JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (borisp)

Bottom

« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 24 »

borisp

Re: UBER - car service in Jersey City

#61

Home away from home

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
The most telling aspect of this discussion is the willingness among many of you to defend an extremely wealthy and extraordinarily fast-growing corporation that employs a disproportionately small number of people worldwide. Their great wealth and meteoric growth isn?t simply due to a revolutionary method for hiring a car?in fact it?s more closely tied to the unfortunate trend of poor corporate citizenship. Simply put, Uber would not be able to concentrate such a tremendous amount of wealth in the hands of so very few if it didn?t offset much of the cost of doing business on to the shoulders of independent contractors who receive absolutely no benefits, labor protections, or profit sharing for their efforts. This growing practice among many companies is certainly profitable for a small number of people at the very top, but it is not the way to a healthy, sustainable economy.

Have a wonderful day, everyone!

The most telling aspect of this discussion is we see a service that we like, the drivers see a job that they want, and you see a "corporation" that you must attack, just because it's there.

Anyway, here something that a friend of mine always says to people like you: start your own service. According to you, it's possible to charge the same as Uber or even less, while paying drivers more and with some benefits. So, if you're right, your new business will easily outcompete Uber as both a service provider and as employer. You'll prove your point, you'll do a lot of good for everyone, and you'll get rich while doing it. A trifecta!

If you believe in the things that you proclaim, you have no good reason not to do it.

Posted on: 2015/5/1 2:17

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: U.S. Sen. Menendez - new federal investigation

#62

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:
Pebble wrote:

The only difference between Score and Borisp is the side of the political spectrum that they sit on...

Your reading comprehension is about as awful as it gets. If you think I ?hate? you, you?re way off base. I?d never seen anyone that thinks they are so smart put forward such poor arguments. Your clownish warm-up act to make people laugh. You aren?t someone I take seriously. How can someone hate a clown?

I want to point out that as soon as you wanted to personally attack someone, you felt compelled to mention my name. This is not a behavior that is commonly associated with "not taking seriously". This is more like obsession.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I don?t have to argue you or provide information to counter what you write. That would imply what you write isn?t completely absurd on its face. If you want an example, just look at when you tried comparing the American Civil War to the Iraq War.

Yeah, yeah, I know. If only you wanted to, you could have easily explained what was wrong with any of my statements. It's just that you don't want to. It's just too easy for you. And you don't have time. And the dog ate your notes. You are a king of debate.

Posted on: 2015/5/1 2:10

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: UBER - car service in Jersey City

#63

Home away from home

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:

...There are two forms of innovation at work here?the software and what it's able to do, and then the clever ways that Uber puts the screws to labor and absolves itself from the commitment of a large capital investment. One of those is indeed progress, the other is just fuel for the race to the bottom.

You need to clarify what do you mean by "bottom" and for whom. It's clearly beneficial for the drivers, otherwise they'd never drove for Uber, preferring to work for a taxi medallion owner instead. It's clearly beneficial for the riders, since they get a choice.

It's not so great for the one-percenter medallion owners who bought themselves an extremely expensive piece of the government-protected cartel, here I can agree.

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Yes, that?s what I?m calling it because it?s not sustainable.

What are you worried about then? If this model isn't sustainable it will go bankrupt, and you'll be happy.

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
As millions of people become less and less able to participate in the consumer-based economy that ideally benefits us all, the effects will eventually catch up to us as well.

The consumer-based economy is significantly more sustainable than an alternative.
Otherwise we'd have this dialogue in Russian, while sitting in our Moscow flats.

Posted on: 2015/4/30 2:15

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: UBER - car service in Jersey City

#64

Home away from home

Quote:

hero69 wrote:
i have my doubts about the sustainability of uber, especially in dense areas like manhattan, san fran

Looking at how the established taxicab cartels are trying to kill Uber, I assume they disagree with you on the subject.

Posted on: 2015/4/30 2:04

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: U.S. Sen. Menendez - new federal investigation

#65

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

score09 wrote:
Utterly AMAZING as to the dearth of commentary on my latest post. Would have expected a total onslaught, replete with Anti-Semetic accusations. Might that be to those who agree but are AFRAID to speak out against Israel, lol? Nonetheless, quite obvious indeed is the impact. Let this percolate for now, and check yourself as to your opinion that Israel is worth a dime.

Because people, it is TOTALLY okay to speak AGAINST Israel. the research is overwhelming.

I think of you as the crazies that stand at the corners of heavily transited areas (like the Port Authority Bus Terminal) proclaiming the imminent return of Jesus, and how everyone needs to repent. They are also ignored by every person walking by. It never occurred to me that crazies concluded "quite obvious indeed is the impact" and felt confident that people were "percolating" their deep thoughts. A deranged mind is a sad thing, but quite intriguing to observe, as well.

The only difference between Score and Borisp is the side of the political spectrum that they sit on...

Look, you know as well as I do that the only thing common between me and Score is that you don't like either of us. Nothing else. He's antisemite, I'm not xenophobic in the slightest (in fact, you are a very hateful person and much closer to him in this respect than I am). He's raving, I'm arguing (in fact, you never explain your declarations and are much closer to him in this respect as well). Politically, as you noted yourself, he's on your side of the spectrum.

Even the reasons you don't like us are different! You don't like me because I reason my side. You don't like him because he shows how much of your side is just pure hate.

Posted on: 2015/4/29 18:06

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: $4M Grove Street PATH station elevator

#66

Home away from home

Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
If you want to use college words, try this: "upper boundary".

Like, yes, sure you can't "extrapolate" the price of a piece of chicken by looking at Kobe beef prices. However, you can safely assume that a chicken cutlet sandwich from a street cart should fetch about 10-20 times less than a Kobe beef entree in a posh restaurant.

You may as well have compared the Grove St. elevator project to the Three Gorges Dam for as worthless a comparison as that would be, and now you?re going on about chicken? Wow, you totally suck at being wrong.

Boris, I thought it was a colorful analogy. I guess that just leaves you, me, and these chickens.

The problem is that people usually feel comfortable with the sums they spend every day. Imagine that the City Hal had a reception and they posted a receipt that would state they had chicken sandwiches at 400 dollars each. If that happened all the people would immediately recognize that not only it's too expensive, but it's expensive beyond any reasonable measure. They would immediately realize that something very wrong is going on. I mean, ok, if they had sandwiches for 30 bucks each it would be a reason to be unhappy about how lavishly they spend money. But 400? It's not just expensive. It's a crime. May be the City Hall is bribed by the caterer. May be there is some stupid law that requires City Hall to always buy from the same caterer who tries to milk this monopoly for all its worth.

Same here. When we pay for a well with the simple elevator more (per feet) than someone paid for the LHC, it means we are way beyond "expensive".

Oh, and you know what - here is an article about how house elevators are a growing trend and you can have one for 15-20K, or

"you can opt for rich wood paneling, stone, mosaic, mirrors, grab bars ? oh, and let's not forget elevator music. Yes, some of these come with the ability to pipe in music.
Another important add-on is a telephone. Since we don't always carry our cell phones around with us when we are at home, I think any elevator should include a phone for emergencies.
The total cost to put in an elevator can easily come in around $100,000 if you have to retrofit and opt for lots of bells and whistles."

See? We need something simple. No bells. No whistles. No rich wood, stone or mosaic. Simple box moving up and down. Something an average homeowner would get for 20K tops. What? Ah, it's a complicated job, the elevator shouldn't fell down on the tracks. Ok. Let's double the price, 40k. No? Quadruple? 80K? Make it ten times more expensive? 200K? Fine. Now, this is expensive. 4 million is a crime.

Posted on: 2015/4/23 21:27

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: $4M Grove Street PATH station elevator

#67

Home away from home

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
If you want to use college words, try this: "upper boundary".

Like, yes, sure you can't "extrapolate" the price of a piece of chicken by looking at Kobe beef prices. However, you can safely assume that a chicken cutlet sandwich from a street cart should fetch about 10-20 times less than a Kobe beef entree in a posh restaurant.

You may as well have compared the Grove St. elevator project to the Three Gorges Dam for as worthless a comparison as that would be, and now you?re going on about chicken? Wow, you totally suck at being wrong.

I am sorry if you got confused by the chicken. Let's try something simpler. Imagine you have two engineering projects.

First one is very complex, it is unique in every aspect from its blueprints, to the equipment that would be used in construction, to the equipment that would be installed. It requires high precision, again in every aspect from construction to installation and tuning. It requires highly qualified scientific personnel.

Second is an every-day, standard and routine. It's been done before. It requires standard level of precision, of-the-shelf tools and can be done by average construction team.

Which project do you think should be more expensive?

A. The first one,
B. The second one,
C. They should cost the same,
D. Hard to tell
E. What on Earth do those projects have to do with a chicken cutlet in an elevator?!!!!

Posted on: 2015/4/23 21:03

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: $4M Grove Street PATH station elevator

#68

Home away from home

Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Here is a good way to think about costs.

Large Hadron Collider near Geneva is...

The cost of the LHC cannot be extrapolated to the installation of single elevator over an active subway line with any relevance or accuracy.

If you want to use college words, try this: "upper boundary".

Like, yes, sure you can't "extrapolate" the price of a piece of chicken by looking at Kobe beef prices. However, you can safely assume that a chicken cutlet sandwich from a street cart should fetch about 10-20 times less than a Kobe beef entree in a posh restaurant.

Posted on: 2015/4/23 16:50

Edited by borisp on 2015/4/23 17:11:35

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: $4M Grove Street PATH station elevator

#69

Home away from home

Here is a good way to think about costs.

Large Hadron Collider near Geneva is one of the most sophisticated projects you can imagine. It required building a circular tunnel with circumference of about 17 miles, at the depth of about 500 feet. And it should have been very precise in shape. Add to that all the things they placed into that tunnel.

Now the costs - according to the Wikipedia - were about 9 billion dollars. That means that with all the complexity, and precision, and sophistication, and uniqueness of the project, 4 million dollars would cover 40 feet of that tunnel + equipment.

And we are getting what, how many, 20 feet of the most standard simple elevator?

Posted on: 2015/4/23 3:36

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: President Lincoln's railway funeral procession met with great fanfare in Jersey City

#70

Home away from home

Quote:

Rorschach wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The father of the Republican Party deserved this of course.

Lincoln would be appalled at what the Republican Party has become.

Would you may be support this claim by some factual material?

Like consider my claim: "Linkoln would immediately recognize contemporary Democrats as the ideological heirs of those who he fought."

Now, supporting materials:

1. Democrats build their politics on racial divisions, thriving by inciting one race against another. Check.

2. Democrats argue that medicine and pensions provided by the caring master, are better than freedom. Check.

3. Democrats claim that the President pulled the country into the war by lying, and promise that their candidate, if elected will immediately negotiate for peace with the opponents. Check.

4. Democrats claim that Republicans are religious nutcases, retrograde Evangelicals and Quakers, who believe that someone is a human being when science says that it's not. Check. Check. Check.

Posted on: 2015/4/23 3:13

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey City Mayor Seeks to Limit Chain Stores Downtown

#71

Home away from home

Quote:

Stringer wrote:
Steven Fulop  - Mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey
Limiting Retail Chains While Supporting Small Businesses Is Key to Urban Vibrancy and Employment Gains
The Huffington Post:        Posted:   04/21/2015 6:18 pm EDT
...Some say the free market should decide who rents retail space but that's a false choice. Think about it....

Thought about it. "Market should decide" means customers will decide which store they want to shop in. Basically, we have some people who make shopping choices based on price, let's call those people "lower class" or "poor". And we have some people who make shopping choices based on "vibrancy". Let's call them "upper class", a.ka. "rich", a.k.a. "1%", a.k.a. "elite". Now, why would the "market" decide in favor of "chain stores"? Simple. If the number of "poor" people is much bigger than the number of "rich" ones, and that their collective buying power and their collective buying preferences favor inexpensive "chain stores", that would mean that the market is in favor of chain stores. What Huffington Post proposes is that we should use government power to act against those market forces, negate the collective buying power of the "poor", and by force make life better for the few 1-percenters at the expense of a big number of poorer people. Because vibrancy!

Posted on: 2015/4/23 2:54

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: America's Greenest Cities - #10 Jersey City

#72

Home away from home

Quote:

score09 wrote:
To clarify, since intrinsic to the current economic paradigm is the necessity of obsolescence (things must break down in order to continue with cyclical consumption), a "green" economy is not a VIABLE solution to current environmental woes. This is because, even though "green," it still operates within the current framework of "market capitalism" which has more to do with waste and degradation than it does "economy."

And so, the world is very much in a state of COLLAPSE. Our economic system serves to ravage the planet in such a way that its resources are controlled by a powerful elite. The controllers of these finite resources are lustily focused on wealth accumulation and not on product sustainability. The former, unnecessary, the latter indispensable.

Here, I would recommend this article: Julian Simon, the Doomslayer

Posted on: 2015/4/16 1:40

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#73

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
You continue to write a lot of crap. It's really why I put so very little into the efforts of rebutting said crap.
Maybe when you learn to not ascribe what isn't written to someone you'll be taken more seriously. Until then, your big red nose just squeaks...

Well, sure, I can see that the only rebuttal you could come up with is "red nose".
Somehow I doubt it's due to the lack of effort.

Posted on: 2015/4/15 3:49

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey Ave man charged with using F@got over 100 times: officials

#74

Home away from home

Quote:

tern wrote:
Quote:
I believe myself a reasonable man

Boris, you are not a reasonable man, in fact you are the furthest from reasonable person I have ever encountered. Now you may disagree with my opinion, but I guarantee you, that if we took a poll here you would be voted thoroughly unreasonable.

You may really be deluded enough to think your opinions are reasonable or normal, but you will need to accept my assertion they are not, they are absolutely not. Just read through and tally the responses to your posts, does all those folks disagreeing with you not begin to give you the idea that your opinions are out of step with the majority?

Robin.

Let's review the conversation.

1. Your side claims that any reasonable man would consider the word "faggot" an insult that requires a violent reaction.

2. I object, saying that I'm a reasonable man and I wouldn't consider it an insult if someone called me that.

3. You realize that your argument about Fighting Words was based on an inherent assumption that a reasonable man must be homophobe who reacts violently to an implication that he's gay.

4. This is the moment where an adult person says something like "oops, you're right boris, I didn't think of it this way". But no, not you guys.

5. Instead, in search for a retort you go back to the pre-K: "no, you stupid".

P.S. May be I am wrong though. May be you DO believe that when someone calls you gay the only reasonable response is violence. I am not sure how many people on this forum share this interesting conviction of yours. But let me assure you that being born in Moscow I grew up in a situation where my views were out of step with majority. Doesn't scare me none.

Posted on: 2015/4/14 13:57

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#75

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, no, it certainly isn't about whether the majority think it is ok to just kick a certain segment of the population. For all of your absurd bluster that you put on these boards, and you seriously have a hankering for putting completely absurd bluster, I thought you would have understand this very basic understanding of our nation?s founding

In #52 you declared, quote - "It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate..." Why would you assume that people who defend the right of others to be bigots are bigots themselves? Well, the only logical conclusion is that it you yourself would never defend the right to have views other than yours. So, being that way yourself you can't imagine anyone else seeing it differently.
Neither Bill of Rights nor the Founding has anything to do with this.

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Again Boris - your English comprehension and paraphrasing fails...
I'm defending the rights of people - over religious org/parental abuse - and against anyone who hides behind the pretense of religious freedom to inflict their ignorance on others.

Really? And you can name a right that you are defending? You surely don't defend any rights of a religious person to not be forced to go against his faith. Please, entertain me, describe the exact right that you defend.

Let me guess, the "rights" that you defend would sound like "the right to force other people to serve me, even if they don't want to", no? And you are going to explain that you have that rights because the reason why they wanted to refuse the service was a thoughtcrime. That if someone has bad convictions, they can't use those bad thoughts to choose whom to do business with. Only the good convictions that we approve may be taken into account when doing business, correct? This is your model of rights, no?

Posted on: 2015/4/14 13:43

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey Ave man charged with using F@got over 100 times: officials

#76

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
...
dtjcview, your link is irrelevant, because there was no "fighting words" situation. It's claimed that the offender intimidated someone, not that he provoked him to a fight because that someone found accusation offensive.

Also, I think that decision by the Supreme Court is a very bad one. The logic there is that your speech is protected unless someone wants to beat you up for it - then you're on your own. That's some very weird way to see protection, isn't it?

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/strategies/sshlaw-3concepts/

It's relevant because the fighting words doctrine specifies that the words don't actually need to provoke a reaction - just that reasonable people believe that was the intent.

Tell you what. Walk around JC, call 100 people at random a "f@got" - or walk into a gay bar and do the same - then post the results here.

I believe myself a reasonable man and if someone called me "f@got" I wouldn't be offended. Like at all. Now, I understand that some people do find it offensive. E.g. in Russia where I'm from originally, the majority there is quite homophobic. So if in a Moscow street you insinuate that someone is gay, most likely he'd react with violence.

However, I don't think that our understanding of what "reasonable" person is should be based on bigots.

Second, more importantly, you missed the point. In order to be a fighting word, a reasonable person must think that it would provoke a violence not in some average bar somewhere, but in this specific situation. And that simply was not the case - in this case the target was intimidated, not triggered to fight.

Third, if you look at the original case where the doctrine was formulated, it was over a situation where some was arrested for calling another man "fascist". Now, honestly, would you be comfortable with an idea that you may be arrested and prosecuted for calling someone "fascist"? Do you want to may be look through the conversations on this forum and count how many times you have used some "fighting words"? Or did you mean that the doctrine should apply only to OTHER people, not you personally? How do you like them doctrines now?

Posted on: 2015/4/14 2:26

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#77

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate...

Which means my question is answered. If not about the majority than at least Mr. pebble and Mr. dtjcview publicly declared that they can't possibly imagine defending the rights of other people.

Oh, and about that bigotry, Mr pebble, may I yet again draw your attention to the fact that your signature line, the one that you slap on every comment of yours, objectifies women? Not just objectifies, you basically declare over and over and over again that a woman is a sex prize a "winner" man would get. How do you like them bigots?

Posted on: 2015/4/14 2:08

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#78

Home away from home

Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
i wonder if boris is really this stupid or just pretends to get responses?

if it's the latter, well trolled, sir. i truly think it's the former.

hey boomer, next time, simply writing "sarcasm off" doesn't seem to work....

I can't give you a sure way on how to make sarcastic and otherwise humorous remarks, but I can easily provide you with a rule number one: they must be factually true.

When your attempt at sarcasm shows your ignorance (not mentioning your intolerance, hate, bigotry and other beautiful qualities) you can't complain that the audience didn't get your humor.

Posted on: 2015/4/13 13:23

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#79

Home away from home

Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
i do like how you (you in particular) assumed i was talking about you (you specifically) rather than the you (people other than myself) in general.

Ah, so, when you insinuated that someone has an "abhorrent opinion" and you can call them on it, you meant not just me personally, but all the people other than you. Noted.
Your life must be hard but truly rewarding. What with having to put the whole Planet in its place.

Quote:

boomer wrote:
the government is forcing me to deny my religion but not allowing me to round up a posse to kill both of them. This passage can't be more clear.

Yeah, have you ever talked to your Rabbi about that clarity? I think not. If you did you wouldn't show your ignorance by publicly announcing that the laws of Old Testament allowed vigilante justice. If you want to ask the state to allow you religious prosecution of that case, you would need to go to the Sanhedrin with the accusation and then you'd have to bring with you witnesses, who would be under the penalty of death obligated to proclaim that they both had seen how you wife cheated on you. That they both seen each other. That they had warn her that what she's doing is a sin. That she disregarded their warnings, responded that she is going to do it anyway, and continued to cheat on you in their presence. Their testimony would be heard separately and if they differ even in a tiny itty bitty minor detail, it would be considered contradictory and wouldn't count. And then if the majority of the court says "guilty" the witnesses will be obliged to carry on the execution, not you. Not to mention that if your wife told the judges about how ignorant you are nobody would ever blame her to begin with.

With that marvelous brain of yours, care to guess how often those executions were?

Well, not too often, especially since the Sanhedrin decided that without truly righteous population it's hard to administer harsh penalties without overstepping some limits, and stopped the practice.
Not one contemporary branch of Judaism believes it is up to them to pass those kinds of judgments.

Now, since you obviously know exactly nothing about the subject, want to try something else?

P.S. Since you mentioned 1984. Do you know what a "Two Minutes Hate" is?

Posted on: 2015/4/13 4:51

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey Ave man charged with using F@got over 100 times: officials

#80

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
Calling someone a slur hundreds of timesover an extended period of time is not "pure speech." It is harassment. There is no serious First Amendment challenge here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_S ... ords_and_offensive_speech

JPHurst, I'm sorry but I am not one of the people whom you can persuade merely by repeating a statement many times over.

dtjcview, your link is irrelevant, because there was no "fighting words" situation. It's claimed that the offender intimidated someone, not that he provoked him to a fight because that someone found accusation offensive.

Also, I think that decision by the Supreme Court is a very bad one. The logic there is that your speech is protected unless someone wants to beat you up for it - then you're on your own. That's some very weird way to see protection, isn't it?

Posted on: 2015/4/13 1:04

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#81

Home away from home

Quote:

Quote:
borisp wrote:
Obama called being gay a "lifestyle choice". (That was just a couple of weeks ago, I believe during an important interview about the State Of The Union)
Am I to understand that you consider his views really offensive as well?

Obama stated that was a poor choice of words, as did his press secretary in a clarification:...

So, in other words, when Obama says it, it's not insulting, it's not offensive, it's not stupid - it just requires some clarification, that's all. I wonder why you bothered to respond, there is no person here who'd ever expect anything else.

Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Having a dividend view point is fine and dandy. You're welcome to say it and believe it. Just as I am free and welcome to call you out for your abhorrent opinions. You're perfectly within all rights to have a shitty opinion, that just makes you a terrible person. That isn't a crime.

I'm not sure what "dividend view point" means. However, if I am not mistaken, you are trying to insinuate that I have expressed some "shitty opinion" that made me a "terrible person".

Now, I wouldn't dream to deny that you are, indeed, "free and welcome" to bravely step forward and "call me out" on my "abhorrent opinions".

What puzzles me, sort of, is that somehow when you "called me out" on some "abhorrent opinions" of mine, you forgot to mention what opinion you are referring to . Now, since you are obviously a decent, brave and honest man, not some sniveling slanderer, you wouldn't mind rectifying this small omission? Would you please quote that "abhorrent opinion" of mine you denounced so bravely?

Posted on: 2015/4/12 23:53

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey Ave man charged with using F@got over 100 times: officials

#82

Home away from home

Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
So? I am getting similar explanations in some Russian forums on the web: "X was not charged because he was using the word, he was charged because he offended the office of President Putin!" Or "X was charged not for the words, but for destabilizing the country!" You guys, and I mean all of you, allways act as if you can hide what you are doing by cleverly naming it. It's always "extremism", or "offending the feelings of religious people", or "harassing and intimidating", or "spreading the offensive untruths about the Soviet Government", or whatnot.
This isn't "cleverly naming" anything man, the guy has been harassing and intimidating this person for 2 years and was starting to get physical. This isn't about your paranoid conspiracies of Obama turning the US into the Soviet Union. This is about a person being arrested for a pattern of harassment and intimidation against another person.

First, when you try to pretend that "harassment and intimidation" is not purely about speech, but it involves some "physical" component, it's a 100% false statement. As we can clearly see in the original article, "He is also charged with harassment for allegedly blocking the victim's path and stopping him". They key word there is "also". It means that there are two charges, one for the actual physical action, and one for pure speech.

Second, as I said before, you may try to call it "harassment and intimidation", but changing the name doesn't change the underlying fact that the person is being charged purely for speech that someone else found offensive.

Third, my "paranoid conspiracies" are neither here nor there. I'm not talking about something that I suspect may be happening behind the scenes or whatnot. I am telling you about the things that I observe. With my own very eyes. And with my own very eyes I see you do the same things that they do in Putin's Russia. That's all.

Posted on: 2015/4/12 18:03

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Gay Men, Moms Sue Jersey City Jewish Gay Conversion Therapists

#83

Home away from home

I have a question to clarify:

I am under the impression that the majority in this forum strongly believes that the only reason to protect someone's right to have certain views is if you share those same views. True/false?

Posted on: 2015/4/12 17:43

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey City Mayor Seeks to Limit Chain Stores Downtown

#84

Home away from home

Quote:

user1111 wrote:
I despise Duane Reade

And you can show them by not going there ever.
What is so hard about it? You don't like it - you don't shop there.

Then we know how to tell apart the shops that are liked by the population from the shops that are not liked: the former will be profitable and the latter will close.

Any attempt to force those profitable chain stores away is an attempt to impose the views of the pretentious hipster minority on the poor and lower-middle class majority that makes value-based choices.

Limo-liberal attitude in a can.

Posted on: 2015/4/12 17:08

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Getting the most out of ObamaCare

#85

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
@Boris - you're inventing stuff, attributing it to me, then arguing against it. Crazy.

Inventing?

As in - you didn't call Carepoint and "big pharma" a monopoly?

You didn't make general statement about how corporate plans are no better than obamacare based on just one fact that you liked obamacare more than your corporate insurance?

Posted on: 2015/4/9 4:09

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: U.S. Sen. Menendez - new federal investigation

#86

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I find it rather comical that it is factually pointed out that the sanctions on Russia have been working

It depends on what was the goal of the sanctions. If the goal was to make lives of the Russian people harder, than yes sure it is much harder now.

If the goal was to make Russian aggression in Ukraine stop than I am sorry to inform you that no, nothing changed.

Oh, and, just in case, the biggest blow to Russian economy was not from the sanctions, but from the huge drop in oil prices. And that blow wasn't delivered by Obama. It was the blow that was delivered by the American oil industry, fracking and all those things Obama hates so much, but just can't prohibit, since it doesn't happen on federal lands.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
...and your response is to go with ?blindly following? and ?na?ve.? Maybe in your world it isn?t possible to consider one thing positive and be negative on something else. However, I happen to live in the real world.

And in that world of yours the Russian aggression stopped, didn't it?

Posted on: 2015/4/9 4:05

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Getting the most out of ObamaCare

#87

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

@Boris - why would I bother doing a cost-benefit analysis across all corporate plans vs obamacare plans?

Are you asking me why would you bother to check the facts before you make a factual statement?

Is this a trick question?

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
I'll leave that to nutters like you who want to score political points.

Hey, if I want to score quick political points by asking my opponent a simple question if he checked the facts before making a claim - why not?

It works, doesn't it?

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
What I have done is look at my own corporate plan costs and benefits, and compared with the equivalent obamacare plans. And even without subsidies I'm pretty close to ditching the corporate plan in favor of a silver plan.

Yeah, so an honest claim in this case would be not "corporate plans are worse than obamacare", but "my corporate plan slightly worse than obamacare - for a person with my circumstances".

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
It's forced standardization of plans making comparisons easier - and it's put a spotlight on the game of greed played out between insurers, local monopoly providers like Carepoint and big pharma - which has been more to blame imo for rising costs than obamacare.

If Carepoint is a monopoly, how come I'm not using it?
And when you say "big pharma", do you realize that this is not a name of one company who owns all pharmaceutical industry?

Also, could you remind me what was the promise about the costs that Obama made? How much was it going to save us per family?

Posted on: 2015/4/8 13:33

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: U.S. Sen. Menendez - new federal investigation

#88

Home away from home

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
You're joking, right? Obama's foreign policy moves with Russia have worked?? Turn off msnbc, jeez.

Yes. The empirical data has demonstrated that it has. Russia has been backing down on Ukraine even if their rhetoric isn't. Also, you already know I don't have MSNBC on...

So, their rhethoric isn't. Their troops aren't. What is?
How exactly are they "backing down"?

P.S. By the way, if not MSNBC than what are you watching or reading? Where do you get your information from?

Posted on: 2015/4/8 13:21

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Jersey Ave man charged with using F@got over 100 times: officials

#89

Home away from home

Quote:

caj11 wrote:

I dunno man, there are daily flights on Aeroflot to Moscow out of JFK if you want to head back.

That was a so called "rhetorical question". It didn't require an answer.

And, just in case, the point of that question was that I don't want the Soviet Union to follow me here. Why would I want to go back to the place where at least 70% of the population are perfectly in sync with your thoughts on lynching?

Posted on: 2015/4/7 4:40

Topic | Forum

borisp

Re: Getting the most out of ObamaCare

#90

Home away from home

Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:
dtjcview wrote:

1. Re-read what I posted and draw your own inferences.
2. Re-read the date on the link and draw your own inferences.

Not getting drawn into your nit-picking agenda.

No, sorry, doesn't work this way. When you say "X is worse then Y for poor people" there is no way to logically deduce what are the criteria that you use for comparison. And there is no way to know if you talk of the present time or of the recent past - especially since comparing corporate insurances as they became now is not very honest, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, I simply asked you to clarify what statements you were making.
If clarity is not something that you want, so be it.

Boris - most people have no trouble inferring:
1. Cost given a silver plan baseline assumption for comparison. And "probably worse" isn't necessarily worse.
2. 2014 given that was the date on the corporate stats I posted.
My main point was corporate plans are far from being platinum - not whether obamacare sucks - which is what you are attempting to argue.

I prefer not to publish my inferences.

For example I suspected that you did no cost/benefit analysis, and the word "worse" meant only "more expensive". I suspected that even that "cost" analysis you didn't base on facts, but it was just a guess. Finally, I suspected that when you claimed that corporate plans are no better than obamcare - you, in fact, meant "corporate plans as they became after oabamacare took it''s toll on them"

I inferred it all quite correctly, but I didn't want to claim it without proof.
Now that you confirmed it all, well, that's that.

Posted on: 2015/4/7 4:33

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 24 »