Tommy Joe's opened in its new location this weekend, at the corner of Norfolk and Woodmont Avenues. There was a large turnout for the first weekend. They didn't seem to have any trouble getting people up to the space that has suffered through a couple of business closures. As temperatures warm up, it will be interesting to see how the rooftop is used.
53 comments:
Wish them the best! It's been tough for Bethesda bars lately.
Went there for drinks on Saturday. They seemed to have a good crowd and the drinks were reasonably priced. + 1 for Riemer and his night life initiative!!!
+ 1 for Riemer and his night life initiative! ... COULD NOT AGREE MORE. ALL HAIL RIEMER!!!!
If Hans Riemer is working to bring more vulgar fraternity bars like Tommy Joe's to our community, he just lost our support.
TAKE THAT BACK 9:18 - HANS REIMER IS MY GOD!!!!!!!@!!!!
How come we didn't get any interior photos. Was Dyer not allowed in?
Would you let dyer anywhere near your home or place of business? I think not...
I note that the sign for SmashBurger is still burning brightly. Looks like Dyer got that story wrong for the second time in two years.
10:59 AM Smashburger's space is for lease, as Robert Dyer reported recently.
Dyer's pictures aren't even from the same side of the street. I guess patrons of TJ's might drop cinder blocks at Dyer from the second-story windows.
The inmates are running the asylum.
Smashburger is trying to sublet their space. They have 8 years left and pay around $75 per square foot. That's a death sentence rate for Woodmont Triangle. #TRITDH
10:59: I didn't report the Smashburger story last year. My actual story this year is 100% accurate - the space is for lease. I not only linked to the real estate listing, but I heard from a prospective tenant who actually toured the space, you moron. You're still, as the old A&W ad said, "Dumass material all the way."
11:53: That comment obviously typed from an office about 2 blocks up Norfolk from Smashburger is being deleted in 3...2...1.....
"you moron."
'"Dumass material all the way."'
Did Dyer really run for public office? No matter what the council members do or don't do, at least they don't talk to their constituents like that.
8:57 is wrong. George Leventhal is really nasty and abusive to county staff. The Washington Post reported extensively on his tirades. Not a nice guy to work with.
So how come the voters still chose George over Robert?
Dyer @ 6:39 PM - you're lying, as usual.
http://robertdyer.blogspot.com/2015/01/report-smashburger-to-close-in-bethesda.html?m=1
9:11pm I don't know about you, but I like nasty, abusive men in power.
9:13: Read the article - the source was another website.
9:11: Total control of the media by the incumbents, and low-information voters.
8:57: Did George Leventhal really BERATE A FEMALE COUNTY EMPLOYEE ON LIVE TELEVISION in 2014? Did he really also lash out at a constituent, and distinguished former County Councilmember, Rose Crenca, on live television?
You're still "Dumass material all the way."
Robert Dyer mad. Robert Dyer smash!
Obviously. Fact.
9:12 so you're saying your blog has no impact as media? I thought you had previously stated that your news site was a competitor? But now you are saying your site doesn't count since the winning council members have total control of the media? Wait which is it again?
2:27 AM: I wasn't allowed to promote my campaign on my blog while I was running. The Council does have total control of the local media, 6 of their own taxpayer funded TV stations, MyMCMedia, and even a Spanish language radio station at their disposal.
You're wrong again. Better quit while you're behind.
You weren't allow to blog at all when you were running for office? That's pretty interesting. Even stuff about restaurants and retail and other?
And the council members could write and appear on the public access channel? What do you mean they have control of the local media?
Thanks for your time answering my questions.
Has a local council race ever been as discussed as much as Robert Dyer's?
Move on folks. You think more about it than Robert Dyer at this point.
Incumbents have a great advantage with their official media arms as well as supporters in local media.
5:19: No, I said I wasn't allowed to campaign on the blog unless I made it an official campaign site.
Yes, the Council was repeatedly able to appear on the 6 channels they have at their disposal, and on their Spanish radio station. Challengers were not permitted to appear.
They have favorable coverage on all local media (except my website). That's control of local media. Real media would be investigating the various scandals.
Favorable coverage? Does that mean they talked about the other candidates more and you less?
how come challengers were unable to appear on the county tv and radio stations? Only incumbents? Is that a county rule?
"Low-information voters"
You're not going to win elections by insulting voters, "dumass". LOL
Is Dyer trying to claim that every public communication by an elected official to his/her constituents should be considered a campaign statement? It sure sounds that way.
7:02: Not only that, but rarely anything critical or negative even with the terrible records and scandals some on the Council have.
Dyer is demanding "equal time" on the County channels.
Riemer and Leventhal should demand "equal time" on Dyer's blog.
Maybe they just didn't think he was a serious contender?
@11:28 Thanks for posting that again. It's important we keep our "journalists" and "politicians" honest, lest they simply degenerate into "bloggers"
I've really enjoyed reading Robert's blog since I started following him, however I am curious as to why links like that are removed? It seems like part of a health discussion and it's important we hold hour newsmen and politicians accountable, no?
So they all covered the incumbants equally with equal lack of critical reporting? So between the incumbents it was completely fair and balanced reporting without favoritism? The minority candidate did not receive any coverage, but the majority incumbants did?
Why would that link get deleted? It's to content from his own blog. Are his own blog posts violating his own comment policy?
Hypothetical: If you're a close personal friend and a political supporter of George Leventhal, can you cover him impartially?
12:18 PM has Robert Dyer's music on repeat
Probably has his Youtube channel on in the background as well
"If you're a close personal friend and a political supporter of George Leventhal, can you cover him impartially?" Fair question. If true, should be disclosed!
Yes! 1:35 nailed it right on the head. Dyer and his supporters don't listen to anyone at all, only their own opinions, despite overwhelming evidence and logic to the contrary. They just want to be heard as right.
1:44 PM Sounds like most of the MoCo Council and their friends in local media! Exhibit A is the Westbard plan.
'You're still "Dumass material all the way."'
Oh now you're referring to me as that now? Way to keep it classy and keep your head above the fray. Despite some of the questionable rants, I frequent this site for reliable local news. I'll be rethinking that...
Dyer thinks that your comment and the comments at 9:11 PM and 9:13 PM were all written by the same person.
He also has a strange obsession with a soft drink commercial from 1990. That's sure to go over the heads of coveted Millennials.
This comment thread had it all. A veritable greatest hits: Riemer, Robert's rock album (imagine what Aaron's and Hans' soft rock album would be like...on second thought, don't), YouTube, Aaron posting under a woman's name (he likes doing that WAY too much), millennials, Robert's election results, whining about hyperlinks. Just lacked the longtime reader who says he's had enough.
Save this one for the time capsule!
I'm a longtime reader and I've had enough.
Twice now Dyer has deleted a link to his own previous posts simply because they prove him wrong! That's selective "journalism" if I've ever seen it! No wonder nobody votes for him, he can't handle the truth!
Maybe he is ashamed of his own words? Or flip flopping? Or is he saying that his own words violate his own comment policy?
And in the other link that proved him wrong, he blamed his source.
Yet he still ran with the story?
Post a Comment