skepticalhook wrote:
See, I knew you've been drinking the Obama Kool-aid. It was a test. A TEST! Only someone drinking it would correct me. In any event-it wasn't a fake AF one-it was one of the many true AF ones.

I think it was stupid-par for the course for this administration. But I don't think that multiple state and federal dept's lied about receiving an advanced memo.

So please Brian_em-dont do anything drastic. Tell us where you are. Help is on the way.

Xerxes wrote:
I most emphatically DO NOT believe the preposterous cover story that it was a "photo-op." Something went on that we will not be told about.

After all, NOBODY could actually be stupid enough to order this kind of behavior for some photos. NOBODY, not even the Air Force brass much less the office of the president.

I would be interesting to hear a recording of the transmissions between the jet and "Air Force 1."

I guarantee this will not quickly go away.

stepanstas wrote:
In a way, it's his plane, if someone took your car, don't you want to know what they are doing with it?

teacher wrote:
I think all illegals should be given some help, and that should be from their family members, back in their mother country. Kick out the anti-American mid-Easterns first.

coop wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 said:
Also, has anyone noticed that the comcast cable will sometimes turn the television into rainbow colors? At first I thought it was the television but the DVD, xBox and VGA streams were normal. Usually changing the channel will correct the color problems.

This has been happening to me recently. My wife and I thought the TV was going (an old CRT TV). But no, just Comcast. Might have to go to FIOS, especially now that they have the $150 rebate offer.

designknob wrote:
Morton Williams IS Shop-Rite. Go and look at the "generic" brands... they are ALL Shop Rite. Walk a few blocks to 6th street, deal with some lines and you'll get all the same stuff, and 5 times the selection for about 30% cheaper. Morton Williams is a complete scam.

regulator wrote:

JoyOfSound wrote:
this is really terrible news...

not sure if this belongs in this thread, but thought it was worth mentioning.

last summer, while at a red light, a Hummer made a right turn and drove straight into me.

I flagged an officer down, who filled out the report, but REFUSED to address the fact that the driver was STINKING DRUNK. I'm talking about bleary eyes, beer breath, wobbly, the works! The guy even told me he drank a 6-pack.

The cops were INSISTENT that the man wasn't drunk, and their attitude was a way of telling me not to push the issue.

Why would JC's cops ALLOW for a drunk driver to get back into the truck and go home?

My only guess is that it was the end of their shift and they didn't want the extra work...

KeyboardJockey wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
There is at least 2 people who knew that Abreu was drunk; his partner and the person selling the beers.

I hope the families of both victims sue both and if they can establish that JCPD knew of Abreu drinking problem or there is any history of drinking, sue the JCPD as well if they didn't provide any rehab for him.

Accountability rules.

Why the bartender? He didn't know Abreu was going to get into a car and drive drunk. What ever happened to personal responsibility? He was just doing his job providing beer and collecting money.

Abreu himself and his bastard partner alone decided to get drunk, drive, and kill someone.

With that logic, FAB, Macy's should be sued because they sold someone a set of knives which were later used in a murder.

sullyx wrote:
ate there 2 sundays ago for the first time in months and yeah, it wasn't so hot. had to ask the server to bring 2 sets of silverwear for myself and friend had to go to the bar to place order since they couldn't be bothered to come to the tables

BigBoi wrote:
I was so excited when I first saw that thread. Thanks ever so much for raising my hopes only to, inevitably, dash them- leaving me feeling more hollow and enervated than ever before, if such a thing were indeed possible.
At first glance, I thought that there was some sort of requirement for gang members to kill 35 year old women. This would be perfect, I thought- my owner, manmouth, is exactly that age, and has very much deserves death. You don?t believe me? Perhaps I am too harsh? Observe what I am wearing. Moreover, observe that I am wearing anything at all. I am a dog. Clearly I didn?t dress myself in this sweater.

The person who has done this to me, manmouth, must pay for her crimes. The karmic wheel, however, moves very slowly when you a fur bearing quadruped wrapped in a dolly sweater whilst locked into an apartment constantly heated at a temperature somewhere between Lom Pok and hell. So I very much was interested in moving the process forward a bit. I don?t care if my complicity earns me reincarnation as a bug. Look at me? What could be worse than this?

I?ve tried to take care of this myself, but the one chew toy that hag bought me three years ago (before the crazy took hold real tight and I transformed from a dog to her couture wearing BFF sole confidant) is far too soft to make an effective bludgeon. I know, I?ve tried.

I simply had to maneuver manmouth into a position where she would be bound to encounter one of these swarms of youths looking to join a gang. I have heard they are swarthy and tend to wear white T-Shirts. Excellent, I thought, ever since El Guapes, her capoeira instructor fled back to Brazil or Paraguay or Tom?s River or wherever he was actually from to avoid her incessant voice mails and midnight stalkings replete with stringed gourd instrument, Manmouth has been drawn to Strong Latin types dressed in silly white clothes. Match, meet gasoline.

I managed to wriggle out a half-nailed shut cat door left by the previous tenants and ran immediately to the places mentioned by Tom. It?s a long way from Hamilton Park to Journal square. Particularly when you are dressed in a sweater and are chased by packs of dogs intent on using you the way that Mr. Guapes used manmouth. Except that she?s anatomically equipped for that, mostly. Fortunately greenvillechick?s dog made a rare appearance, and I managed to hide under a bush while the bloodhoundgang had their wicked way with him.

Christ, even Dachshunds laugh at me. Why God? Why have you made me with these stubby legs and lack of thumbs, and then allowed the malevolent forces of a cruel world to stuff me into this goddamned cardigan? Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?

It was the same story every place I went. No one was dead in Journal Square, no hordes of white T-shirted delinquents on Armstrong. Although, near city hall, I did see a drunken and disheveled man in Shirt tails staggering around near Majestic, but that was just the Mayor. No news there. I would breathlessly pant my way back to the computer to find out where the virulent swarm was, and then find my way there to be, yet again, disappointed. The leitmotif of my life. After all this I discover that it was all lies, from the very beginning. All these agents of destruction, holding forth the possibility of sweet release from the torment of my ?master?, like a cunningly dangled snausage, snatched away at the last moment, all was for naught. All is bitterness, and the taste of life has turned to ashes in my mouth. Or perhaps that?s wool. I don?t know. I just don?t know.

sinik wrote:
Quote:

super_furry wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

super_furry wrote:
Quote:

injcsince81 wrote:
Evolution gave pitbulls their massive jaws, their massive heads, and their massive chests for a reason...

Selective breeding, not evolution. Jeesh!

Exactly! ...Selectively bred to kill other dogs in "pit" fights, and to be used as guard dogs.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull :

Pit Bulls - or dogs that appear to be Pit Bulls - make up a large portion of the population living in shelters across the United States, and may be put down due to the stigma associated with the various Pit Bull breeds (or because of overcrowding).

However, because Pit Bulls have been selectively bred over time to be non-aggressive towards humans, they make excellent family pets who are friendly, loyal, and intelligent. In fact, in England the breed is often referred to as the "nanny" dog because of their predisposition to love people, especially children. Some Pit Bulls may show aggression towards other dogs. Often, aggression in dogs towards other canines stems from insecurity or fear. With diligent training and a committed handler, the dog may overcome this aggressive behaviour.

It is the HUMANS that misuse their pets, not the dogs that are to blame. Place the responsibility where it belongs.

Well I lived in England for a bunch of years and I don't ever remember Pit Bulls being called anything other than Pit Bulls.
And as a matter of FACT, according to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act Pit Bulls are identified as one of four breeds of dogs including their crossbreeds that must be kept muzzled and leashed at all times in public. Obviously that legislation did not come about because of Pit Bulls reputation for loving people and children so please make sure you check all the facts before you post misleading information like that again.

CatsnDogs wrote:
I have read this before and take issue with it because it is based on press accounts and it covers 24 years of probable inaccurate reporting by the media.

Actually Merritt Clifton is an intelligent though extreme animal rights activist who I believe is not advocating for domesticated animals, particularly Pitbulls, similiarly to the HSUS. The HSUS would like to see the domesticated pet dog die out.



Quote:

Loopy wrote:
From "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada
September 1982 to November 13, 2006" by Merritt Clifton.

(Breed: total attacks doing bodily harm, attacks resulting in death)

Pit bull terrier: 1110, 104
Rottweiler: 409, 58
Wolf hybrid: 71, 18
German shepherd: 63, 17

Stereotypes frequently have a kernel of truth. Whatever the reason, and I agree it is undoubtedly bad dog owners, Pit bulls are responsible for twice as many attacks causing bodily harm, and attacks resulting in death, than the next highest breed. Apropos of nothing, a Jack Russell also killed someone in an attack (one of two reported). Link to the full study. Oh, and Mr. Clifton is not an anti-dog nut, he's the editor of Animal People newspaper and an advocate of animal welfare worldwide.

jennymayla wrote:
Quote:

Robocub wrote:
If anyone has any experience form the following other Downtown Vets, I'd appreciate. I don't have a car so I'm looking for something cab-ible.

Downtown Veterinary Associates‎
282 1st St, Jersey City

Vet Center‎
115 Christopher Columbus Dr, Jersey City

Hoboken Animal Hospital
640 Washington St, Hoboken

I'm a big fan of Downtown Vet Associates. I can't speak for any sort of price comparison, since I have only used them since moving to JC, my dog has had a couple of rough years and the doctors and the vet techs have always treated us with kindness and patience. I especially recommend Dr Krimins.

As for Hoboken Animal Hospital, we went there for an emergency late night visit once earlier this year and it was sort of a disaster. Doctor didn't have an ounce of doggie bedside manner and they ran a million tests that ended up yielding nothing more than a huge bill and a dubious diagnosis (which was later proven false).

sinik wrote:
Are gay couples and married straight people segregated in the same way that whites and blacks once were? I don't think so. Do gay un-married couples and straight un-married couples have any significant differences in rights that you could compare to the differences in the way that whites and blacks used to live in the '50s and '60s? If you try to argue that there are, I am sure there are some more votes that you will lose the next time a vote on the issue is held.

It's not me you need to convince.

sinik wrote:
. . . One approach might be to articulate why equal rights is not enough and why any resolution must include the word "marriage".

NewHeights wrote:
the more and more I read this thread the more I think this mathias guy has ill intentions. This case should be dropped.

Loopy wrote:
Quote:

JC_Man wrote:
"Is anyone else troubled by our govenor's recent position on this issue?"



Boy, you got that backwards. It's only a "moral" issue for Bible-thumping rednecks other species of conservative "Christians." It is a civil rights issue and your take on referenda (in addition to being a classic case of argumentum ad populum) displays a serious misunderstanding of one of the primary reasons this country's founders rejected direct democracy in favor of a representative republic: the tyranny of the majority over the weak minority. Read Mill, you angry little man.

So 6,775,560 of voters in California are "Bible-thumping rednecks other speciec of conservative christians." Because Obama won by millions of votes. "Rednecks" don't vote democrat.

I am not taking a stand on this either way, but this vote clearly shows that it is not just Republicans that are against gay marriage.

JC_Man wrote:
"Is anyone else troubled by our govenor's recent position on this issue?"

NO!!!

It's a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. Stop already - the people of California spoke (voted), they didn't want gay marriage. The issue is OVER. People will complain the tactics that were used (e.g., the Mormon Church), but that's what every side resorts to and nothing illegal was done. When you lose an election/referendum, you can't cry and stomp your feet just because it didn't turn out the way that you wanted it to.

The economy is headed for the toilet and this what government has to worry about??? New Jersey has many and much more urgent issues than this - if this is at the top of your list, then move or go to Mass. and get married there - NO ONE is stopping you from doing that!!!

Spamaholic wrote:
Quote:

Police say more cash, a semiautomatic handgun and money laundering equipment were found inside homes connected to the men.

What exactly is "money laundering equipment"? Were they actually washing the bills??

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Xerxes wrote:
Quote:

near Grand Central Terminal, on the East Side. The extension would provide New Jersey commuters with a one-seat ride to the part of Manhattan where a majority of jobs are located.

I dispute that the majority of Manhattan jobs are anywhere NEAR Grand Central!

I dispute your knowledge of Manhattan's office market.