Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
41 user(s) are online (14 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 41

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (HCResident)




Re: Fulop: Trump’s proposed budget would cost Jersey City $9.6M in HUD funding
#1
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Hmmm so Trump gains $183 million in taxpayer money for the necessary expense of keeping Melania away from him and we get....budget cuts that don't even total that obscene amount and cuts tons of funding from people who aren't millionaires and actually need it?

Get some self esteem Monroe- even you should realize you deserve better than this.


Give me a break, do you want to break down every cost for every POTUS and their families? Right now, Obama is sunning himself on a private island in Tahiti-for a month-with Secret Service protection-an island with one hotel, where rooms start at $2K a night. Michelle is god knows where getting protection, as are both kids, one in DC and the other in NY.

How much is that costing us? Obama just signed a $60 million dollar book deal, and we're paying for SS protection at each of his three US residences to boot-should he kick some cash in?

And Obama's policies DOUBLED OUR FREAKING NATIONAL DEBT, and you're obsessed with the First Lady and child getting protection? If you can't get a grip, go buy one.


http://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-preside ... ama-doubled-national-debt

Posted on: 3/18 14:26
Top


Re: Jersey City mayor-elect orders end to citywide reval
#2
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop smeared Brian O'Reilly's reputation accusing him of rigging the process. During the court proceedings, city workers said Brian O' Reilly was not part of the process. Now there is someone who is part of the process. O'Donnell receives contracts from the city, is on the team to pick the company and then chooses a company from his building. Ironically, we are still spending city money going after the reval company picked under Healy.


Where in the article does it equivocally state that O'Donnell is connected to the Reval company?

I'm not defending the current administration. If there is a connection, there is a connection. But Michael Yun insinuating that there might be a connection is not the same as proof that there is one.

So do you have information the rest of us don't?

Posted on: 2016/9/16 14:51
Top


Re: The Draper
#3
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Is The Draper for sale?

This extremely confusing Trulia listing suggests that you can buy the location and the liquor license for $550k. Then again, they also have it listed as a condo...

$550k also seems super cheap given some of the discussions on other threads about how much it costs to obtain a new one in this town and how much Guillo's wants for his...


I was walking down York St. in the last couple of weeks and saw a sign on the street about the restaurant/liquor license for sale. It seemed to be for Lisbon Restaurant.

I can't say that's certain, but it's certainly how it appeared to me.

Posted on: 2016/5/10 22:27
Top


Re: Abbey's Pub & Grill faces uncertain future
#4
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
"The only reason Yvonne is even posting this is because Abbey is trying to make this out to be a Fulop thing"
I guess, you missed this. It is the reason I made my comments.


I remember it from when I wrote it. I can't make sense of your comment about the sky and potholes, but that's ok. Do you think Fulop has something to do with the situation?


I am not clairvoyant, I do not know.


So what was the purpose of posting it in the first place? Do you truly care about Abby's Pub?

The problem is that you are always complaining about something the mayor has or hasn't done. And you choose to post this video, where some guy is criticizing the mayor.

I'm not clairvoyant either, but if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Posted on: 2015/2/27 22:58
Top


Re: Carrino Provisions
#5
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I've been in a couple of times now and, although I am pleased with it overall, I wish they were a bit more of a modern and upscale version of Andrea Salumeria up on Central Avenue.

I love Andrea's. I love the whole old world feel of it, and all of the different things to choose from (the fresh mozzarella knots are to die for).

And although I realize it's impossible to recreate the feel of a business that has probably been around forever, Carrino Provisions could very well emulate the very best aspects of it.

I wish them luck, and I will likely shop there on occasion, but for my taste, the selection is a bit too sparse; meaning there is not enough there to keep me coming back on a regular basis.

That's just my two cents though.

Posted on: 2015/2/8 16:29
Top


Re: High-rise development at Metro Plaza (Shoprite, BJs, Pepboys)
#6
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


OMG...calm down people. As I said in a previous post, I was at the presentation the developers did for PADNA. The developers want a grocery store to be part of the overall development. They even went as far as saying they plan on working with Shoprite to keep them there.

Their plan is to include a space large enough for Shoprite (or some other grocer, if Shoprite doesn't wish to stay) in one of the earlier stages of the development. As I also said in the afore mentioned previous post, parking is included in these new buildings, thus there would likely be parking for the grocery store, but in a structure vs. a parking lot. It's probably going to be a lot like Morton's in Newport.

It's not "all or nothing". The city is very likely moving in the direction of having less need for an automobile, but it's not going to happen overnight. For all that JC has changed, we are still in our relative infancy of our renaissance. And for now, at least, I would guess developments will still be planned more weighted towards life as it currently is, and little by little, things will shift more towards a NYC model as space becomes more of a premium, and demographics change.

Barring something catastrophic, or if the economy tanks again sometime soon, change is coming, like it or not, relatively soon. It's starting downtown, and to some extent Journal Square, and it will gradually expand outward.

Posted on: 2015/2/8 16:14
Top


Re: High-rise development at Metro Plaza (Shoprite, BJs, Pepboys)
#7
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


OMG...calm down people. As I said in a previous post, I as at the presentation the developers did for PADNA. the developers want a grocery store to be part of the overall development. They even went as far as saying they plan on working with Shoprite to keep them there.

Their plan is to include a space large enough for Shoprite (or some other grocer, if Shoprite doesn't wish to stay) in one of the earlier stages of the development. As I also said in the afore mentioned previous post, parking is included in these new buildings, thus there would likely be parking for the grocery store, but in a structure vs. a parking lot. It's probably going to be a lot like Morton's in Newport.

It's not "all or nothing". The city is very likely moving in the direction of having less need for an automobile, but it's not going to happen overnight. For all that JC has changed, we are still in our relative infancy of our renaissance. And for now, at least, I would guess developments will still be planned more weighted towards life as it currently is, and little by little, things will shift more towards a NYC model as space becomes more of a premium, and demographics change.

Barring something catastrophic, or if the economy tanks again sometime soon, change is coming, like it or not, relatively soon. It's starting downtown, and to zone extent Journal Square, it it will gradually expand.

Posted on: 2015/2/8 16:13
Top


Re: High-rise development at Metro Plaza (Shoprite, BJs, Pepboys)
#8
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Thank goodness there is no parking incorporated into the proposed master plan - it would destroy any effort in re-urbanizing the area.

I'm actually surprised at the positioning of "preservation of Shoprite" as some sort of victory - a large scale market in the development would be almost necessary, yes, but doesn't the area deserve higher quality than SR? I'm not a huge hater of ShopRite, but if we're revamping that whole plot of land, can't we shoot for a higher caliber market?

All in all, the proposed plan seems pretty solid though.


Who said there is no parking in this plan? I was at the public presentation given by the developers, and I'm pretty sure all (or the majority) of these buildings have parking in them. It's just that the parking structures have to be concealed so that the buildings don't look like the typical JC towers sprouting from a parking deck. It's sort of the 225 Grand model, where the parking is built in and behind the facade.

Posted on: 2015/2/6 0:08
Top


Re: Massive Edgewater fire
#9
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Wasn't this the same complex that was completely destroyed by fire while it was still under construction? If so, that was also a raging inferno.

Posted on: 2015/1/21 23:56
Top


Re: anybody else noticing an influx of parking tix?
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


I'm perfectly fine with it (and yes, we have a car.) I'm tired of watching my neighbors park in front of the fire hydrant in front of our house. I know parking is tough, but safety comes first. I'm with fat-ass-bike, driving is a privilege, not a right.

Posted on: 2014/12/21 17:40
Top


Re: Jersey City restarting process to select ambulance provider
#11
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I think Fulop saw the writing on the wall, while it is hard to do some people was talking recall, which is embarrassing if you are running for governor.


Yvonne,

This is a real question for you, not flame throwing.

What is it, if anything, Mayor Fulop can do that would please you?

It always seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario with you when it comes to this mayor. Had he rammed the first proposal through, last year, which he probably could have done since his team overwhelmingly controls the City Council, you would have screamed bloody murder. And then when he stops, because the citizenry balked, and he listens to them, then he's doing it strictly for political reasons.

Don't we want someone who reacts to the will of the people? Isn't that what representative government is all about?

It's the same with the Greenville Yards situation. He made a proposal, everyone hated it, he backed down. What is so bad about that?

I see all of these things, like the Ambulance Provider and the Greenville Yards proposals as ways of bringing more money into the city coffers, or at least save some money, without having to go back to the taxpayers again and again. Some of them work, some of them don't. And in two very large instances, the mayor has ultimately done what the people of Jersey City wanted.

Just to be clear. I don't have a problem with disagreeing with the mayor or anyone else in the political arena on some issues. I completely disagree with Mayor Fulop's stance on canceling the Revaluation. Being that I live in a newer building, without a PILOT, I'm taxed at a higher rate than a lot of my neighbors who own much more square footage that I do. I think that's unfair. They get the benefit of higher property values and lower taxes when they sell. That's a form of welfare as far as I'm concerned. So I think his decision is wrong on this instance.

But you seem to disagree with everything. It's one constant gripe after the next.

So really, back to my original question. What is it that this mayor can do, or does do that pleases you? Anything?

Beuller Beuller?

Posted on: 2014/11/6 18:07
Top


Re: The Merchant - closing?
#12
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Frinjc wrote:
So sad to have them close! I heard Park and Sixth got the lease/property...?


I also heard this...and my source is pretty good.

Posted on: 2014/10/26 23:13
Top


Re: Parking in front of a Hydrant
#13
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Why don't you call the parking authority or the police non emergency number. They don't make you give you information.


Posted on: 2014/10/18 9:31
Top


Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
#14
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Goldjason wrote:



After hearing details of the meeting courtesy of the individual who attended the meeting I cannot be amused at this quote by an earlier quote

" I can't speak to all of the specifics, but HPHA did not bless this one. Whomever told you that is ill informed"

Let the record speak for itself !
Amen !


"


I'm not sure where you got your information, but it's not right.

I used to live in Paulus Hook, and served on the board of the HPHA, and I spoke to a current board member and confirmed that they did, indeed, endorse this.

Posted on: 2014/10/12 11:33
Top


Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris
#15
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Maise wrote:
Was anyone able to make it to the meeting?



I went, but it wasn't the actual council meeting, it was the caucus they hold before each meeting. The actual council meeting is tonight at 6:30.

Also, from what I gathered, there was some issue with the original ordinance and the plan is to table it and introduce a first reading of a new version. It all seemed to fall around some technicality, because when the council members asked why they couldn't just vote no on the original, the city clerk told them they would have to wait on a later date to do so.

Posted on: 2014/9/23 9:21
Top


Re: Connect PATH to 6 train, or $4 billion MALL?
#16
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

ahal wrote:
I think by 'connect,' people meant that there would be an underground connection between the two systems, that you could walk across. Not that the rail systems would be integrated with each other.

something akin to how there is a connection between the F train and the PATH at 23rd street

Quote:

HCResident wrote:
As somewhat of a former NYC Subway enthusiast, I can pretty much tell you that connecting the PATH to the Lexington line would have not likely worked no matter who was for it.

The Lexington line (4, 5 and 6) was the first subway built in NYC and was a private business (the IRT) when it first opened. It later grew to include the what are now the 1, 2 and 3 lines as well as the 7 and Time's Square Shuttle lines.

What is now the N and R lines was also a private company (the BMT) that competed with the IRT. Later, the city got into the game and built the IND lines (A, C and E and B, D, F and Q lines).

It was not until the 1940's that the city purchased the private lines to integrate the entire subways system. Why is all this important?

Because it was never constructed as a single system, each line was built to different specifications. Pay close attention to each of these lines the next time you are on them. The tunnels, the track bases and the cars are all different sizes.

For example, the IRT cars are 8.6 ft wide. The BMT and IND cars are 9.77 ft wide. As for the PATH, their cars are 9.275 ft wide. So the PATH cars would not fit in the IRT tunnels, which is what was being proposed.

You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not. That would require changing all of the tracks in the PATH system, and probably all of the signaling equipment as well. Who is paying for that; especially in this political climate?

This is a pipe dream. I will admit that it is one that I personally like, but it's not a realistic probability.

Now maybe if they had designed the new 2nd Avenue line to match the specs of the PATH system they could connect them when it finally reaches that far downtown. But who can even imagine what it might take to go through all of that other infrastructure that is already in place running north and south.

We can harp, complain and blame each other's political sides all we want, but this is merely griping for griping's sake. The best we can probably ever expect out of this situation is an eventual free transfer between the two systems. But don't hold your breath for that either. My understanding is that the PA must hold on to the PATH as part of their original charter.

Like I said earlier, I wish it could all come to pass, but logistically is probably just can't.


The article in the original post calls it a "one seat ride." That seems like an actual connection of the rail lines to me. Maybe I misinterpreted.

Posted on: 2014/9/16 19:11
Top


Re: Connect PATH to 6 train, or $4 billion MALL?
#17
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


As somewhat of a former NYC Subway enthusiast, I can pretty much tell you that connecting the PATH to the Lexington line would have not likely worked no matter who was for it.

The Lexington line (4, 5 and 6) was the first subway built in NYC and was a private business (the IRT) when it first opened. It later grew to include the what are now the 1, 2 and 3 lines as well as the 7 and Time's Square Shuttle lines.

What is now the N and R lines was also a private company (the BMT) that competed with the IRT. Later, the city got into the game and built the IND lines (A, C and E and B, D, F and Q lines).

It was not until the 1940's that the city purchased the private lines to integrate the entire subways system. Why is all this important?

Because it was never constructed as a single system, each line was built to different specifications. Pay close attention to each of these lines the next time you are on them. The tunnels, the track bases and the cars are all different sizes.

For example, the IRT cars are 8.6 ft wide. The BMT and IND cars are 9.77 ft wide. As for the PATH, their cars are 9.275 ft wide. So the PATH cars would not fit in the IRT tunnels, which is what was being proposed.

You could argue that it might be possible to run smaller cars on the PATH line, but that is assuming the track base is the same. My guess is that it is not. That would require changing all of the tracks in the PATH system, and probably all of the signaling equipment as well. Who is paying for that; especially in this political climate?

This is a pipe dream. I will admit that it is one that I personally like, but it's not a realistic probability.

Now maybe if they had designed the new 2nd Avenue line to match the specs of the PATH system they could connect them when it finally reaches that far downtown. But who can even imagine what it might take to go through all of that other infrastructure that is already in place running north and south.

We can harp, complain and blame each other's political sides all we want, but this is merely griping for griping's sake. The best we can probably ever expect out of this situation is an eventual free transfer between the two systems. But don't hold your breath for that either. My understanding is that the PA must hold on to the PATH as part of their original charter.

Like I said earlier, I wish it could all come to pass, but logistically is probably just can't.

Posted on: 2014/9/16 17:59
Top


Re: Question: Direct TV dish on condo building roof top
#18
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


It depends on your by-laws. There are no steadfast rules. Each property has its own policies, including yours. It's an answer no one on here can give you, unless they live in your building and are familiar with your by-laws.

Posted on: 2014/8/21 16:45
Top


Re: Path wkd WTC service shutdown
#19
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

mfadam wrote:
Mr Mayor - time to step and do the right thing for your tax paying citizens...


So what is it exactly you want the mayor to do? The NY/NJ PA is an Authority that doesn't answer to anyone but the governors of each respective state. Considering there are publicly released documents where the Governor’s office all but says outright that they hate Mayor Fulop, what pull do you think he has with the Christie Administration?

Maybe it’s our job as citizens to put the heat on Trenton and stop thinking some elected official, no matter who that person is, is somehow going to be our savior and keep us from having to get involved.

Democracy involves more than simply voting every so often.

Posted on: 2014/2/7 11:22
Top


Re: New Marriott coming to JC
#20
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Interesting, I live behind LSP & Tidewater Basin area and always thought it was going to be a Tramz Hotel or is that dtjc? Oh well, glad its getting started.


Tramz is the company that owns the brick and mortar (meaning the actual property). It is not a hotel brand.

Most hotels, across the board, are not operated by the brand name on it. The people who own the properties sign managment deals with the chains because it is the respective brands that draw in the customers.

Most people don't want to stay at a hotel they've never heard of. But say a Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott or other brands, that's makes it familiar and more attractive.

I guess my years in the hotel industry are actually paying off...lol

Posted on: 2014/1/28 11:26
Top


Re: New Marriott coming to JC
#21
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Is this the spot on Marin Blvd, just south of where 18 Park is? It was initially going to be a Hilton, right?


The actual developer has not changed (Tramz). It just seems like they've signed a management deal with Marriott instead of Hilton.

Posted on: 2014/1/28 8:19
Top


Re: Wall St. Journal story today on Fulop JC Rebrand attempt
#22
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The only people who are doing well in JC are the developers who received their tax abatements.


My understanding is that you did pretty well when you sold your property near Van Vorst Park.

Posted on: 2014/1/27 15:43
Top


Re: Changes to the Land Development
#23
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Goldjason wrote:
I briefly reviewed the proposed changes and also have questions

Re: proposed city ordinance 14.004

The reader need to review the changes taking place

What was before and what new requirements are introduced .
and what are the details being repealed.

"A. All Ordinances and part of ordinances inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed. "


If you look at the "key" towards the bottom of the document, you will see that anything being deleted from the original is struck through and anything being added is underlined.

All this fuss is about a lowering of legal water temperatures coming out of water heaters. My guess is that it's about safety, particularly reducing the risk of being scalded.

As for Yvonne's original complaint, it seems like this was all done in a public manner (since she was actually able to post it here) and she is simply doing what seems to be her purpose in life these days - complaining about anything and everything Steve Fulop or his allies on the council do. Hell, at this point he could stand in the council chambers and sh*t nickels and she would be outraged that they weren't quarters.

Posted on: 2014/1/25 22:32
Top


Re: Bright St. Redevepment Plan - Ward E Councilperson's Comments and Position
#24
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Cimfancy wrote:
Please don't pass this off as a parking issue. The real issue about this development is the way that it was brought in through shady dealings of city hall and the blatant disregard to how this neighborhood has developed and what is appropriate to develop here. The current administration has legal options to stop this development but chooses to say their hands are tied. Sounds like money lining someone's pockets is the driving force. To all the people in the area that are saying this is about whining over parking, id like you to realize that these type of developments will happen in your area as well. You wouldn't be passing this off so easily then


So you seem to be in the know...what are these options that they are not taking?

Posted on: 2013/11/1 13:47
Top


Re: Strange odor coming from crawl space
#25
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Maybe a skunk got under there and took up shop for the winter?

Just a thought.

Posted on: 2013/10/29 10:08
Top


Re: Harborside Development Receives $33 Million Tax Credit
#26
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

Prismatic wrote:
If they want to build something that ugly they shouldn't be receiving any abatements.


Nor should anybody else building properties on the Jersey City waterfront, even if the properties look pretty... plenty of private developers could build without any tax abatements and still make loads of money. Of course, this has already been discussed a hundred times, both her and in city council meetings (both under Healy and Fulop) but of course all the protests just fall on deaf ears.


This was not an abatement. I believe this is a state tax break, not a city one. The city doesn't control what the state does.

Posted on: 2013/10/27 21:31
Top


Re: Gay marriage advocates lobby to override Christie's veto
#27
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
In God We Trust
One Nation, Under God
Time for a brief history lesson. Neither of those phrases existed in either the pledge of allegiance or on any of our money or anything until the 50s, when McCarthy's fearmongering bullied Congress into adopting it to prove they weren't Godless communists.


OK, thanks for the history lesson-but the fact remains that our Founding Fathers worked from a Christian basis, with God as their moral compass. Marriage meant what it meant, and making it 'marriage' wasn't on their compass, not for same sex couples or polygamous families or any other 'grouping' that will now be 'allowed'.


Really? Ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli? It was ratified unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams (one of the founders I believe) in 1797. It reads as follows:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I added the bold. : )

Posted on: 2013/10/21 21:47
Top


Re: 400 Unit Development in Hamilton Park
#28
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

blanquiita wrote:
Quote:


- No way in hell should they get a tax abatement




Seriously. Does anyone know if the developer will get an abatement?


Pilots have come before the City Council to be approved. So I highly doubt it will get past this Council. But I could be wrong.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 11:14
Top


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#29
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

HCResident wrote:

Dude, do you even understand how this works? The House did indeed pass a budget, but there are two bodies of the Legislative branch. The Senate also must pass a budget, which they did. Since it is not the same as the House bill, it now has to go to conference between the two to iron out the differences and come up with a compromise bill that both bodies must go back and approve respectively.

So the Senate passed a budget in March and guess who has refused to go to conference with the their bill? Let me give you a clue, it wasn't the Senate. So there is no bill for Obama to sign buddy.



Your clue contradicts the facts. Here, Senator Reid made acceptance of obamacare a condition for the conference.

The honest description is "Democrats refuse to go to conference unless Republicans capitulate first".



No, it actually doesn’t contradict the facts. There are two bodies of the Legislative Branch. One of the two bodies is not willing to gut a law that was passed by both houses of congress, signed by the President and upheld by a conservative majority Supreme Court. It happens all of the time. The founders of our nation specifically designed things this way to make sure that one party, or one small faction, cannot force its will on the nation.

The Senate is simply not going to negotiate on the ACA, so anyone that is reasonable would understand that you sit down and come to an agreement on what you can. And even if the Senate were to suddenly capitulate to the will of the House Republicans, and gutted the health care law, the President would veto it. And it takes two thirds of both chambers of congress to override a veto which doesn’t exist in this case. These are simply the facts and part of the checks and balances built into our governing system.

So you want us all to believe that it is the Democrats and President Obama who are the hostage takers. What fantasy world do you live in? Why would the democratically controlled Senate and the President agree to gut a law that they passed and believe in? If the Republicans are not happy with that law, then the constitution has built in a way for them to do this - convince the American people that your ideas and policies are best and then get enough of your party elected to repeal the law and/or alter it to your liking.

Oh, by the way, we just had an election where the ACA (or Obamacare as the Republicans want to call it) was one of the major issues contended. Funny thing is, Barack Obama won by 5 million votes and won 61% of the total Electoral College votes. In addition, the Democrats picked up 2 seats in the Senate and 9 seats in the House compared to the previous congress. It sure doesn’t seem like the American people spoke out very strongly against the healthcare law.

But even after an election where the Republicans lost the Executive Branch and lost seats in both houses of the Legislative Branch, they want to thumb their nose at the constitution that they claim to love so much and shut down the government because they can’t get their way under the rules set by that constitution. First they refuse to negotiate on the two versions of the passed budget resolutions because they know they’ll never get what they want and then they choose to shut down the government as a last resort. That is simply extortion and it’s just insanity. And quite frankly the Republicans who know that there is enough votes between both parties to end this mess right now, the same ones who love to throw around the idea of impeachment, should probably be impeached themselves for their total disregard for the constitution and the American people.

I’m sorry everyone doesn’t agree with your beliefs about governing and the direction of our country. I’m sure it sucks for you, just as it did for many of us under the Bush/Cheney years. But we live in a country with a constitution that put checks and balances into place and when we don’t get our way, we have to live with the outcome or work to change it through the proper process. Otherwise, we’ll be just some banana republic at the whim of whomever can grab power at any given moment.

Posted on: 2013/10/4 11:01
Top


Re: Sires votes NO on funding for veterans
#30
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Quote:

borisp wrote:
No, sorry. However you dress it up, the essence is simple:

The side that tries to keep the hostage in the war zone, - is the side that is guilty of hostage taking. The side that is trying to remove the hostage from the war zone, - is not guilty.

That is it.

Republicans have passed the budget that would fund lots of programs. Now, you can claim that Obama can't sign that budget because if he did, he would lose the fight over obamacare, - and that claim would be true.


However, if Respublicans are trying to remove the funding for other programs from the negotiating table, and Obama keeps it there, - it is Obama who's taking those programs hostage, plain and simple.


Dude, do you even understand how this works? The House did indeed pass a budget, but there are two bodies of the Legislative branch. The Senate also must pass a budget, which they did. Since it is not the same as the House bill, it now has to go to conference between the two to iron out the differences and come up with a compromise bill that both bodies must go back and approve respectively.

So the Senate passed a budget in March and guess who has refused to go to conference with the their bill? Let me give you a clue, it wasn't the Senate. So there is no bill for Obama to sign buddy.

Wonder why the Republican lead House doesn't want to go to conference? Could it be that they know it will never make it out with all their ridiculous demands in tact?

Talk about a bunch of spoiled rotten imbeciles.

Posted on: 2013/10/3 22:40
Top



TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 »






Login
Username:

Password:

remember me

Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017