Page 3 of 19
Posted on October 6 at 6:25 p.m.
Ever been driving down the road, minding all the laws, licensed and insured as well... and been run into by an unlicensed, uninsured, illegal immigrant, completely totaling your car and causing major medical expenditures or death of a loved one?
Well, until you have experienced, or at least fully understand, that scenario... you completely miss the reason for this whole thing.
Not only should the vehicle be impounded, the ILLEGAL ALIEN should be deported. No and's/or's/if's/ or but's about it.
All this "feel good" "politically correct" "sensitivity" nonsense has gone so far over the threshold of common sense, it is insane.
The "racist" subterfuge is a complete lie. The fact is, the unlicensed, uninsured, & illegal drivers pose a very real and serious threat to the safety and well being of the rest of us. Just because people that are already illegally in this country are also a majority of that aforementioned group does not somehow make upholding the law and protecting those of us that do abide by the law somehow "racist". That's ridiculous.
On No License to Drive
Posted on September 9 at 2:08 p.m.
It's not Rocket Science to determine that the self proclaimed "Angel of Death" had intent. Obviously, you're not too familiar with this case from the beginning. His actions clearly showed intent, as did his story.
On Conditional Release for David Attias
Posted on September 9 at 2:02 p.m.
Hopped up on meth or not, the dead guy clearly broke the law, ran the stop and was killed in the accident. That alone makes the accident 100% his own fault.
To say that the other party is in any way at fault, should be "locked up", or in any way be punished for the accident is delusional at best. Seriously, would you be saying that if it was your own mother, your sister, or even you that was in her place? No, you would not... but since her name is Maldonado... oh yeah, she just must be punished huh? That's just lame.
On Driver Killed in Crash with Maldonado's Wife Was on Meth
Posted on August 24 at 2 p.m.
It is not the function of the ABR to make any decisions for reasons other than visual aesthetics / design / function of a project. No personal or political beliefs of the owner of the project can have any bearing on the decision.
The valid grounds for recusal are simple : an actual existing relationship with the applicant & board member. Not a "feeling, judgement, political difference, or belief" about the applicant, but a real bonified relationship of some kind that would present a conflict.
Abstaining for pure political posturing / pandering is not an acceptable option either.
On When Abstinence Is Not the Best Policy
Posted on August 22 at 8:25 p.m.
the irony of all of this nonsense is that it us discrimination, plain and simple. While certain communities are outraged that an owner of a company could possibly have philosophical or political views contrary to their own, there is not one single instance where it has been shown that that BUSINESS ever discriminated against anybody. You can't find a single complaint from workers or patrons to support such a claim.
Yet, those same communities, grandstanding and pandering to certain agendas, are now blatantly discriminating against a BUSINESS that is guilty of nothing. Denying a permit because you don't agree with the owner's beliefs? WTF? When all of this is said and done, the communities that did this are going to get sued for discrimination - big time, and it is going to be a slam dunk win for the attorneys representing the BUSINESS.
You very likely don't truly know what philosophical beliefs the owner of any business holds, yet as long as they do not discriminate in their hiring practices or with the public, it makes no difference. Which is exactly how it should be.
What kind of world do you want to live in? Should you have to submit to a test of your own personal beliefs to get a business license, or to build a store? Who decides that criteria? Nonsense.
On It's Not Only About Gay Marriage
Posted on August 20 at 11:58 a.m.
...and yet it should be noted that not implementing the fees is not an option on the agenda, only what form the fees will take.
The commission seems to already have decided that fees will be implemented, which is obviously not popular with the residents. I hope that they do pay attention to our position of "no fees" and scrap the whole thing, but the fact that is not one of the "options" they have up for consideration would seem to indicate that's just that - not an option.
On Major Resistance to Beach Parking Fees
Posted on July 25 at 12:45 a.m.
How many people read this headline and thought that Mrs. Maldonado *caused* this accident and was somehow responsible for killing the man?
On Abel Maldonado's Wife Involved in Traffic Accident That Kills Man
Posted on July 9 at 12:19 a.m.
What's the point of soliciting sealed bids if all that's going to happen is those in the room can then outbid them?
On City Putting Parking Lot Up for Auction
Posted on April 18 at 2:09 p.m.
Please cite your source for "the official studies".
On Gas Pods Save Money, Maybe Planet
Posted on March 22 at 4:13 p.m.
"David Thurman, the project rep from BonDrak (an L.A.-based development firm pegged by CrossHarbor to potentially build the project), asked that his team be “treated a little bit more fairly” the next time they meet with the county."
He must be new to this party, huh?
On New Owners at Naples?