WEATHER »

Comments by MGBJAY

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on August 17 at 9:53 p.m.

Yeah...like THAT'S ever gonna' happen!

Remember the mess they made of the reconstruction of the Coral Casino. Say nothing for the ongoing embarrassment and never ending story of the MIRAMAR. That started in September 10 2000 with no end in sight.

In this "cut and paste" political climate we are in, the term "out of touch" can certainly be applied to the forehead of each member of the current ABR!

Congratulations boys, you've hit the big-time! Your personal political opinions have become more important than the actual responsibilities over which you preside, causing your decisions to perhaps make you feel all warm and fuzzy, although at the expense of the community which you...

...well you can't really say "serve" anymore now can you since the only thing you now seem to be serving are your own politically twisted psyche's...

...unfortunately it is at the expense of the local tax base in the form of all the un-hired employees of that business that will not generate any local income tax, the un-purchased products that will not be delivered to that store that go into the making of the products that store would have sold creating sales taxes, and the trucks that will not buy diesel fuel to not deliver those not purchased products to that store causing a loss of fuel sales tax...

...and on and on and on.

All this controversy generated by a left-wing "politically correct" mentality defending a portion of the citizenry comprising, on average 6% to 8% of the population at large world-wide. Based on that alone, this action by the ABR should be deemed unacceptable...

...when applied to Constitutional principles, this collective "brown bottle flu" application of their act of "abstention" becomes nothing less than an example of "tyranny by the minority".

The ABR with this action has taken its position as a subconstituency to make a political decision, affording itself a power not incorporated into its original charter, to impart its collective "opinion" on the larger community.

If this behaviour is allowed to stand, the issue becomes...where it will end. The ABR with this action has drawn a line in the sand and dared the local government to challenge its action.

Should the "politically correct" action of the ABR be allowed to stand, preventing this business from becoming part of the local business landscape based purely upon their philosophical disagreement with a "statement" someone made, the mold will be forever cast and the future of the Santa Barbara business community will be subject to that action.

In other words, if you make a public statement that happens to be found distasteful by the ABR...your entrepreneurial efforts in this city, now or in the future, may be at risk.

Perhaps this is the intent of the ABR. Maybe they are angling for the creation of yet another agency known as the
LBR…the Language Board of Review.

This action, if allowed to stand Mayor Schneider, makes it already that close!

On Architecture and Politics

Posted on August 17 at 4:08 p.m.

"well, I wouldn't exactly call it riting..."

Excuse the formatting error, i.e., "...well, I wouldn't exactly call it writing..."

On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style

Posted on August 17 at 4:06 p.m.

Hey lawdy...your input has CERTAINLY fortified the conversation...and even from a layman's viewpoint, your writing style suggests at the very least, some serious left hemisphere trauma.

And your "moving to Ohio" comment, surely you cannot be suggesting yourself as an example of the resultant "raised IQ" you mention.

The one thing that is painfully obvious from most of you that have...well, I wouldn't exactly call it riting...nevertheless...very few of you have actually taken on anything that I have written in any meaningful way...

...but attack...minimize...deride...ridicule...criticize...correct my spelling errors (I think there were two)...and express so many other reactionary thoughts that have not a thing to do with actually taking on the issues is in fact exemplary of the majority of you on the left...and precisely the characteristic that causes the desire to continue poking at you. I keep hoping for a different response, but it never changes. You are very predictable left wing acolytes. That is almost redundant.

For the most part - your thoughts as expressed here, appear vacuous, bereft of content, caustic and generally mean spirited intended to do anything BUT deal with the conversation...but if it involves denigrating and/or damaging anothers' character or business for their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts...you are ALL on top of it!

And all because the people you are directing this prattle towards do nothing more than disagree with you. And in a generally civil manner I might say.

Dan Cathy merely disagrees with you philosophically. Albeit his disagreement is couched in his faith. In his statement, not once did he denigrate or fault anyone or try to cause anyone harm.

I keep expecting one of you to step up to the plate and generate an intelligent and reasonably constructed debate like response...but it hasn't happened yet.

But I remain hopeful...ignorant perhaps, but hopeful nevertheless. (There's an opening for you).

On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style

Posted on August 17 at 3:12 p.m.

Thanks for your input Ken..have a nice day....

On Chick-fil-A's Architectural Approval Shouldn't Hinge on Owner's Politics

Posted on August 17 at 10:44 a.m.

Evening Dr. DAN...

...ah, let me share with you a few facts...re: Chick Fil A & your characterization of it as "his fat-farm franchises"...

...it took about three minutes to find a plethora of FACTS to dispute your “fat farm” claim. Did you know that Chick-Fil-A is one of the few fast-food eateries in the country whose menu has but 1 item that contains in excess of 600 calories.

It's true.

And that Menu item is a milk shake. In fact MOST of their menu choices are below 500 calories individually. But I will leave it to you to find at least 1 thing with which you will make a valiant effort to discredit my entire comment.

Secondly, allow me to apologize for the callous misspelling of a word I used in a previous post for which, quite rightly, you called me to task...that being "timbre"...in a completely uncaring and indiscriminate manner I "typo-ed" it as "tambre".

If it makes any difference to you, Dr. Dan, I removed the batteries from my keyboard for 1/2 hour and contemplated being more careful with my typing...I also here admit the misspelling of the name of Sheldon Adelson and incorporated that offense into the same “time-out”.

You got me again Dr. Dan.

As for your "your condescending comment" comment (sic)...

...quoting my line here ""I did that to defend your right to hold and express the beliefs you apparently subscribe to"" as being “”self -serving twaddle””...

...that, Dr. Dan, I take issue with...for as anyone knows, all citizens entering any branch of the United States Military, swear by oath (and I did) as follows:

I, MGBJAY, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

For purely illustrative purposes here, the part that states "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States" IS in fact, neither a "condescending comment” nor is it "twaddle", as referred to by you.

As a fellow citizen of this great country, Dr. Dan, you are governed by and have your First Amendment rights to “hold and express the beliefs you apparently subscribe to" protected under that Constitution by all who serve, every day of your life.

You see Dr. DAN…it wasn’t that I was defending you and your rights individually as such…but rather the Constitution under which those rights, as a citizen are afforded you, as all of us. You are a beneficiary of the Constitution I swore an oath to defend, so to speak. It was meant like that.

Might want to rein that ego in just a tad Dr. Dan!

On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style

Posted on August 17 at 10:41 a.m.

danny, danny, danny...you no longer deserve the recognition of the use of CAPS...and I have no belief any longer in the moniker DR before your name when applied to what I see you put to paper, so to speak.

I personally know Doctors...I have friends that are Doctors...you danny boy are no doctor.

You & your intellectually vapid commentary have wearied me.

If you actually miss the entire point about being a citizen in this country living under the protection of the Constitution...

...but before I go there...alas, I have to acknowledge yet again, yes, it even protects you.

I cannot wait to hear you howl all manner of epithets and claims of voter fraud and voter suppression and all that liberal claptrap you all do when you lose at the conclusion of the coming November landslide.

And YES, danny boy, your fearless ideologue is going to be a ONE TERMER!

And your rants are going to become simply unbearable, instead of merely irritating in their narrowness of scope and lack of content.

I believe that is referred to as "deferred gratification". And I will relish in it!

Bye Bye danny boy.

On Chick-fil-A's Architectural Approval Shouldn't Hinge on Owner's Politics

Posted on August 16 at 9:42 p.m.

Evening Dr. DAN...

...ah, let me share with you a few facts...re: Chick Fil A & your characterization of it as "his fat-farm franchises"...

...it took about three minutes to find a plethora of FACTS to dispute your “fat farm” claim. Did you know that Chick-Fil-A is one of the few fast-food eateries in the country whose menu has but 1 item that contains in excess of 600 calories.

It's true.

And that Menu item is a milk shake. In fact MOST of their menu choices are below 500 calories individually. But I will leave it to you to find at least 1 thing with which you will make a valiant effort to discredit my entire comment.

Secondly, allow me to apologize for the callous misspelling of a word I used in a previous post for which, quite rightly, you called me to task...that being "timbre"...in a completely uncaring and indiscriminate manner I "typo-ed" it as "tambre".

If it makes any difference to you, Dr. Dan, I removed the batteries from my keyboard for 1/2 hour and contemplated being more careful with my typing...I also here admit the misspelling of the name of Sheldon Adelson and incorporated that offense into the same “time-out”.

You got me again Dr. Dan.

As for your "your condescending comment" comment (sic)...

...quoting my line here ""I did that to defend your right to hold and express the beliefs you apparently subscribe to"" as being “”self -serving twaddle””...

...that, Dr. Dan, I take issue with...for as anyone knows, all citizens entering any branch of the United States Military, swear by oath (and I did) as follows:

I, MGBJAY, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

For purely illustrative purposes here, the part that states "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States" IS in fact, neither a "condescending comment” nor is it "twaddle", as referred to by you.

As a fellow citizen of this great country, Dr. Dan, you are governed by and have your First Amendment rights to “hold and express the beliefs you apparently subscribe to" protected under that Constitution by all who serve, every day of your life.

You see Dr. DAN…it wasn’t that I was defending you and your rights individually as such…but rather the Constitution under which those rights, as a citizen are afforded you, as all of us. You are a beneficiary of the Constitution I swore an oath to defend, so to speak. It was meant like that.

Might want to rein that ego in just a tad Dr. Dan!

On Chick-fil-A's Architectural Approval Shouldn't Hinge on Owner's Politics

Posted on August 14 at 2 p.m.

"The "B" must stand for "boor". I suggest not giving attention to people who are desperate for it." - Quote Ken...

Dear, Dear Ken...you denounced name calling and then you call me a name...oh wait, but I get it...its OK for you to do the name calling...'cause, uhmmm, oh yeah...'cause its you!

...hmmmm, again, your opinion is more valid than those that disagree with you...

...and then you go on to further demonstrate what I was called out on, which was to be "tangential" by bringing into the conversation the "pot store" crackdown in a conversation that is about Chick Fill A...

...it should not, since you raised the issue, go unnoticed that ALL (read that each and every) pot store in the state of California had the same consequence visited upon them, NOT just those in Santa Barbara...which you write in a way so as to make it seem that SB is the only community that has been singled out of the entire state for this action... as their existence is in direct violation of FEDERAL LAW.

The following from the NY TIMES 30 JUNE 2012:

"Acting on federal law, which considers all possession and distribution of marijuana to be illegal, California’s four United States attorneys, working with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service, have shut down at least 500 dispensaries statewide in the last eight months by sending letters to operators, landlords and local officials, warning of criminal charges and the seizure of assets. The United States attorneys said the dispensaries were violating not only federal law but also state law."

Introduced merely as a humorous side note...tangential as that may be.

MGBJAY

On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style

Posted on August 14 at 1:22 p.m.

Attention: (PROGRAM INTERRUPT)

Like trying to damage someones business because the owner of that business says something that disagrees with your personal belief...making your personal belief more important than his, thereby giving you authority to actually justify doing damage to the local economy by crippling a business that pays it's share of sales taxes, employment taxes, business license fees, costs of construction, etc., etc. directly into the community that is already battling huge budget issues...

...yeah...now THAT'S not tangential, right!

In fact the particular Chick Fill A business that is in Santa Barbara may be a Franchise, owned by a local Santa Barbara resident, that does not necessarily share Mr. Cathy's specific opinion...(what if?)

...well, facts be damned...let's do our best to harm him and his business anyway because our cause is more important than his business or all of the jobs at that business that local Santa Barbara residents earn at least a portion of their living with...yeah, let's go with that!

MGBJAY

On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style

Posted on August 14 at 12:54 p.m.

Woooooo...I'm tangential...and in a serious way! Wooooo!

That's really bad...right?

On Chick-fil-A Debate Santa Barbara Style

Page 1 of 2 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: