2DogDoll wrote:
Global warming is a fraud. Climate change is something that is supposed to happen. Nature is about change not stability. Global temperatures have been going up and down since time began. Besides, humans contribute only .28% of total atmospheric carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. 95% of all greenhouse gases are produced by water vapor (given that most of the planet is covered by water, it makes sense.) And if you recall your biology classes, plants use carbon dioxide to grow and in growing, produce oxygen, something we all need to survive. Look at it this way: the more carbon dioxide, the bigger the plants. Bigger plants = more food. Food is a good thing. So is oxygen.

You want sources for “climate change” as opposed to global warming? Look at the sun and the lack of sunspots for the past two years creating a global cooling. Want proof? Just look at the temperatures around the country and around the world. They are getting colder, not warmer. Not convinced? Look at the volcanos erupting under the oceans. They are getting more active and spewing tons of greenhouse gasses into the air. So much more than the carbon footprint produced by a dog, cat, or human for that matter.

You want to talk about real carbon footprints, look at the horrible wars we are engaged in. The Pentagon and the wars we are fighting create bigger carbon footprints than that produced by most developing nations. What are the carbon emissions from one fighter jet? One tank? Artillery?

With all this in play you focus on a dog’s carbon footprint??

Politicians seek to gain wealth and power and authority by taking something that occurs naturally, transforming it and promoting it as a crisis, and then selling the population a solution in exchange for higher taxes and increased authority over their lives. Al (B)ore is the world’s first “carbon” billionaire. Doesn't that tell you something? Stop being so gullable.

I agree with Vigilante…if there is a choice between you and my dog ….. you will most definitely loose.

Crazy_Chester wrote:

And were you as critical when Corzine expanded sales taxes a couple of years ago?

scooter wrote:
Quote:

obama's near socialist robin hood economic policy will be a disaster for the middle/upper middle class and the economy right now

and this nutty stuff just makes me crazy- this country started skewing to the right about 30 years ago, starting with Reagan (Nixon would be wa-hay too far left for the Republicans of today...) - and nobody's taken it on the chin more than the middle class during the transfer of wealth to the top .5% - check some census data.

sigh. with posts like that, maybe we get what we deserve.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

NewHeights wrote:
McCain wins is a landslide.

Or Not.

tqwert2 wrote:
Latest polls are showing Ron Paul losing badly in the Republican primary for his House seat that's going to be held in a few weeks. How hilarious would that be!

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

we have allowed the politicians to believe that they are the ones in control, that is why you have the democratic congress(who was elected to fix Bush's mistakes) is allowing a lame duck president to still get his policies through congress.

Bush can still veto everything the Democratic congress passes, and the Democratic Congress doesn't have enough votes to override a veto, so until there is a Democratic president with a Democratic congress, there is little "change" that can happen. Meanwhile, Bush had a Republican congress for 6 years to rubber stamp his agenda, which perhaps explains why our nation is fubar right now.

psychobilly999 wrote:
I voted for her! She actually has experience with international politics and has experience in the whit house. Remember she spent 8 years as presi...er first lady. While I like and respect Obama, I simply do not think he would make a strong candidate for President. That's just my opinion and not to say that anyone who voted differently is an iddiot.

alb wrote:
Quote:

Solaka wrote:
It's a shame that a great quality for a leader, the ability to inspire and move millions for a greater good, is being used against him. That people are saying, 'well he's a good speaker, but. . .

I think those of us who are moderate to progressive know that Obama has reasonable views.

The problem is that, to me, at times, they way he speaks starts to sound sort of arrogant. He seems to think that if we close our eyes, wish hard and click our heels together three times, our problems will go away and we'll change things and have a bright future.

Hillary doesn't really say how she'd accomplish anything she says she wants to get done in the White House. The good thing, though, is that at least she admits that the job will be hard. She has a clue that being president is kind of like voluntarily walking into a jet engine turbine.

Also: When I look back to 1992, I think Bill Clinton was a lot better at telling us voters that we, too, sucked rocks and that we would have to be willing to make sacrifices to help make things better. Then he didn't really make us sacrifice anything, but at least he didn't pander to us by telling us how evil the politicians were and how great us voters were.

I think that's a fundamental problem with Paul. Certainly, I think he's right, or at least holds an interesting, reasonable opinion, about many specific policy points, but the problem is that he seems to let us voters off the hook.

Example: look at Jersey City. It's pretty small. Steve Fulop is doing a lot of good, and just a little bit of organized voter support would probably help him a lot, but what are we voters really doing for him? If we voters were better citizens, Fulop could get more done, and maybe even the other members of the city council would be better members of the city council. (And no, I'm not doing anything myself, and I have specific reasons not to be, so I have met the enemy and the enemy is partly me.)

historyrules wrote:

injcsince81 wrote:
On another board, JCMAN320 wrote:


>>I was there and the city wound up agreeing to the settlement 6-2 once council person absent to avoid fines and fees. The world class architect will be David Childs. and it will a 60 story tower with 1,250 units for artists and affordable housing at the base with a caberet and huge gallery space at 111 first street and it would blend in with the industrial feel and the tower would be condos. At 110 will be a 20 story tower with a sculpture garden and restaurant over looking it.<<

I love it. It's better than a battered and dilapidated warehouse full of "artists".

David Childs (if it happens) can put JC on the map architecturally speaking; the "artists" (from what I've seen of their "art"), won't.

alb wrote:
Quote:

AlanSommerman wrote:
okay, I'll bite - why is this a terrible time to start a tower project?

- The adjustable rate mortgage crisis of 2007 could cause some big headaches for anyone trying to sell any new real estate in 2007 and 2008.

- There are tons of other towers around Newport, Paulus Hook, Harsimus Cove and Hoboken with "for rent" or "for sale" signs up.

- You can't walk down a block in brownstone land downtown without tripping over an open house sign.

- I think the Hudson Reporter's huge open house listing section is a sign that real estate agents are having to work a lot harder to sell homes of any kind around here.

dogseat wrote:
1. Jersey City - Trying to be as cool as Williamsburg since 2004

OR

2.

alb wrote:
Quote:

Justiceiro wrote:
When I live up North, I always vote republican because the Democrats here are basically communists and/or race baiters with zero ability to think about economic theory...

Er.... Corzine, for all his apparent faults as governor, sort of ran the economy.

Pisces1979 wrote:
Oh yeah, what about senior housing? According to this times article Senior housing is the hot new market.

"Hot Niche in the Rental Market: Housing for the Elderly"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/rea ... /commercial/15senior.html

They are quiet, won't burden the school system, and they are less likely to drive.

Maybe you could make the developer turn this development into senior only housing?

alb wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Fair nuff, the rise in dues has been absurd. We are not nearly as well heeled as some of the Hobokeners and it hurts us too, though dues are actually $1200 and the "volunteering" is something like picking up the donuts for an event, only a few hours a year really. ...

I've heard of congregations that actually scale it according to income and require a financial disclosure from all. Pretty intrusive, but fairer. Thoughts?

USH must have lowered dues since the last time I looked at the form. $1,200 isn't that bad, but I think that $1,900 was absurdly high for people who don't have jobs on Wall Street or $500,000 in home equity to draw on.

I think that my parents' synagogue in the Midwest has a committee that uses a process similar to the student aid determination process to set dues. It seems to me that a better approach would be to start with a member's paystub, subtract housing and daycare/private school costs, then figure out some percentage of that.

Of course, this is an example of how expensive bad public schools really are. If the public schools downtown were better, many families would have $10,000 to $20,000 in extra cash each year that they could use to support local churches and synagogues.