score09 wrote:
No, devilsadvocate, my claim (which I think is Marxian in nature) is that the ?local loser? wouldn?t be a loser were it not for a capitalistic (turned neo liberal capitalistic) economic system. This isn?t the prosperous America of post World War II. It is a new America rooted in an extreme brand of laissez-faire economics in which ?losers short on cash? have NO shot. Any assault on the ?local loser? is misplaced since neo liberal capitalist policies are more deserving of said assault and are responsible for the deepened societal malaise that began with Reagan and Thatcher. Maybe we wouldn?t be having this discussion if we took care of our people, many of whom are veterans like the guy who was baked to death a few weeks ago in a NYC jail cell after he was arrested for trying to keep warm in a stairwell. I mean, look at the stats! America has a higher rate of infant mortality, drug abuse, alcoholism, suicide, domestic abuse, teen pregnancy, mental illness and incarcerates more people than ALL other industrialized countries governed with a more balanced view. Now why might that be?

The ?local loser?? There?s a cat who panhandles on Newark and Coles almost everyday and night. The guy looks like he?s 70 years old (which means he?s probably only 60.) He is unassuming and not at all aggressive. Sometimes, I fish out some loose change for him and sometimes I don?t. But seriously, who is going to hire this guy? How is he supposed to get a foothold? What truly efficacious services are there for individuals like him? Why are so many homeless? You think that maybe capitalism has something to do with it?


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Let me get this straight. Your claim is that because economic elites have more sway than the local loser always short on cash, this implies that all political speech by marginalized portions of society are good no matter how completely stupid they are? I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there. Most really horrible national political movements start by whipping up marginalized fools into supporting really stupid ideas.

Therefore, I'm going to absolutely tell idiots that they're being idiots and should shut up for the good of humanity. And aggressive panhandlers are absolutely awful. They aren't hated because they're poor. They're hated because they harass other people in the hopes that they can parasitically leach their money. Plenty of poor people don't do this. In fact, most don't. But if those that do are fined and/or spend some time in jail then I will happily vote for whatever politician was smart enough to sign that into law.

score09 wrote:
Glad we are in agreement. Now, let's incite not just the homeless, but the entire country. Nutjob that I am. Violence is mandatory when attempting to wrest the oppressors from their ill gotten wealth.

And yes, it IS "ill gotten." Not through any "hard work," or "discipline" nonsense. To borrow from a thirty plus year old Pink Floyd tune:

"I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack.
Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet."

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I agree that the top .1% write the rules, control everything, and our state of politics is deplorable.

score09 wrote:
Well, I looked at the flyer today and managed without the slightest degree of difficulty to comprehend fully that the rally is set for today, March 26th, 2014. Moreover, whoever created the flyer took the time to distribute its message by making the rounds and posting it for the community to see. You think we live in a democracy? That economic elites have no sway in political matters? Were this passed, it most certainly WOULD make it a crime to be poor since it aims to target the poor. This type of grassroots effort -- however misguided and ?idiotic? you THINK it is -- ought to be LAUDED. Not to be met with cynicism, derision and disdain.

So, to characterize the flyer as ?dumb? based on a typographical error that a fourth grader could easily deduce and by disparaging the time and effort vested to rise up and challenge the status quo is really quite smart. Not.

As to the ?dumb? ideas underlying the proposed ordinance, I?ll agree that it makes little sense to impose monetary fines upon the homeless. This much I?ll give you. But only from a humanitarian stance and not a pragmatic one.


Quote:

caj11 wrote:

Let's just say... dumb on both sides.

This proposed law is just dumb, because enforcement would be impossible and how in the hell would a $1250 fine ever be collected from an alleged violator?

Furthermore, this flyer is dumb too, because Jersey City doesn't make any appropriations for defense spending and/or the war in Iraq (or anywhere else). Nor can it be said that the city makes it a "crime to be poor".

I would love to see whatever circus this council meeting turns into. Two sets of idiots duking it out.

Oh, and according to this flyer, the protest was planned and happened a year ago, on a Tuesday (March 26, 2013???).

JPhurst wrote:
This has been put on hold.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... .html#incart_river_hudson

Vigilante wrote:
Glad they let the dog live.

JC_rider wrote:
Hey Cartman,

We wanna ban south park too. I kid I kid... I like Kenny.

I can't comment about other "ban" issues but I personally don't like rotor noise coming from NYC helos which can be heard as far as the JC City Hall sometimes. It is also a major potential safety issue when one of these helos crash almost every 2 years. Since we don't get a dime from NYC on profits but all noise it is logical to ban or push them over to NY side of Hudson. Wait till summer when there will be 60 flights per hour.

JC_rider wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
http://youtu.be/yfiAPc2b1qw

A news helicopter crashed near the Space Needle in Seattle, Wash. on March 18, 2014.

Two people were killed and another injured this morning when a helicopter crashed in Seattle just feet away from the iconic Space Needle.

The helicopter was a news chopper owned by ABC News affiliate KOMO.

The chopper crashed moments after lift-off and quickly became engulfed in flames, killing two and sending a third victim to the hospital in critical condition, according to the Seattle Fire Department.

Two cars were also on fire when firefighters arrived to douse the flames.

Plumes of smoke quickly filled the skies near Space Needle shortly shortly the crash.

Please help us avoid such a crash happening here. Visit http://www.stopthechopnynj.org/ and

https://www.facebook.com/StopNycTouris ... rsOverNjSideOfHudsonRiver for more info.

Please sign the petition below:

https://www.change.org/petitions/stop- ... -nj-hudson-river-corridor

sepecat wrote:
Musk tapped into the Apple fanboys and he thinks he can do what he wants. As a consumer I want to be able to save money and I can only save money if there is competition. I'm not a fan of Christie, but this is the right call.

VanVorster wrote:
If you are all as educated as you profess to be, I think you can do a better job at staying on topic, being constructive and insightful on your posts and not being incendiary (Tenet #5 on Message Forum), derailing the conversation on making it a referendum on affirmative action, not making it personally about (I'm white and I was once mugged so know how Zimmerman must have felt that night) and to really open and challenge your minds (e.g., I personally don't see any racism or how this is a race issue, so therefore can't be a factor) Query who made you the sole arbiter to determine?

1. For those who say "well no one is mentioning that Zimmerman is latino or Hispanic, not white" Since when are Hispanics/Latinos impervious to racism. Latin America was colonized under the aegis of white supremacy as well. Go to Panama, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador, Cuba, etc. The white skinned Hispanics are on the higher end of the totem pole and the darker skinned Hispanics at the bottom. Even Peru where Zimmerman's mother is from has an informal policy that only blacks serve as pallbearers at funerals. And in the story about her, she's professed that it's important for families to marry white for betterment and looks down on blacks. So why is it illogical that Zimmerman, his brother George, couldn't conceivably be racist or dislike black people from being imbued with attitudes from their parents? I also think you have a narrow definition of racist behavior. For you from what I've read it seemingly has to mean something insidious like saying the N word and be a card carrying member of the KKK and not more everyday subtle behaviors or attitudes. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10 ... ed-Dream-Defenders-ACTION

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07 ... -lima-peru_n_3623028.html

2. If we're going to impeach Trayvon's past, then we have to the same with Zimmerman. He was known to have a propensity for lashing out and anger management issues before the fateful night with Trayvon. Much of his records were suppressed because his dad was a judge. If Zimmerman felt cajones to assault a law enforcement officer, why wouldn't he easily feel the same compunction toward a kid who he felt had no right to be there and be the provocateur?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03 ... -sentence-Anger-Managemet

http://rollingout.com/culture/george- ... e-has-3-closed-arrests/#_

3. Devils you ask why some middle to upper middle class blacks subscribe to this critical race theory, it's because in life experience we see things that you DO NOT see nor will ever see. And as to the comment about dressing well. Most of our middle class parents dressed us very well (ie preppy) to prevent us from encountering racism but I assure you that does not inoculate you either. Some of things are very very subtle and other very overt. Parallels can be drawn to sexism and homophobia, where men and heterosexuals can be readily oblivious to things that women and LGBT can easily discern from life experience.

4. Remember be constructive in feedback, not mean-spirited as it makes you seem ugly and common.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
You lost me at internal combustion engines need tune ups every 5,000 miles, lol. Really?

Yes, really.

An electric car doesn't need oil changes, it doesn't need filters changed, it doesn't need emissions checks, you don't have to flush the fuel system, it doesn't have timing belts, and so forth. The software updates, which don't require a shop, address lots of problems.

A 5,000 mile tune-up is routine for cars that have internal combustion engines. Electric cars need them every 12,000 - 15,000 miles, and require a lot less maintenance at those intervals.

http://www.wired.com/business/2014/03 ... -end-oil-changes-forever/

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/10 ... st-none-required-actually

And no, you cannot drive a Ford F150 for 100,000 without ever needing a tune up. Do you even own a car? Do you really expect anyone to believe that a truck will run just fine for 100k miles without a single tune up, a single oil change, a single filter changed, a single belt replaced?

Stephanie wrote:
We had a Mitsubishi Mr. Slim installed 10 years ago and have no complaints. Bob, from Ultra Air installed it. (973) 450-1141.

dojan wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Seems so many of those people want to emphasize that Martin was black, but none of them emphasize that Zimmerman was latino.

When liberals promote race-based discrimination in education they never mention Asians, as if Asians are the majority, or non-existent. How convenient.

de blasio wants to do that to NYC's gifted program, and in California they want to apply that to UC admission:

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/loc ... ction-sca5-249985511.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDGuiJRZa4I

bodhipooh wrote:
Really?! So your attitude is that people should do whatever they want without the requisite permits? What if they are making serious work and burst a gas line? Or, maybe they are doing electrical work and cause an electrical fire. Yes, it IS their property, but given the density around this area, any such "mishap" can have SERIOUS consequences for neighbors.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Changing the present system could endanger the 35,000 employees who work for NJ auto dealers at present-to benefit a BILLIONAIRE who wants to sell his $70,000 plus automobiles to 1%ers-on what planet does that make sense?

Many others in this thread have thoroughly explained it to you. But since you either are trolling or have your head in the sand, you are not worth taking seriously.

You're living in a land of rainbows and puppies if you think that real manufacturers (you know, the ones that have sold more than the 700 cars Tesla has in NJ since the beginning) won't jump all over this.

Carving out deals for special interest groups-sounds like a critique that Democrats accuse Republicans of, no? But doing it for a green car maker-let's jump right on it!

Monroe wrote:
Trayvon's high school had a policy of not turning kids in to the police for crimes committed on campus-otherwise he would have been arrested for being found with over a dozen pieces of stolen women's jewelry and a burglary tool in his bag, or when he defaced school property with graffiti-so the thought that white kids would get a pass for a similar crime isn't applicable in this case. Of course, all the photos that were suppressed of him making gang signs, or the picture of him with a gun on the counter next to him, were also not admissible in the trial either.

President Obama trying to sway the case by his grandstanding comment still didn't result in a conviction, which shows you how the facts still led to a dismissal of the charge in spite of it.

VanVorster wrote:
I grew up in middle to upper middle class burbs and know full well that we were not policed in the same manner as kids in inner cities are. I was one of the good kids so it's irrelevant. Anyway, it's well documented that suburban middle to upper middle class kids (especially white ones) are not scrutinized like kids of color (color being associated with caste but as society progresses, SOME of us are becoming enlightened). And of course there are historical antecedents as to why there is more crime in urban areas (the vestiges of jim crow which went up to the 60s, lack of jobs, disinvestment from the areas where blacks and latinos lived, white flight, young teens who were ill-equipped to have kids and continued in such a cycle, guns, drugs, vice in said communities as an underground economy). I didn't mention the historical reasons because it goes without saying and didn't think I had to do the paint by numbers scenario for you. Go to any derelict white suburb or prairie heartland town in the midwest where jobs are scarce and there's been disinvestment, you'll find white kids on meth or heroin doing delinquent things as well (see Rutland Vermont, NY Times article), you're just focusing on the locale where you did your externship. I seriously hope you're not in the judicial court system (prosecutor or otherwise) as you're a ignominious blight to the legal profession.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/release ... /03/black-boys-older.aspx

VanVorster wrote:
No they are not the same, those kids were menacing Goetz and Trayvon was minding his own business and didn't know who Zimmerman was. Be sloppy in making parallels. I am not going to take Zimmerman's version as truth just because he says that's what happened (he can say anything with there being no witnesses and his character is questionable given his past). And black and latino kids are disproportionately punished and suspended at a higher rate than for the same infractions committed by white kids (who often get warnings, rehab, lectures, my white friends have told me this and I've seen it, note the affluenza kid who ran over people and the white teen who accidentally killed his stepson and said on a jailhouse call "I'm a 16 year old blond, all I need to do is go before the judge and cry and I'll get off") That is incontrovertible fact, so yes you're going to see more kids of color in the juvenile system, especially for selling drugs. And you don't know me in the least so refrain from telling me how I feel and what I think. I am professional and dress conservatively but that is no defense from people making assumptions. You are myopic and clueless on many facets of life, one of them being race. The incident I was referring to is when I was coming home from my gym (in gym clothes) and an elderly white woman who was visiting someone clutched her pocketbook on the elevator. And I've been followed in one store in my neighborhood (which I won't name) and I've never shoplifted in my life. My other professional black friends have experienced the same and we don't go there.

VanVorster wrote:
He was wearing khakis and tennis shoes. Yeah serious gangbanger clothing. http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-ms ... rtins-dead-body-753370712

VanVorster wrote:
Nice way to hijack and derail the thread by conflating Trayvon with Bernard Goetz and the Asbury Park incident and implying somehow that Trayvon deserved what he got. And if you've read my previous posts, I said we cannot tolerate or condone violent crime and people should be punished accordingly (non-violent offenses is another matter and no, I don't think people should be written off where we spend more money on keeping people in jail). Implicit bias is quite real (and can have detrimental consequences) as I've experienced the subtext in the course of my life being black.

"in the Zimmerman trial, prosecutors abrogated their responsibility to argue the issue to the jury. They didn't even object to offensive racial stereotypes raised by the defense in that trial. Zimmerman's defense team called a young white woman to testify about two African-American burglars who'd robbed her six months before Trayvon Martin was shot. The prosecution should have leapt to their feet, objecting to the outrageous association of burglars with Trayvon Martin, who had no connection to them whatsoever. The defense called Trayvon Martin a "match" to the burglars, with skin color the basis for the match. Demonizing Trayvon Martin based on thieves with whom he shared nothing but blackness is the very definition of racism, but no one said so in the courtroom, not even the prosecutors whose job it was to advocate for the shooting victim.

In addition, Zimmerman had called the police about other suspicious people in his neighborhood multiple times in the six months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting. All those recorded calls admitted into evidence -- 100 percent -- were about African Americans. Corey's team never argued this obvious racial profiling to the jury. As a result, the Zimmerman jurors who spoke to the press, just like the Dunn jurors, stated proudly that the case was not "about" race. One Zimmerman juror, known only as Maddy, said she noticed the racial profiling in Zimmerman's police calls but ignored it because she'd been told race was not part of the case."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bl ... cid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Should this not be explored, right here in NJ? Two thug teens kill a church going, union welder? I'd say this is even more outrageous than the Martin/Zimmerman case.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/ ... html#incart_river_default

It is a very good thing that man didn't have a gun to defend himself with. And if he shot those poor misunderstood kids he should have gone to prison. In any event, as it stands events don't bother VV, and she will undoubtedly suggest that if we want to reduce incidents like these that we should spend more money on those kids, because the real culprit here is inequality. People shouldn't protect themselves at all, they should have a DIALOGUE across communities.

Ah, yes... kind of like, Bernie Goetz shouldn't have shot those four guys coming after him with screwdrivers, he should have said something like, "Young man, crime isn't the answer, let me give you directions to a food pantry". Of course!

Monroe wrote:
Should this not be explored, right here in NJ? Two thug teens kill a church going, union welder? I'd say this is even more outrageous than the Martin/Zimmerman case.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/ ... html#incart_river_default

VanVorster wrote:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... /pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
I'm not sure if the anti-CC folks have more impressive arguments than have been used on this thread. But from what I can tell they have three types of arguments:

1. Fear-mongering hyperbole - We don't want New Jersey to turn into the "Wild West!" People will be shooting at each other in the streets over petty disagreements!

This is demonstrably false as shown by the numerous studies finding that enacting CC laws either reduces violent crime or has no discernible effect.

For an example, see this link: "Lott listed 18 studies that found [CC] laws reduced violent crime, ten that said it has no discernible effect and one that found it increased violent crime."

"The debate has been between those who say that it reduces crime and those who say it has no effect," he noted. ?Very few debates are divided that way.?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f ... 54-580638ede391_blog.html

This is not a valid set of statistics. The issue is not whether ?violent crime? rises or falls. The issue is over gun related incidents in public.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
2. Anecdotal evidence - Look at this legal gun owner in Florida or Alabama who improperly shot someone! This never would have happened without CC! Clearly the risk of harm to all of society is too great because of these isolated incidents, we cannot allow CC.

Again, while the anecdotes themselves are correct, the intended inference (see #1) is not. The studies are largely in agreement that allowing CC does not allow violent crime to rise.

As mentioned by my response to number 1, the guy that accidentally shoots a passenger in his pickup (a link I provided earlier) isn?t classified as a ?violent crime?. The weapon was discharged accidentally.

Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
3. Name calling/I feel safe without a gun so that means no one should have the option! - These are essentially the same argument, the first is just an immature way of expressing it. The person thinks it is "unnecessary" for themselves to carry a gun so this means no one else in the state should be able to have the option.

This is essentially an extreme nanny state type argument. We know that allowing CC will not cause the violent crime rate to be raised. Maybe some people subconsciously disregard this or are unaware and think along the lines of guns = danger so more guns on the street = more danger. But this has been proven to be false.

I think part of this argument is simply people wanting to impose their personal beliefs and preferences onto everyone else. But legislation should not work that way, especially when a Constitutional freedom is involved.

Also, it is arrogant and closed-minded to assume your set of experiences can represent all possible scenarios one can face, and because you personally never feel in any danger when outside that means no one has this right. For example, the man who is appealing his court case to the Supreme Court (why this thread was created) is a business owner who owns and services ATMs. He told the Star Ledger he sometimes carries large amounts of cash and he wants to carry a gun during his work for protection. I think this person should be able to have the option to protect himself and it is simply ridiculous that the government will not allow it (but would if he were a retired cop).

For these reasons, I think the anti CC folks are on the wrong side of history and this will be proven in the near to intermediate future.

I don?t disagree with the confusion over why an ex-police officer can carry a gun while a guy that handles money on a daily basis cannot.

I also never argued that it should be illegal because only cowards would be running out to get conceal-carry permits. I merely pointed out that it is those that will be doing such. I make no pretense that this will dissuade anyone. I find the psychology behind it interesting.

No argument has ever been ?I?m safe you should be too!? I?ve asked the pointed question about how people have been unable to live this long with a gun. How is it possible that all of these people that absolutely need a CCW have been able to live, breathe and walk through the streets of where they live without it?

As noted in a video I linked earlier? a gun as an offensive weapon. Its purpose is to strike and render dead the target. If the user is hindered prior to its use, the weapon is useless. If a person is assaulted and struck on the street, say the knockout game, a gun will provide no defense. The attack occurred and the perpetrators are gone well before a gun could be pulled out. If someone walks up and sticks a gun in your face or the face of a loved one, will pulling out a gun immediately calm the situation or increase the stress levels?

Ultimately, it is a show of force. It is the psychological backbone provided to the weak.

Quote:

Monroe wrote:
It's interesting to me that people who use the argument of being on the wrong side of history re:gay marriage, and use the argument of 'don't want gay marriage? don't marry someone gay' seem to feel exactly 180 degrees when it comes to concealed carry using the same points.

It is always great to read a complete hatchet job of a point getting made?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
This is the tower of Babel, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying with inane comments like this and devoid of perspective and nuance. "He was too white for your tastes" ... In no way did I say that and I don't even know what that means. His brother passes for white (when I said constructively white added with their dad and surname) and it's no secret that the family doesn't like black people per the article which is really about families absorbing anti-black views -- an intrinsic facet of this country since its inception. And nice race baiting on your part (he's not lily white but Hispanic for affirmative action purposes and job applications). When you lament the deplorable state of race relations in this country, do realize you're part of the problem. http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california ... tles-berkeley-prof-blasts

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14 ... itics_how_politicians_use

Oh, Democracy Now, now that's a reputable organization that presents issues in an unbiased forum. Aren't they the same idiots who are constantly touting Mumia Abu Jamal's innocence? Mumia had more evidence against him than O.J. Simpson and thankfully is in prison where he belongs.

In any case, you previously mentioned that George Zimmerman could "at least be made penniless in a civil trial". Trayvon Martin's parents already settled with the homeowners' association for a reported $1 million.

Furthermore, Zimmerman is already relying on others to pay his own attorneys and I doubt has much to sue for anyway. On top of that, even if Zimmerman owns his home, Florida laws would prevent him from losing it in a civil suit (O.J. Simpson moved to Florida for that very reason during the civil trial).

This lawyer reminds me of Ron Kuby, the guy who filed a lawsuit against Bernie Goetz for his shooting of Darrell Cabey and won a $40 million judgment against him, despite Bernie being found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense in the ciminal trial. How much of that judgment has been collected since it was decided in 1996? Exactly zero. Bernie already spent everything on his own lawyers by the time the lawsuit was over. Darrell got nothing, Bernie ended up with nothing, but Ron Kuby got plenty of free publicity for his law practice and still enjoys a "celebrity lawyer" status today. I cringe every time I see him on TV or hear him on the radio.

This is the same crap that Mr. Crump is pulling because he knows full well a civil suit against Zimmerman is a waste of time and court resources.

WRONG! This is about Justice! To say anything otherwise makes you a racist devil! I won't listen! (and yes, in VanVorster's last post he said those who don't want Zimmerman in jail are "devils")

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Nothing wrong with a dog barking to alert their owner that a homeless person is trespassing. I had a similar run-in with a homeless guy sleeping in front of my house. I politely directed him to St Lucy's - never saw him again. My dog didn't bark, nor act aggressive - it didn't need to, nor would I have let it. Most homeless/panhandlers/nutcases/drunks just seem to avoid dogs like the plague. And people tend to act more civil and keep their hostility in check when a pooch is watching. Not the greatest of reasons to adopt one as a pet, but it's a bonus.

Nothing wrong with that scenario. It's your property. It's your dog. On the hand his post about bringing an angry, lunging, barking dog to someone's house to confront someone sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. It also brings up images of this:

You seem to be taking my lighthearted post entirely too seriously. Why so serious?

Because the idea of frightening a mentally ill person with a vicious dog doesn't strike me as funny? Yeah, maybe that's it.

Well, the real life solution is to obviously call the police and have them take them away in cuffs. A sad reality (at least for the homeless guy).

Given that, scaring them off with a barking dog doesn't seem so horrible. So I think it is a great topic for an amusing concept of offering this as a service. Anyone with half a brain would see why no one is really going to do that unless it is their dog and their building.

Anyway, lighten up.

Why didn't I catch the lighthearted humor in your post? Uh, maybe because you showed up here like a derecho, headed strait for the most controversial threads and started browbeating lesser humans with your clearly superior intelligence while racking up a whopping 90+ posts in 10 days. I guess it didn't occur to me what a mischievous scamp you can be.

Now that I think about it... Vicious dogs... The homeless... Hilarious!

VanVorster wrote:
JCMan you say Devilsadvocate using lynching was inflammatory but then you back pedal and equivocate and say "well I sort of get his point." The fact is Zimmerman is alive and well and most recently a cause celebre at a gun show in Orlando and selling his trifling art. Yes, there were angry people (not a large segment) upset spouting nonsense about his death but nothing has happened to him and people were rightfully angry -- there were no riots after the Martin trial as predicted or any melees after Renisha McBride, Jonathan Farrell or Jordan Davis. You like Devils are devoid of empathy and any understanding and it's quite pathetic and sad and a sad commentary on your humanity or lack thereof. Devils brought up Zimmerman being Hispanic (and threw in Affirmative Action for good measure as a dog whistle) ostensibly to switch from the traditional black/white paradigm and that as a Hispanic he would have shot a white person too. I said that other racial groups (Hispanics, Asians, etc) can emulate and absorb the inherent racist anti-black views in this country (sounds like his mother certainly did); and moreover, that George's brother (Robert) could conceivably identify as white/constructively white and not have any affinity with being a minority in this country or particularly empathizing with black people.

http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvo ... -of-blackness-in-america/

VanVorster wrote:
I am not a socialist but rather believe in capitalism WITH some regulation/oversight. Not your Ayn Rand version of the market will take care of everything and we've had social engineering in this country since its inception -- albeit just for white people (affluent straight white men in particular). I don't think progressives advocate a socialist agenda but rather a limit to the yawning chasm between the haves and have nots which has been exacerbated over the last 3 decades. To illustrate, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... ty-in-america-chart-graph

And as I said earlier, this does not absolve those in the inner city who make poor choices or believe a life of crime is the answer. They will and must face repercussions. There is personal accountability but I don't think everyone who lives there should be written off as a lost cause -- I actually think Fulop's anti-recidivism program of prisoner reentry is a good idea. And it's all about resources/access. I grew up in a nice suburb because both of my parents worked and I went to very nice schools. Had my parents not moved to where I grew up, I think my life would have been totally different. We have de facto segregation, not de jure and it's based on income.

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Br6dR wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Nothing wrong with a dog barking to alert their owner that a homeless person is trespassing. I had a similar run-in with a homeless guy sleeping in front of my house. I politely directed him to St Lucy's - never saw him again. My dog didn't bark, nor act aggressive - it didn't need to, nor would I have let it. Most homeless/panhandlers/nutcases/drunks just seem to avoid dogs like the plague. And people tend to act more civil and keep their hostility in check when a pooch is watching. Not the greatest of reasons to adopt one as a pet, but it's a bonus.

Nothing wrong with that scenario. It's your property. It's your dog. On the hand his post about bringing an angry, lunging, barking dog to someone's house to confront someone sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. It also brings up images of this:

You seem to be taking my lighthearted post entirely too seriously. Why so serious?

Because the idea of frightening a mentally ill person with a vicious dog doesn't strike me as funny? Yeah, maybe that's it.

VanVorster wrote:
How is constructively white (i.e. passing) offensive or remotely equivalent to saying Zimmerman is being lynched? You never heard of the term "passing" or saw actual lynching photos in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)

Sounds like you both need better education on the history of this country. http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/i ... erty_law_center_says.html

Adhere to No 5. in the Rules (be polite, on topic and CONSTRUCTIVE with the content of your posts).