Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
79 user(s) are online (51 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 79

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users






Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#22
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1294
Offline
Jindal? I thought we were talking about Walker? The list goes on.

Posted on: 2015/2/17 15:54
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.


Out of curiosity, under what legal theory? You realize that couples get preferential government treatment under a large number of circumstances, right? Taxes (marriage penalty aside), adoption, inheritance, and others?

By the way, this is optimal policy as we want to encourage people to couple up rather than let society continue to devolve.


We want to? Who is we?

And why do we want to encourage people to couple up? People should couple up if they want to and are capable of doing so (emotionally, etc). For this reason, we shouldn't offer outside incentives which could push people who aren't ready into committed relationships.

And how has society continued to devolve?


I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.


Even if it is true that society is better off with people coupling up, it would only remain true if the couples were ready and able to have a healthy relationship. If you offer financial incentives for people to couple up, you push people who aren't ready and able to join one anyway. That's not what we want. So this is why I oppose it.

Anyways, in the current system, many marriages fail, so I'm not sure how many people are committing in the first place.

Posted on: 2015/2/17 3:35
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I generally agree that money trumps all and if I were told that I get to choose my family in my next life and choice A is a single parent that is a generous and filthy rich and choice B is a poor, ghetto family that will be happily married, I won't think twice before choosing choice A. Look, certainly if there was legislation to sterilize all poor people I would be the absolute first person to jump on that particular bandwagon, though I note that escorts will become far more expensive in about 18 years.... Nevertheless, marriage does help people earn more money, spend less money and manage home responsibilities as well. Therefore, based on the foregoing (among other reasons) it is something we want to encourage.

I?ll only quibble with the idea that marriage helps someone ?earn more money.? With dual incomes there is more income in the home, but that doesn?t translate to someone earning more. Semantics, surely a small one, but it?s one I?ll contend.

I believe that two people living together in a relationship is no different than a marriage in many ways. I also think that there are benefits to not marrying, particularly if incomes diverge to a great extent.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Read Jindal's background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Ji ... C_and_professional_career

Now, after reading that, do you for one second actually believe that in his mind or heart that he thinks the earth is 5000 years old and God willed it and humanity into existence and that evolution is just a "tool of the devil" to confuse mankind?

This doesn?t address the overriding point I was trying to make. It isn?t whether Jindal, who is a devout Christian, believes in evolution or not. It is that there is so much evidence provided on this planet and yet we have ?science? museums getting created where people are riding dinosaurs. The sad fact is that there are enough of these morons that someone trying to become president absolutely must cater to them.

It reminded me of the argument made during the Bush v. Gore election, who would you rather have a beer with? As if being a guy to drink with was somehow a qualifier to deciding if we, as a nation, should launch a nuclear warhead upon another nation! I?ve drank with a lot of people; some really smart, others really funny, and others fall along both. I?ve never said that entertaining me for an evening out is a qualifier for an executive.

If you watched that link I provided between Stewart and Huckabee, you can see that Huckabee is pandering to that very concept of being that guy to have a drink with. He?d rather see a pickup truck with a bunch of hillbillies pull up to a broken down car than an NBA player in a BMW. Stewart points out, rightly, that he wants AAA.

Stewart marvels at Huckabee?s use of Harvard as a derogatory. I don?t assume that every Harvard student is smarter than I, but I would wager that the Harvard professor of physics knows more about the topic than I do (most likely a physics major as well). This doesn?t mean that they should be running the country, but we shouldn?t just discount their research either.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Yes, I understand that one could extend my argument into the ridiculous, but do you see the similar flaw in yours? Based on your argument, one can stretch the argument to conclude that whichever direction society change in, it is fine because society is always changing. Equally preposterous.

I didn?t state that anyone can extend your argument, I was pointing out arguments that people have actually made in the past.

I don?t state that society is changing for the better or for the worse. In fact, society has never changed for the better or for the worse over time. In some ways society is better. In other ways society is worse. The reality is that society changes. It is a person?s own qualitative perception about whether it is worse or better and that is entirely based upon that person?s beliefs of right and wrong.

If you are Roy Moore and you see gay people getting married and Muslims walking down the street, you think society is going off the rails. If you are me and you see Roy Moore setting up a charity so that he can take in donations that he will use to pay himself hundreds of thousands of dollars while trying to fuse his version of the Christian doctrine into the Constitution, I could argue that society is going off the rails.

Posted on: 2015/2/13 15:52
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#19
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/4/15 3:58
Last Login :
2019/5/9 22:13
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 973
Offline
No, I don't think we can fix our "current society" by just getting more people married - not if "marriage" is not "sacred" anymore, and where people can just get a divorce just as easy as getting a burger at McDonalds (anyone seen the "Get a divorce for $399" ads?).

Do you know what is the divorce rate nowadays? What's the point of getting married, just to get divorced a few years later? Does a broken family make a better society?

I think the "problems of our society" are much more deep rooted than just "marriage".

Marriage is about commitment. I've seen a lot of unmarried partners with kids who lead happy lives & family (my own included), than divorced families with kids who are shuttled between mom and dad every 2 weeks. Which family do you think is better for the society?

Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore - at least not the in sense it used to be, or what it's "meant" to be.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.

Posted on: 2015/2/13 2:24
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Re: children, not really sure what that means. If you have any two given people with given incomes, the family will have a higher SES (net worth, lifestyle, etc.) if they're together than apart. This isn't really news and you can google some publications on this, such as: http://jos.sagepub.com/content/41/4/406.short

It also should be freakin' obvious. If you have a man making $110k and a woman making $90k then the combined household with $200k will be living better than if the man sent a $1k/month child support check and otherwise they maintained two totally separate households. So in other words, are you suggesting that we pit children out of wedlock that could live in an equivalently nice house/neighborhood/school as a child from a married couple and compare the outcome of such children? Because you would actually be comparing two far higher earning parents to lower earning parents that were mature/responsible enough to get married. Actually, on that point, I'll leave this here: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social ... y-parenting-income-reeves

I apologize for not being clearer. What I?m suggesting is that finances play a larger role in the success of children than the number of parents.

I am not arguing that Joe and Sara together make more than Joe or Sara alone. What I?m referencing is whether Joe and Sara together making the same money as Tony or Tina alone creates any divergence in success of a child. I don't think so. I think a single parent making $100k can do all that is granted by the dual parents making $50k each.

There are obvious stress levels involved in the raising of children. Having a second hand can alleviate some of that.


I generally agree that money trumps all and if I were told that I get to choose my family in my next life and choice A is a single parent that is a generous and filthy rich and choice B is a poor, ghetto family that will be happily married, I won't think twice before choosing choice A. Look, certainly if there was legislation to sterilize all poor people I would be the absolute first person to jump on that particular bandwagon, though I note that escorts will become far more expensive in about 18 years.... Nevertheless, marriage does help people earn more money, spend less money and manage home responsibilities as well. Therefore, based on the foregoing (among other reasons) it is something we want to encourage.

Quote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
LOL @ believing that politicians give honest answers to these questions. The responses are 100% poll driven. See Obama's response on gay marriage.

If Jindal recognizes evolution, then he should say as much. The fact that we have too many people in this country that don?t recognize evolution as fact is where I was going with my point. Something as simple and basic as evolution is something that is a degrading aspect of society.


Read Jindal's background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Ji ... C_and_professional_career

Now, after reading that, do you for one second actually believe that in his mind or heart that he thinks the earth is 5000 years old and God willed it and humanity into existence and that evolution is just a "tool of the devil" to confuse mankind?

Quote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Well, if a large number of people think society sucks now because of recent changes then that is a problem, no?

No. Opinion isn?t fact. People always think society sucks and kids are ruining America.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we let black people drink from the same water fountain as white people.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we let black people marry white people.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we let the Irish apply for jobs.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we allowed women to go to college.

People thought we were ?devolving? when gay people were allowed to get married.

People thought we were ?devolving? when Elvis was on TV.

If you have a minute, I suggest watching this fun segment where Mike Huckabee went on The Daily Show (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ccr3m3/mike-huckabee) and Huckabee discusses Beyonce and how it is devolving America. This is then followed up by Stewart showing a clip of Huckabee jamming with a band that is clearly singing a song that is just as ?crude? as anything Beyonce has sung. Yet, Huckabee thinks Beyonce is ?devolving? America.


Yes, I understand that one could extend my argument into the ridiculous, but do you see the similar flaw in yours? Based on your argument, one can stretch the argument to conclude that whichever direction society change in, it is fine because society is always changing. Equally preposterous.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 22:57
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Re: children, not really sure what that means. If you have any two given people with given incomes, the family will have a higher SES (net worth, lifestyle, etc.) if they're together than apart. This isn't really news and you can google some publications on this, such as: http://jos.sagepub.com/content/41/4/406.short

It also should be freakin' obvious. If you have a man making $110k and a woman making $90k then the combined household with $200k will be living better than if the man sent a $1k/month child support check and otherwise they maintained two totally separate households. So in other words, are you suggesting that we pit children out of wedlock that could live in an equivalently nice house/neighborhood/school as a child from a married couple and compare the outcome of such children? Because you would actually be comparing two far higher earning parents to lower earning parents that were mature/responsible enough to get married. Actually, on that point, I'll leave this here: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social ... y-parenting-income-reeves

I apologize for not being clearer. What I?m suggesting is that finances play a larger role in the success of children than the number of parents.

I am not arguing that Joe and Sara together make more than Joe or Sara alone. What I?m referencing is whether Joe and Sara together making the same money as Tony or Tina alone creates any divergence in success of a child. I don't think so. I think a single parent making $100k can do all that is granted by the dual parents making $50k each.

There are obvious stress levels involved in the raising of children. Having a second hand can alleviate some of that.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
LOL @ believing that politicians give honest answers to these questions. The responses are 100% poll driven. See Obama's response on gay marriage.

If Jindal recognizes evolution, then he should say as much. The fact that we have too many people in this country that don?t recognize evolution as fact is where I was going with my point. Something as simple and basic as evolution is something that is a degrading aspect of society.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Well, if a large number of people think society sucks now because of recent changes then that is a problem, no?

No. Opinion isn?t fact. People always think society sucks and kids are ruining America.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we let black people drink from the same water fountain as white people.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we let black people marry white people.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we let the Irish apply for jobs.

People thought we were ?devolving? when we allowed women to go to college.

People thought we were ?devolving? when gay people were allowed to get married.

People thought we were ?devolving? when Elvis was on TV.

If you have a minute, I suggest watching this fun segment where Mike Huckabee went on The Daily Show (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ccr3m3/mike-huckabee) and Huckabee discusses Beyonce and how it is devolving America. This is then followed up by Stewart showing a clip of Huckabee jamming with a band that is clearly singing a song that is just as ?crude? as anything Beyonce has sung. Yet, Huckabee thinks Beyonce is ?devolving? America.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 18:30
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

Are they? It seems that a lot of people oppose gay people getting married. So it seems that there are a lot of people who don't see marriage as the be-all end-all of society.

As for children, I'd be interested to see studies on children born out of wedlock and into two parent homes within similar socioeconomic surroundings. Barring that, you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.


Re: gay marriage, I have to admit that while I'm annoyed at the pressure to make gays the new big protected/entitled class, I don't really mind gay marriage. My belief that people in long term relationships are more stable extends to gays as well.

Re: children, not really sure what that means. If you have any two given people with given incomes, the family will have a higher SES (net worth, lifestyle, etc.) if they're together than apart. This isn't really news and you can google some publications on this, such as: http://jos.sagepub.com/content/41/4/406.short

It also should be freakin' obvious. If you have a man making $110k and a woman making $90k then the combined household with $200k will be living better than if the man sent a $1k/month child support check and otherwise they maintained two totally separate households. So in other words, are you suggesting that we pit children out of wedlock that could live in an equivalently nice house/neighborhood/school as a child from a married couple and compare the outcome of such children? Because you would actually be comparing two far higher earning parents to lower earning parents that were mature/responsible enough to get married. Actually, on that point, I'll leave this here: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social ... y-parenting-income-reeves

Quote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you.

Your reasons for society "devolving" is not the same as mine.

I am far more upset that someone can be running for president of the US and refuse to answer a question on whether they believe in evolution. When you can be a legitimate contender for the hardest job in the country to obtain while also being a complete moron, that is troubling.


LOL @ believing that politicians give honest answers to these questions. The responses are 100% poll driven. See Obama's response on gay marriage.

Quote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.

"People's impressions" are simply opinions. Opinions don't actually mean facts. Thus, your remaining point is devoid of any real value...


Well, if a large number of people think society sucks now because of recent changes then that is a problem, no?

Posted on: 2015/2/12 17:35
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

La_Verdad wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that.


It's been that way since the beginning of time. Older generations think (simplistically) that times were better in the past and that society is in an irreversible decline. Really more of a sign that people become rigid as they age and feel threatened by progress and being left behind rather than "society is going to hell in a hand basket."


I don't think I can really be called an "older generation." Moreover, not sure what metric we're using to describe what is happening in our society as "progress."

Posted on: 2015/2/12 17:21
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#14
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Not to sound like grandpa but the fact that we're seeing less marriage, fewer families and more "oops, a baby happened" combined with hearing people drop "baby-mama/daddy drama" conversation in public is absolutely a sign our society is going to hell.

The rest sounds like occupy wall street style idiocy. FYI - business owners have always been greedy. For that matter, add crappy LE, religion, corrupt politicians, bankers ... actually the rest of your list too. All of it has been happening since the beginning of time and can be reduced to "people advocate for their points of view and interests in politics and business." By the way, I'm an atheist but even I am starting to respect the notion that if religion is necessary to keep some people from acting like wild animals then maybe that is what we should encourage. Except with Islam, because, well, look at what happens...

Quote:

Consumed wrote:

so you think this country is a mess because people are not getting married? uhmmm

greedy business owners.
rouge law enforcement
religious institutions and their zealot followers
corrupt politicians.
bankers
corporations who outsource jobs overseas or to onshore companies who outsource to visa holders
wealthy people who prey on the lower class and poor to further their riches
abusers of systems put in place to help those in need (both ends of the stick)
the constant need for our elected officials to try to stick their noses in other countries issues because of the previously mentioned reasons
the so called "moral majority" and their need to outline "their" view of what this country needs to look like as per their religion or beliefs.
everyone's BS need to entitlement or so called rights
allegiances to countries that serve no use to us what so ever

those are just some of the real reasons we are in the situations we are in


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.


Out of curiosity, under what legal theory? You realize that couples get preferential government treatment under a large number of circumstances, right? Taxes (marriage penalty aside), adoption, inheritance, and others?

By the way, this is optimal policy as we want to encourage people to couple up rather than let society continue to devolve.


We want to? Who is we?

And why do we want to encourage people to couple up? People should couple up if they want to and are capable of doing so (emotionally, etc). For this reason, we shouldn't offer outside incentives which could push people who aren't ready into committed relationships.

And how has society continued to devolve?


I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 17:19
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/9/24 1:55
Last Login :
2019/6/18 15:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 244
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that.


It's been that way since the beginning of time. Older generations think (simplistically) that times were better in the past and that society is in an irreversible decline. Really more of a sign that people become rigid as they age and feel threatened by progress and being left behind rather than "society is going to hell in a hand basket."

Posted on: 2015/2/12 16:33
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1980
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

Are they? It seems that a lot of people oppose gay people getting married. So it seems that there are a lot of people who don't see marriage as the be-all end-all of society.

As for children, I'd be interested to see studies on children born out of wedlock and into two parent homes within similar socioeconomic surroundings. Barring that, you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you.

Your reasons for society "devolving" is not the same as mine.

I am far more upset that someone can be running for president of the US and refuse to answer a question on whether they believe in evolution. When you can be a legitimate contender for the hardest job in the country to obtain while also being a complete moron, that is troubling.

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.

"People's impressions" are simply opinions. Opinions don't actually mean facts. Thus, your remaining point is devoid of any real value...

Posted on: 2015/2/12 16:20
Dos A Cero
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/3/19 15:20
Last Login :
2020/6/2 11:06
From Scenic McGinley Square
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 709
Offline
Quote:

jcguy05 wrote:
Honey, we are moving to newark, happy valentine's day!

Baawaahhahaa



Tried this line with the wife and pretty much got the same response.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 16:00
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#10
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/6/14 13:09
Last Login :
2021/9/5 12:37
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 72
Offline

so you think this country is a mess because people are not getting married? uhmmm

greedy business owners.
rouge law enforcement
religious institutions and their zealot followers
corrupt politicians.
bankers
corporations who outsource jobs overseas or to onshore companies who outsource to visa holders
wealthy people who prey on the lower class and poor to further their riches
abusers of systems put in place to help those in need (both ends of the stick)
the constant need for our elected officials to try to stick their noses in other countries issues because of the previously mentioned reasons
the so called "moral majority" and their need to outline "their" view of what this country needs to look like as per their religion or beliefs.
everyone's BS need to entitlement or so called rights
allegiances to countries that serve no use to us what so ever

those are just some of the real reasons we are in the situations we are in


Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.


Out of curiosity, under what legal theory? You realize that couples get preferential government treatment under a large number of circumstances, right? Taxes (marriage penalty aside), adoption, inheritance, and others?

By the way, this is optimal policy as we want to encourage people to couple up rather than let society continue to devolve.


We want to? Who is we?

And why do we want to encourage people to couple up? People should couple up if they want to and are capable of doing so (emotionally, etc). For this reason, we shouldn't offer outside incentives which could push people who aren't ready into committed relationships.

And how has society continued to devolve?


I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 15:49
Censorship is for pussies!!!!
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#9
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.


Out of curiosity, under what legal theory? You realize that couples get preferential government treatment under a large number of circumstances, right? Taxes (marriage penalty aside), adoption, inheritance, and others?

By the way, this is optimal policy as we want to encourage people to couple up rather than let society continue to devolve.


We want to? Who is we?

And why do we want to encourage people to couple up? People should couple up if they want to and are capable of doing so (emotionally, etc). For this reason, we shouldn't offer outside incentives which could push people who aren't ready into committed relationships.

And how has society continued to devolve?


I'm willing to bet a majority of people in this country understand that society is better when most people get married. We also don't want children born out of wedlock.

If you don't see how society is devolving then I don't know what to tell you. But feel free to look at the poll tracking people's impression of the direction of the country and tell me what you conclude from that. One of the reasons the country is going to hell in a hand basket is that we have a bunch of people that shun marriage. Therefore, I'm happy that we're upping the incentives to commit to someone.

Posted on: 2015/2/12 15:09
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#8
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1907
Offline
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.


Out of curiosity, under what legal theory? You realize that couples get preferential government treatment under a large number of circumstances, right? Taxes (marriage penalty aside), adoption, inheritance, and others?

By the way, this is optimal policy as we want to encourage people to couple up rather than let society continue to devolve.


We want to? Who is we?

And why do we want to encourage people to couple up? People should couple up if they want to and are capable of doing so (emotionally, etc). For this reason, we shouldn't offer outside incentives which could push people who aren't ready into committed relationships.

And how has society continued to devolve?

Posted on: 2015/2/11 16:45
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#7
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/1/23 19:44
Last Login :
2023/4/21 14:20
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 344
Offline
Honey, we are moving to newark, happy valentine's day!

Baawaahhahaa

Posted on: 2015/2/11 7:25
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#6
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/9/19 17:59
Last Login :
2017/4/18 17:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 486
Offline
If you read the city's press release, it's pretty clear that "couple" is being loosely defined. I suspect I could show up with my dog Henry and buy a lot.

Relax. Anybody who wants to help rebuild Newark should get some applause.

Posted on: 2015/2/10 19:55
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#5
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/17 1:11
Last Login :
1/7 4:19
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1241
Offline
I'm guessing housing discrimination (Fair Housing Act), though I don't see anything about marital status, so there's most likely nothing illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Ri ... _of_banned_discrimination

Posted on: 2015/2/10 19:06
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#4
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/3/4 22:31
Last Login :
2019/8/30 19:03
From Downtown Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 820
Offline
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.


Out of curiosity, under what legal theory? You realize that couples get preferential government treatment under a large number of circumstances, right? Taxes (marriage penalty aside), adoption, inheritance, and others?

By the way, this is optimal policy as we want to encourage people to couple up rather than let society continue to devolve.

Posted on: 2015/2/10 18:48
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#3
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/2/16 0:26
Last Login :
2016/10/22 1:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 367
Offline
It's a promo for Valentines Day. There are hundreds more vacant lots in Newark beyond this promo for singles, polygamists, object-sexuals, human-animal sexuals, etc.

Posted on: 2015/2/10 11:54
 Top 


Re: Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#2
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/15 19:58
Last Login :
2015/12/30 14:17
From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 195
Offline
Probably illegal discrimination to sell only to couples, FWIW.

Posted on: 2015/2/10 0:57
 Top 


Valentine's Day Deal: Newark selling sweethearts vacant lots for $1,000
#1
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30
From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5356
Offline
Naomi Nix | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Forget the chocolates or red roses, Newark 's government has another option for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day.

The city is selling 100 lots at $1,000 each to any couple (of any sexual orientation) who is willing to build and live in a home on the land, according to the city's website.

"Calling all lovebirds: Bring your sweetheart to Newark on (Feb. 14) and start calling Newark home," Mayor Ras Baraka wrote in an email to constituents.

The special is this Saturday from 9 a.m. until noon in City Hall.

The lots, which are mostly in the South, Central and West Wards, will be sold at a first-come, first-serve basis, according to the city.

Couples are limited to buying one lot and will be expected to make a $500 down payment and an additional $500 at closing. Couples must also be willing to live in the property for 5 years.

More

Posted on: 2015/2/9 22:08
 Top 








[Advanced Search]





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