asny10011 wrote:
if Kelly was subpoenaed then if she doesn't have anything to hide why is she not cooperating?

VanVorster wrote:
And on THAT I wholeheartedly agree with you and can reach across the aisle. But other stuff, no.

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
I personally don't want this country to go into the trajectory of a Brazil or South Africa where it becomes a fait accompli that if you're black or brown, you're destined to be marginalized or occupy lower strata of society; and if you're white and middle class, you're basically destined to make it. It's also a tad disingenuous and a little myopic for people to lambaste DeBlasio or Pres. Obama for so-called social engineering and giving undue advantage to people of color (implicitly TAKING something from deserving whites) for proposing agendas that might ameliorate the status quo especially in inner cities - why should potential talent languish just because someone might not have the benefit of having been born into the right family or circumstances/connections. Again, I don't want to live in a gated community with a private security firm like Brazil or South Africa that perpetuates a cycle of inequity and where it's foregone conclusion that if you're poor and black, you're automatically consigned to being bad and dumb. That does not mean however, that people aren't also accountable for themselves, their behavior/choices or that they lack agency (resorting to crime especially violent ones is not a justifiable excuse).
interesting article about G&T programs. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/edu ... .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whiteadv.htm

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm

'Might ameliorate the status quo in the inner cities'?

You are aware, of course, that the suburban taxpayers, in just the last TWO years, underwrote JC schoolkids (and JC taxpayers) to the tune of a BILLION FREAKING DOLLARS?

And you're aware that this money has been spent for the last 30 years, or well over one generation? With what results? I'd love to see how many more children were born to single mothers, with delinquent fathers, since 1985 when the Abbott districts were created.

Just how much more do you expect them to do? And we're talking just money for schools, not Section 8 Housing, food stamps, and a million other areas where money has been spent on social aide.

The issue isn't enough money being spent, it's personal responsibility causing people to be poor overwhelmingly. And you have to go back 20 years before Abbott to get to the beginnings of the 'Great Society' if you really want to measure that money spent at the problems haven't solved a thing.

I've always assumed that the suburbs cough up the money as an alternative to building low income housing that would require zoning and land usage changes as well as changing the social mix. Probably would have been cheaper and perhaps more effective to have busted up inner city neighborhoods.

VanVorster wrote:
I personally don't want this country to go into the trajectory of a Brazil or South Africa where it becomes a fait accompli that if you're black or brown, you're destined to be marginalized or occupy lower strata of society; and if you're white and middle class, you're basically destined to make it. It's also a tad disingenuous and a little myopic for people to lambaste DeBlasio or Pres. Obama for so-called social engineering and giving undue advantage to people of color (implicitly TAKING something from deserving whites) for proposing agendas that might ameliorate the status quo especially in inner cities - why should potential talent languish just because someone might not have the benefit of having been born into the right family or circumstances/connections. Again, I don't want to live in a gated community with a private security firm like Brazil or South Africa that perpetuates a cycle of inequity and where it's foregone conclusion that if you're poor and black, you're automatically consigned to being bad and dumb. That does not mean however, that people aren't also accountable for themselves, their behavior/choices or that they lack agency (resorting to crime especially violent ones is not a justifiable excuse).
interesting article about G&T programs. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/edu ... .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/race/whiteadv.htm

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/oeo-training/aa/beneficiaries.htm

heights wrote:
Just another jimmy rig contraption. They would not pass inspection with this concept. I will bring this up at my next Captain's meeting to see if they are enforcing this critical issue. That area should allow for ventilation especially is passengers are present.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Government needs managers, not activists with specific agendas, right or left.

And Cuomo spanked de Blasio again today, when it's reported he'll support payments for charter school rent if Kaiser Wilhelm tries to screw them more. After all, the NY Governor, the US Secretary of Education, and President Obama all support charter schools because of their successes.

http://nypost.com/2014/03/03/cuomo-ba ... ols-evicted-by-de-blasio/

Your statement there is based on nothing more than a completely biased headline. The article doesn't support this argument.

Dolomiti wrote:
I seriously doubt NJ will be forced by the courts to allow concealed carry. Courts have repeatedly upheld NJ's laws.

I also am not too thrilled about other states interfering in New Jersey's laws. I cannot imagine they'd like it if NJ returned the favor. Though I guess it opens the door for Bloomberg's new org to work in whatever states he chooses....

In terms of its effectiveness, it should be screamingly obvious that CC does not reduce crime. In particular, NYC has strong gun restrictions, and the crime rate has been dropping steadily since the 1990s. NJ's crime rate has also fallen faster than national rates.

There are also several legal options for self defense, such as mace and pepper sprays. CC is also tough to get, but still available in NJ.

jcdd wrote:
There are plenty of parents in JC that care deeply about the well-being and education of their children. But the public schools are still not very good (with the exception of a couple of charter schools and, of course McNair - which are very difficult to get a spot in). This City doesn't seem to prioritize making the schools better. We need better infrastructure to start. We have elementary schools that have absolutely zero outside green space. Until the City starts focusing on how they can improve the schools enough to keep families here, people will continue to leave. Jersey City property values will never reach its full potential until you get the schools improved. Lets start making it a priority and dedicating resources. Use the power of eminent domain to start buying up adjacent land to improve the infrastructure of the schools.

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Florida is like #4 in violent crime and all those citizen crime-fighters seem to be shooting the wrong people.

But man, if you ever want to go see a movie and not have to put up with people texting or having cell phone conversations, Florida is a paradise.

Annod wrote:
It's a snowstorm. Do you know where your governor is?

Where is Christie?

07310 wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
he'sbusy raising money for gop governors

Those governors are busy running away from Christie as fast as they can.

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Where are our NJ Senators on this? Hello, Booker and Menendez? Shouldn't they be interceding on behalf of their NJ constituents? Aren't our Senators supposed to be doing exactly that?

Since you seem to have given up complaining about the mayor (D) so the next step are US Senators (both D)? Isn't the state run by a governor (R)? Senators are too busy bickering with other Senators just like with any legislative body. The mayors, the governors, seem to be the more more appropriate targets when it comes to local govt decisions.

But of course, it's all Obama's fault... again (D).

hero69 wrote:
isn't christie just plain dirty. i'd vote for romney 100x before christie.