Greenvillechick wrote:
I really dont side with criminals and "thugs", but I live side by side with what you perceive to be those types of people (black, white puerto-rican), I get to know them, I see it, No I am not a bad person... I don't partake in these activities, I don't even smoke weed 9which im sure some of you do). I work full-time, pay my rent on time, and generally mind my business. It's hard to make a observation or statement about someone unless you truely know them and that goes for both sides. I never said he shouldn't have been punished, I am saying he should not have been murdered. I think some of the comments are sterotypical of the black community and it bothers me that people still are on that type of mind-set. After all this is a forum, it's a place for people to communicate, I am not arguing simply stating my opinion, I do read all the posts, I take into consideration everyones words, I listen, I digest and then I form my opinion. If I feel I am wrong or you have made a valid point, I am not beneath myself to admit it, I also do not name call, call you stupid or an idiot because you do not agree with me, not everyone is going to agree with everyone, after all that's pretty boring. My thing is, some people have never been exposed to a world outside their own... I have been on both sides of the fence, I grew up in an all-white upperclass neighborhood, moved to the South Bronx, Paterson and then finally JC... I prefer living in a city compared to the suburbs, but that's me.

That was also to clear up the posts about me being a thug lover I guess....

NewHeights wrote:
All I know is Jersey City has one less scumbag to worry about.

wakelawyer wrote:
Quote:

Greenvillechick wrote:
Well..... there you have it. Everyone wants to jump on the "dirtbag" and I can't believe you compared this person to Hitler who murdered THOUSANDS...

and my credibility is lost?
Give me a break

I hope that you are joking with this comment. The piece of evidence that is supposed to exonerate this upstanding youth is that his good friend who is sitting in the front passenger seat with his hands out the window (and presumably looking towards the front passenger bumper - try looking in another direction while your hands are out the window) saw his friend offer up the drugs in his possession but did not reach for the gun that all admit was at least visible to the officers.

Not only was it dark, not only was he looking in a different direction, but if he were to somehow look back, the headrest, seat and pillars would obstruct his view.

This doesn't seem to be an unbiased witness desiring to tell the truth but, rather, someone trying to get the community up in arms for no reason, presumably for a piece of the potential flow of cash that follows once activists appear and litigation begins.

Greenvillechick wrote:
Well..... there you have it. Everyone wants to jump on the "dirtbag" and I can't believe you compared this person to Hitler who murdered THOUSANDS...

and my credibility is lost?
Give me a break

NewHeights wrote:
Greenville Chick the reason we have these problems is because people like you keep making excuses for these "DIRTBAGS".

In my opinion you lost all credibilty on this board. I really have to question what company you keep.

If you have relatives and friends that behave like this you should distance yourself or you'll be caught up in it before you know it.

If my cousin, brother, uncle, father etc were involved in this lifestyle my family would cut him off rather than make excuses.

thats probably part of the reason not one of my relatives has ever spent a single night in jail. We make fun of these dirtbags you defend.

Go on liveleak or youtube and you'll see countless police stops where the arrested resists and the police use great restraint.

Trust me when I tell you this.STOP THE EXCUSES. These dirtbags are the problem not the cops.

Amen,new heights, what a blatant attempt to make it seem as though that mercedes was occupied by a bunch of nuns at 1:40am????

I can't get over the amount of people out there willing to stick up for the "scum" of the earth and piss all over those who wish to maintain a civil existance in society.

I wonder what the reaction would be if we were talking about that cop had he not reacted in time ans was the reciepient of that DirtBag's bullet??? Huhm???

Talk about people who have it Ass backwards.....

CK

.

Greenvillechick wrote:
"dirtbag"

regardless of his past infractions, this is someones brother, son, father even....

if my son was involved in some sh*t regardless of what he did, im not going to be like oh "glad, that dirtbag" is gone, put yourself in their shoes, imagine your brother, or father, or whomever... who made a bad decision in their lives.

Further more, I dont believe the story.... I don't care about hate posts.. it is what it is. 7 times out of 10 the cops are bigger "dirtbags" then those who they arrest.

JC_Man wrote:
Bravo!!

This is the way it should be - let the police be the judge, jury and executioner - stop wasting the taxpayers' dollars on public defenders, jails, appeals, etc.

NewHeights wrote:
Great Job NJPD! Keep up the good work. Its obvious they used the utmost restraint otherwise they would have lit up all four passengers.

One less dirtbag to waste our tax dollars on.

alb wrote:
Quote:

JerseyCityNj wrote:
Officials: Cop reacts when gun is pulled

Collazo said she witnessed one man on the ground being kicked by officers, and paramedics trying to revive the shooting victim before taking him away.

"It was terrible," Collazo said. "I didn't get to sleep last night. It makes you paranoid."

My initial reaction to the story was, "Yah! The police got a bad guy!!! Good job!!!"

Then I read this part and suddenly wondered whether the part in the story about a suspect pulling the gun was true.

I understand that the police officers involved in this stop must have been freaked out, and it seems likely that the guys in the car were dreadful, but what is the point of a kicking a guy who is already on the ground? How does that contribute to restraining him?

If the police officers really kicked a guy who was already on the ground, and it turns out that the guy on ground was already restrained, that act of brutality would undermine everything the officers say about anything else that happened around the time of the arrest.

If the officers are so poorly trained and/or disciplined that they kick one suspect in broad daylight, in front of civilians, how can I trust them to give an honest explanation of why they used deadly force against another suspect?

And I recognize that these officers were freaked out and that, if I were in their place, I might do worse things. I don't necessarily want anyone throwing the book at those particular freaked out officers, but I think that, if this report is correct and I'm understanding it accurately, the JCPD needs to do a better job of training the officers.

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

Trubrit wrote:
Palin is like Teflon. The more they attack her, the more sympathy she gets. She's way more interesting and news worthy. Equally as eloquent as Obama

Eloquent? She's an idiot. You like her because she's a right wing nut like Bush. You want your kook in there. That's all that matters to you.

JCase wrote:
Quote:

He does not have a severance agreement if he loses his job, but if he were terminated without cause, Mr. Fuld could expect to collect a $16 million pension and $5.6 million in deferred compensation.

I know I'm being naive here, but if you lead a firm into bankruptcy, how can your termination be without cause?

SLyng wrote:
Chances are they get taken down tomorrow or over the weekend. I see that firm-wide they employ almost 26,000 people and I think they have their back-office located in Jersey City. Anyone know for sure?

In any case there's a story going around by the Wall Street Journal that Bank of America is in talks to buy them. If that happens there'll be a fair amount of overlap between those two organizations. Not good news for the job situation in NYC/Jersey City.

elvis wrote:
No worries Chief. I think in November Obama will claim VICTORY!

chiefdahill wrote:
If the Dems lose I'm leaving the country for good.

5dollars4eachofu wrote:
Is it Italian owned?

VanVorster wrote:
The inference was merely drawn based on how crazy and shrill your current and previous posts sound (i.e., the perceptible anger, irascible temperament and hand-wringing suggests that your wealth may not be enough rather than being more calm and staid in your delivery which would conceivably suggest it's a non-issue-- money; the inflated tenor is almost akin to CK just without the atrocious spelling and Archie Bunker mentality). Glad to hear I was wrong and that you can stay with us rather than trekking to Alaska. Bienvenue!

But don't you think a 95.5% tax cut for families with children is beneficial too or did you miss that one?

VanVorster wrote:
Gee, thanks for the compliment: left wing, liberal and pro-Kucinich and glad to see that you're able to use a dictionary with the syllables stressed no less. Impressive. In any event, as Chuck aptly states, a society is measured by how they value their worst off members so perhaps your blinded in your overzealous idolatry and support of Bush policies because you are already in the top 1%, dream/plan to be so one day down the line (great article by David Brooks on this, see if you can look that up to as you're apparently adept with the dictionary, about how people vote their aspirations, not where they actually are . . . erroneously believing they will be living all 90210 Gossip Girl one day with all the spoils that lifestyle entails) or you've been indoctrinated and brainwashed in zombie fashion in spouting all the Fox hyperbolic buzz words to make your blood boil at the prospect of curtailing untold wealth and trickle down economics: death taxes, Cuba, Commie, pinko, socialist, North Korea!!! Oh, so scary. In any event, this is how it breaks down and I personally prefer a tax cut for 81% of all households.

EXCERPT ON REALITY CHECK NY TIMES

This drastically simplifies what the candidates' tax plans would do. Mr. McCain would preserve all of the Bush tax cuts, while Mr. Obama would let them expire for those making more than $250,000 a year. Mr. McCain would also double the child tax exemption to $7,000 and reduce business taxes. Mr. Obama would reduce income taxes and provide credits for people earning less than $250,000 a year. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while Mr. McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Mr. Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under Mr. McCain.

VanVorster wrote:
incontrovertible idiot.

VanVorster wrote:
SLyng, drinks on me whenever you're free. Sal On The Hill once said, it's like talking to a brick wall at times.

SLyng wrote:
Quote:

Trubrit wrote:
Based upon the documentary, his sole practical experience is asbestos abatement in an urban project.

I believe everything I see on TV too...

Try doing some of your own research, you might learn something.

Trubrit wrote:
Based upon the documentary, his sole practical experience is asbestos abatement in an urban project.

Talk is cheap. He can talk about a lot of things. I think he gets paid by the word.

He also voted present on 129 bills without offering an opinion. Will he be so non commital when Putin is rolling his tanks onto US soil? When there is a conflict - Obama is going to be like Neville Chamberlain in black face.

hero69 wrote:
I'm not sure of McCain's achievements other than that this guy really knows how to lie and flip flop, and can't seem to find a way to stop wasting $10 billion a month in Iraq.

VanVorster wrote:
Quote:

CANKICKER wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
I disagree. Read about the Bradley Effect. People usually check themselves or are more inhibited in public but not when there's the cloak of privacy (a voting booth) or anonymity -- the crazy posts on here bear that out. CK, take this in the spirit in which it's meant, must you always resort to the lowest common denominator? It's like you're Bill O'Reilly on steroids and coke.

I guess oppossing what you think makes one "The Lowest common denominator" ????

Fact remains, I'm just stating what most people have allready stated and think about your guy.

Thats fine, your in your rights to diss-agree , thats what makes the US a great place.

CK

To summarily dismiss Barack's stellar accomplishments and imply that he's unqualified or incompetent by using the signifier of affirmative action IS the lowest common denominator when you have McCain stating that economics is not his forte at all and a neophyte governor who hasn't demonstrated that she's up to handle this task (aside from a pitbull speech written for her in which viewers like yourself could vicariously channel your own frustrations, lingering resentments and insecurities), has no credible international/foreign policy experience and was merely chosen to solidify the ranks of rabid social conservatives. And please refrain from distorting the facts, as I've broken it down for you in the past many times, I was for Kucinich or the Green Party, because while I liked BHO, I thought he was too much a centrist in order to have mass appeal and thus negated the notion of true change. So he's "my guy" by default and practicality as McCain is the status quo of the last 8 years and one temperamental guy.

VanVorster wrote:
I disagree. Read about the Bradley Effect. People usually check themselves or are more inhibited in public but not when there's the cloak of privacy (a voting booth) or anonymity -- the crazy posts on here bear that out. CK, take this in the spirit in which it's meant, must you always resort to the lowest common denominator? It's like you're Bill O'Reilly on steroids and coke.

VanVorster wrote:
Westmoreland calls Obama ?uppity'
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 09/04/08 03:07 PM [ET]
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

"Just from what little I?ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word ?uppity,? Westmoreland said, ?Uppity, yeah.?

Other Democrats have charged that the Republican campaign to paint the Illinois senator as an ?elitist? is racially charged, and accused them of using code words for ?uppity? without using the word itself.

In August, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) told reporters, ?When I hear the word ?elitist? linked with Barack Obama, to me, that is a code word for 'uppity.' I find it extremely offensive and John McCain should know better.?

Political consultant David Gergen, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic White Houses, said on ABC?s "This Week" that ?As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'He's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a Southern background.?

The Obama campaign, asked about the quote, did not note any racial context.

?Sounds like Rep. Westmoreland should be careful throwing stones from his candidate's eight glass houses,? said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Campaigning against the first black major-party nominee has already created some problems for Republicans.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name ? Hussein ? is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."

At an April 12 event in his district, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said of Obama: ?I?m going to tell you something: That boy?s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.?

Davis sent a letter of apology to Obama in which he described his remark as a ?poor choice of words.?

Westmoreland originally supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. He now supports McCain, but missed an August fundraiser for the nominee because he was vacationing with his family.

JCLAW wrote:
http://www.nj.com/opinion/ledger/edit ... 20502918246120.xml&coll=1

From Today's Star Ledger:

Quote:

Hold Healy accountable
Thursday, September 04, 2008

Jersey City Mayor Jerra miah Healy should be held to the same standard im posed on Newark Councilwoman Dana Rone. Rone was removed from office because in December 2006 she intervened when Rutgers-Newark University police stopped her nephew for a traffic violation.

She told the officers she was a councilwoman and even said she'd call "the real cops," a threat she delivered on.

For her antics, she was convicted on a disorderly persons charge -- a relatively minor offense -- but one significant enough to prompt Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow to seek Rone's removal from office.

The punishment was harsh -- but one we found hard to argue against given the language in the statute requiring public officials to forfeit their offices for misconduct that touches on their jobs.

At the time, Rone's defenders said she was being unfairly singled out and pointed to Hea ly's situation. In the summer of 2006, a few months before Rone's altercation, Healy was arrested by Bradley Beach police when he tried to intervene in a quarrel outside a Shore bar owned by his sister. Witnesses said Healy was drunk. The mayor was pepper-sprayed, handcuffed and arrested.

Healy supporters and, more important, Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio insisted Healy's case was different from Rone's because he never mentioned that he was mayor of Jersey City and never sought special treatment.

Now, according to the Jersey Journal, quoting police testi mony before a grand jury that indicted Healy on charges of resisting arrest and obstructing the administration of law, the mayor was quite vocal about who he was.

"I'm the mayor of Jersey City. I was a judge. I was a lawyer. I am a good personal friend with your chief (Lenny Guida). Call the chief and let's get this rectified without any charges. For the good of your town, for the good of your department, for the good of my city, we need to resolve this without charges. Can you sweep this under the rug?"

Healy denies he made these statements, telling the Jersey Journal they are "completely untrue."

This should be sorted out through the same kind of legal process that Rone faced.

In Rone's case, the prosecutor pursued forfeiture, relying on statements captured by video. In Healy's case, the prosecutor has taken a hands-off approach. It is former assemblyman Louis Manzo, who may run against Healy, who has been pushing the issue. While Manzo's motives may be political, it's clear the Healy case needs further scrutiny.

Who seriously thinks Ed DeFazio, who is as much an HCDO cog as any of the rest of them, is going to prosecute his own patron, Jerry Healy? So what if it was exactly the same crime that Rone committed in Newark and for which she was removed from office. In Jersey City, da Mayor is da law.

JoyOfSound wrote:
hello,

my female friend who just moved into my building called me and told me she was assaulted by two men at journal square.

she said one asked her for a cigarette, as she was walking past the payphone/plaza area. she gave one a cigarette, and then walked away to continue home. the other one yelled at something to her, like "why you so rude?", and demanded another cigarette.

i think she was scared they may follow her, so she went to give the other guy a cigarette, and then they grabbed her arms and tried to walk her away. she was telling them to let go of her, and they were not letting go. she was very scared, and able to break free, and ran the 3 blocks home from the square.

she asked me if this sort of thing happens a lot around here, and i told her that was the very first time i have heard of anything like that. i told her that she should call the police, and at least notify them that two strange guys are grabbing women in the fountain area of JSQ. she felt maybe she was being paranoid, but we both agreed that a line has been crossed when someone GRABS your arm forcibly and won't let go.

i told her to call the non-emergency line and report the incident. i hope she follows through.

but, we both wondered, what would the cops do, if anything at all?

they really need to have a stronger police presence at JSQ at night. i don't think people feel safe walking through there.

she said the two men looked shabby and homeless. she said one looked like a really bad drag queen (no joke). she said, he wasn't looking glammed up....just like a weird gross cross dresser. she said the other one looked cracked out and scary.

just a warning to you all....

Amy wrote:
The last time we had a Democrat in the White House, we had relative peace and prosperity and a budget surplus. Our biggest problem was Monica Lewinsky. Big deal.

Let's say, policy-wise:
Clinton ----> Obama
Bush Jr.------> McCain

Was the country better under Clinton or GWB?

Cankicker, what would you like to see in a president?

SLyng wrote:
Quote:

CANKICKER wrote:

Empty Suit.....

I'm begining to see how you ended up with 1,000 posts...