it?
Geeeez, Macmom!!! Was that for me?
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:04 pm |
|
Farmer wrote: Y O Y wrote:
FACT: You were at all three meetings they held. You were like a Bull in a china shop. You stormed out of the east new market meting because they didn't want to hear you all over again.
You said you had 100% suppoprt from Secretary both Council and residents. That was not even close to the truth. You had to resign because you weren't wanted by the majoity.
Truth is the VAST MAJORITY OF DORCHESTER COUNTY VOTERS WERE OPPOSED TO THE LAW CHANGE. Many asked for a referendum but the supportrers refused.
Just remember the bars in Cambridge that cause so much trouble are BONAFIDE Restaurants.
Secretary will probably be the next great gathering place. They have no local police protection.
As for thr circus you were the 300 lb Gorilla in the room. The Council and Liquor board were professional and couteous to everyone. YOU WERE THE LOUD MOUTH.
OH Yeah and there are tapes to prove it.
I don't have a dog in this fight and don't personally know Sue very well. But, I was at one of the meetings she attended and would have to say she is correct, she was the victim. I recall when she tried to speak, and if you want to depict her as the "bull," I'd say the bull was confronted by Godzilla.
I can't comment on other meetings she may have attended, I wasn't there.
I like that.
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
The Council and Liquor board were professional and couteous to everyone.
You are a liar. Or you were not there. Which is it?
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
Y O Y wrote:
FACT: You were at all three meetings they held. You were like a Bull in a china shop. You stormed out of the east new market meting because they didn't want to hear you all over again.
You said you had 100% suppoprt from Secretary both Council and residents. That was not even close to the truth. You had to resign because you weren't wanted by the majoity.
Truth is the VAST MAJORITY OF DORCHESTER COUNTY VOTERS WERE OPPOSED TO THE LAW CHANGE. Many asked for a referendum but the supportrers refused.
Just remember the bars in Cambridge that cause so much trouble are BONAFIDE Restaurants.
Secretary will probably be the next great gathering place. They have no local police protection.
As for thr circus you were the 300 lb Gorilla in the room. The Council and Liquor board were professional and couteous to everyone. YOU WERE THE LOUD MOUTH.
OH Yeah and there are tapes to prove it.
I don't have a dog in this fight and don't personally know Sue very well. But, I was at one of the meetings she attended and would have to say she is correct, she was the victim. I recall when she tried to speak, and if you want to depict her as the "bull," I'd say the bull was confronted by Godzilla.
I can't comment on other meetings she may have attended, I wasn't there.
|
Cambridgenow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 116 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
| Most people in Secretary don't agree with Susan and that is their right.
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:47 pm |
|
| They ( county officials) may have did them a favor!! I heard that several of the new resturants are not doing so well. Ist that true?
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:47 pm |
|
Oh never mind...here we go again, the "clan" is back.
See you all later.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
I left the ENM meeting quickly because I had another meeting I had to attend at the same time as that one.
I was po'd when I left, I will not deny that as I was treated rudely and unprofessionally by Ms. Saunders who constantly interupted and challenged me during the entire time I was speaking.
Since the ENM meeting was the meeting in MY district that is the one I chose to attend and speak at.
As for the other meetings, I tried to attend those with written statements to read into the record because I thought I might be able to address the issues without being interupted.
I was not allowed to speak per Ms. Saunders.
Now I dont know what your personal problem with me is and I really do not care but I did want to set the record straight about your accusations.
|
Cambridgenow
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 116 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:46 pm |
|
Y O Y wrote: SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
FACT: You were at all three meetings they held. You were like a Bull in a china shop. You stormed out of the east new market meting because they didn't want to hear you all over again.
You said you had 100% suppoprt from Secretary both Council and residents. That was not even close to the truth. You had to resign because you weren't wanted by the majoity.
Truth is the VAST MAJORITY OF DORCHESTER COUNTY VOTERS WERE OPPOSED TO THE LAW CHANGE. Many asked for a referendum but the supportrers refused.
Just remember the bars in Cambridge that cause so much trouble are BONAFIDE Restaurants.
Secretary will probably be the next great gathering place. They have no local police protection.
As for thr circus you were the 300 lb Gorilla in the room. The Council and Liquor board were professional and couteous to everyone. YOU WERE THE LOUD MOUTH.
OH Yeah and there are tapes to prove it.
You go YOY
Sue listen to the truth
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
LL writes...
I did not mean the number of meetings Pete. I meant the number of people who attended to oppose the restaurant, sorry. Np. But the one I was at, the one held in the county building, I think it was more than three opposed. At least one was a pastor of a larger group than I pastor (not hard to find - lol!).
God bless,
Pete
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
LiberalMinded wrote: luv it the way it is wrote:
LiberalMinded wrote: luv it the way it is wrote:
SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
We do not know it was a majority because a vote was never taken on it.
It became the majority when the opposing side decided to never show to voice their opinions at the many meetings held.
Thats not true, some of us are busy raising family's and doing what we do to get by. For many people in the community it was not that big an issue. It needs to be put to a vote at some level for change to happen.
What? And people who support change don't have other things to do? They don't have families?
And if it isn't that big of an issue - why stand in the way of change? If you can't be bothered to show up to a few meetings because it doesn't matter enough to you - sigh.
Sure - we should have a vote. Do you think people opposing change will bother to come out and vote?
Does it matter enough to them?
That's why we have elections. I just think that the person should have did thier homework. Would you buy a house without checking it out first ? or a car? How about building a house without permits. The person made a boo boo.
|
Y O Y
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | In Your Face |
| Posts: | 197 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:42 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
FACT: You were at all three meetings they held. You were like a Bull in a china shop. You stormed out of the east new market meting because they didn't want to hear you all over again.
You said you had 100% suppoprt from Secretary both Council and residents. That was not even close to the truth. You had to resign because you weren't wanted by the majoity.
Truth is the VAST MAJORITY OF DORCHESTER COUNTY VOTERS WERE OPPOSED TO THE LAW CHANGE. Many asked for a referendum but the supportrers refused.
Just remember the bars in Cambridge that cause so much trouble are BONAFIDE Restaurants.
Secretary will probably be the next great gathering place. They have no local police protection.
As for thr circus you were the 300 lb Gorilla in the room. The Council and Liquor board were professional and couteous to everyone. YOU WERE THE LOUD MOUTH.
OH Yeah and there are tapes to prove it.
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:45 pm by Y O Y
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:42 pm |
|
Sue writes...
No, Pete, I have not changed my mind.
I still believe the change is in the best interest of the city of Cambridge and Secretary.
Was my complaint about your post about that? No. Are you purposely trying to confuse this discussion.
I took issue only when you said, everyone was upset.
And I stand by my statement that the majority of people are upset at some members of the Council and the Liquor Board.
No joke. As if I challenged you on that, which I did not. I only took issue with your use of the word everyone, which you changed to majority, which is fine in that case.
God bless,
Pete
|
LeaningLeft
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3649 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: Ok, my turn to change what I said, per Leaning Left. You're right, I don't think the opposition showed up at all the meetings, but I do think there were more than 3 meetings. It seems that way.
God bless,
Pete
I did not mean the number of meetings Pete. I meant the number of people who attended to oppose the restaurant, sorry.
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: luv....my schedule was horrific at that point in time and I still made it a point to attend those meetings.
Of course at that time I was still representing Secretary and looking out for their best interest in respect to the autonomy of their zoning.
So I did have a vested interest in the outcome of the change.
Most of us have bigger fish to fry!!!
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:38 pm |
|
luv it the way it is wrote:
LiberalMinded wrote: luv it the way it is wrote:
SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
We do not know it was a majority because a vote was never taken on it.
It became the majority when the opposing side decided to never show to voice their opinions at the many meetings held.
Thats not true, some of us are busy raising family's and doing what we do to get by. For many people in the community it was not that big an issue. It needs to be put to a vote at some level for change to happen.
What? And people who support change don't have other things to do? They don't have families?
And if it isn't that big of an issue - why stand in the way of change? If you can't be bothered to show up to a few meetings because it doesn't matter enough to you - sigh.
Sure - we should have a vote. Do you think people opposing change will bother to come out and vote?
Does it matter enough to them?
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:37 pm |
|
No, Pete, I have not changed my mind.
I still believe the change is in the best interest of the city of Cambridge and Secretary.
And I stand by my statement that the majority of people are upset at some members of the Council and the Liquor Board.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:36 pm |
|
Ok, my turn to change what I said, per Leaning Left. You're right, I don't think the opposition showed up at all the meetings, but I do think there were more than 3 meetings. It seems that way.
God bless,
Pete
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:35 pm |
|
luv....my schedule was horrific at that point in time and I still made it a point to attend those meetings.
Of course at that time I was still representing Secretary and looking out for their best interest in respect to the autonomy of their zoning.
So I did have a vested interest in the outcome of the change.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
Well Sue I edited my post after I saw you backed off on the word everyone, now you have changed your mind?
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:33 pm |
|
LiberalMinded wrote: luv it the way it is wrote:
SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
We do not know it was a majority because a vote was never taken on it.
It became the majority when the opposing side decided to never show to voice their opinions at the many meetings held.
Thats not true, some of us are busy raising family's and doing what we do to get by. For many people in the community it was not that big an issue. It needs to be put to a vote at some level for change to happen.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
Pete....it is not an exaggeration.
The naysayers were way outnumbered by those in support of the change.
There were usually very few people in attendance at any of the meetings that were against the proposed change and most of the commentary that I saw written was also in favor of the change.
|
LeaningLeft
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3649 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:32 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: LM writes...
It became the majority when the opposing side decided to never show to voice their opinions at the many meetings held. Why do you and Sue, who writes "everyone", want to exagerate? Your statement above is completely false. Some of the opposition did show up at the meetings.
God bless,
Pete
All 3 of them?
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:31 pm |
|
LM writes...
It became the majority when the opposing side decided to never show to voice their opinions at the many meetings held. Why do you want to exagerate? Your statement above is completely false. Some of the opposition did show up at the meetings.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:32 pm by Pete Macinta
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
I was at most of the Liquor Board meetings and I know you have seen my take on how they were handled.
Very unprofessional, extremely rude and totally inept.
As for your first point, I stand corrected I should have said why a majority of people are upset with them.
|
LiberalMinded
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
luv it the way it is wrote:
SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
We do not know it was a majority because a vote was never taken on it.
It became the majority when the opposing side decided to never show to voice their opinions at the many meetings held.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:27 pm |
|
Sue Carol writes...
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law First, not everyone.
Second, I can't speak for the BOLC because I was not at all their meetings but I can say some county council listened to some possible law changes.
God bless,
Pete
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:26 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
We do not know it was a majority because a vote was never taken on it.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1096 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:23 pm |
|
The argument is not that they were wrong to uphold the law.
Why everyone is upset with them is that they refused to work with people to change the law through due process as the majority wanted.
I have no problem with them refusing at the get go but I have major problems with the circus that came after it by many members of both the liquor Board and the County Council.
The behavior and attitudes were out of line and in no way professional.
I believe the sign is perfectly acceptable as political commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing one's opinion and working towards the change you believe should happen.
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:25 pm by SueCarol
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:23 pm |
|
Owen Stanley McKenrick wrote:
This is a quote at the bottom of the sign that is to small to read.
"0ne of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by those unqualified to govern" - Plato
Another quote by Flecther in The outlaw Josie Wales is "don't piss on the back of my neck and tell me it's raining". Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:23 pm by luv it the way it is
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
Mac Mom writes...
It's using sarcasm to make a point, which I'm sure they find annoying. But the point is still true: there is not a restaurant on that corner because the representatives listed did what they felt they were elected to do.
Oh no, the developer messed up, did not do proper research, and raised cain to change the law instead of coming up with a work around solution.
Unprofessional and nearsighted.
God bless,
Pete
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:14 pm |
|
luv it the way it is writes...
I take offense to it because william nichols is my friend and they were only abiding by the rule. Aye. Nichols is also my friend and he is also my representative. He has done a fine job in all his work as a county councilman. It does not matter to me he is a Dem. He's a mighty good Dem. This man definitely does his homework and does his best as a councilman. I am a very strong supporter of him.
Shame on the developer, he/she should have did their homework.
Amen!
He could also figure out something else to put in there, but his mind is stuck on a restaraunt that serves alcohol.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:19 pm by Pete Macinta
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2031 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
It's using sarcasm to make a point, which I'm sure they find annoying. But the point is still true: there is not a restaurant on that corner because the representatives listed did what they felt they were elected to do. Fair enough. Now the voters can do what they wish to do.
I'm hoping we get to throw the whole bunch out and start over.
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:11 pm by MacMom
|
Owen Stanley McKenrick
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:08 pm |
|
This is a quote at the bottom of the sign that is to small to read.
"0ne of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by those unqualified to govern" - Plato
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
| The right to seek redress of a grievence is a cornerstone of the Republic. I hope the owners spend money to replace the no votes.
|
luv it the way it is
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 440 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:59 pm |
|
LeaningLeft wrote: kjr2492 wrote: I don't see anything wrong with it.
Agreed. Its the truth and its a free country.
I take offense to it because william nichols is my friend and they were only abiding by the rule. Shame on the developer, he/she should have did their homework.
|
LeaningLeft
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 9th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3649 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:52 pm |
|
kjr2492 wrote: I don't see anything wrong with it.
Agreed. Its the truth and its a free country.
|
kjr2492
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 278 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:48 pm |
|
| I don't see anything wrong with it.
|
Owen Stanley McKenrick
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:43 pm |
|
| . Attachment: Sign.jpg (Downloaded 286 times)
|
Owen Stanley McKenrick
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:39 pm |
|
resisto wrote: Can someone scan the pic and put it here?
I will in just a little while
|
Current time is 06:14 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|