135jc wrote:
Well if you're not stating she would be a good President then your prior post was useless to the conversation.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
Another issue re parking is induced demand. The more parking is made available in buildings or in lots, the more people may believe that car ownership is viable in JC, the more likely they are to own or keep a car, and voila the excess capacity generated by adding parking is soaked up very quickly.

I concur with some of the posters above that the better solution is to improve other transport options, ranging from public transport to car sharing to better bicycle infrastructure -- some of which is already happening, with projects such as the HBLR and Citibike.

This sounds like a logical reasoning, but the facts show otherwise. Most parking decks downtown are only half full! Most surface lots do fill up with people who work here, but if you take a walk through the decks in most of the high rises in DTJC, you will soon find that most of them are mostly empty, or maybe half full. That's why all of them have to resort to ridiculously low rates for those commuting here. While I do think it is prudent to include parking in some developments, the requirement of 1:1 parking to unit ratio (as in the past) is completely unnecessary. Even 1:2 may be too much. For example, among the 10 units in my floor, only three of us keep cars, while the rest do without them. It seems to be a very similar ratio on other floors based on conversations I have had with other neighbors.

Except that if we did away with 1:1 parking, prices would increase dramatically. I would keep 1:1 parking requirements and let the garages entice people to park with low rates. If they're cheap enough then you'll have residents without their own garages that have the ability to acquire permits park in hi-rise garages because it is cheap enough to do so. This is exactly what I do. On the other hand, if we only built enough garage spaces to suit the number absolutely required by immediate residents, prices would start to become similar to NYC, or at the very least Hoboken.

With respect to the prior proposal to "do away with cars", that is nonsensical. Many of us will not live without a car. I had a car when I lived in Manhattan as well. I can't and won't live without a car for a number of reasons - job related commuting, the fact that I have a few large dogs that wouldn't be allowed on public transport, and so on. I don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that some people have that if you want a car you should be evicted to the suburbs. Sensible policies to require adequate garage spacing in new construction and appropriate metering of certain spots to allow for day parking addresses much of the issue.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Read between the lines you know what she meant.

You find what you want between the lines, I read what she said. If she had meant "Americans" she would have said it. Anything else is putting words in her mouth. Besides, calling people un-American is not a D thing, it's an R thing. It's a dog whistle for bigotry and always has been.

Ok believe what u want.

You're doing the same

I am not in denial. She is dispicable.

Part of being in denial is thinking you're not in denial.

Now you are a psychiatrist? Name some of her accomplishments then. What makes her a good choice for President?

135jc wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Read between the lines you know what she meant.

You find what you want between the lines, I read what she said. If she had meant "Americans" she would have said it. Anything else is putting words in her mouth. Besides, calling people un-American is not a D thing, it's an R thing. It's a dog whistle for bigotry and always has been.

Ok believe what u want.

You're doing the same

I am not in denial. She is dispicable.

135jc wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Read between the lines you know what she meant.

You find what you want between the lines, I read what she said. If she had meant "Americans" she would have said it. Anything else is putting words in her mouth. Besides, calling people un-American is not a D thing, it's an R thing. It's a dog whistle for bigotry and always has been.

Ok believe what u want.

irish wrote:
Once in a while you will see a 7 car set

Sutherland wrote:
mmm, I don't agree with you on that. I think paying real estate taxes guarantees me use of services and facilities that one should expect when one owns a home, including the ability to find parking on the street. Quote:

sullyx wrote:
That guarantees you a spot on YOUR property, not on the public streets.

Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

Sutherland wrote:
I do pay for parking. It's called real estate taxes. Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Parking is still real estate. If you want to park, you should pay for that service.

skinny wrote:


THEY HATE US because we are not like them. PERIOD.

It's that simple.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Trump is a very flawed presidential candidate. I will not deny that, but people are voting for him because they do not feel safe. How can you feel safe when liberals have an agenda of letting in more people who want to kill Americans? Trump's candidacy is due to the liberal agenda in this country including the shipping of jobs overseas. I remember when NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton and good paying factory jobs went away. So yes, Trump is a flawed candidate but the idea of letting in 500,000 more immigrants is quite scary.

And yet just because people don't "feel safe" doesn't mean they actually in any significant danger.

If terrorism scares you, then using the same logic, you should never enter a car, since you have an exponentially higher chance in dying in an auto accident.

This guy planted a bomb right on the train tracks, along with NYC and Seaside Heights. If he wasn't a complete idiot, he could have killed a lot of people.

And there are others who are more intelligent who share the same goals. That doesn't scare you?

If I was in that exact location at the time the bomb explodes, of course it would be scary. But you've cherry picked a very specific circumstance to fit your argument.

Overall, if terrorism scares me, I should never leave the house. Statistically, I'm exponentially much more likely to die due to an accident.

And your foolish statistic quoting attitude is the exact dangerous attitude held by Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Kerry and Johnson. Hard to believe anyone in NYC walks into a subway station, concert hall, hotel, restaurant with out doing a threat assessment of the public space.

29 people blown up in NYC or 90 dead people run down walking down a boardwalk on a summer night in Nice are viewed as acceptable losses. Anything to destabilize move forward this open border foolishness. They lie right to your face.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

135jc wrote:
Quote:

manu wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I am a baby boomer, as a very young child, I had European immigrants in my classes. Their mothers and father survived World War 2. I remember them well due to their strong accents. Later in high school a large number of Cubans left Cuban and some were also in my classes. The one thing the European and Cuban immigrants have in common, they did not place bombs in this country and terrorize citizens in their new country. This country is not against immigrants, we are against people who want to kill us. You cannot tell the difference between a Syrian and a member of ISIS. Some of ISIS also immigrated to Europe with disastrous results. I cannot believe the leftist talk here.

And not one of these people have expressed any concern about the civil right to life of the victims of these radical Muslim inspired atrocities, anywhere in the world. Who speaks for the dead and the maimed survivors, their families and friends who have suffered a tragic loss. Their loved ones innocently living their lives, enjoying a night out dancing in Orlando or a rock concert in Paris.

I really would love to see these some of these defenders of unvetted mass immigration explain their foolish and dangerous justifications to the terror attack survivors in rehab learning how to walk again or recovering from brain concussions.

The suffering of you and your family is a sacrifice Americans must make to ensure the proper assimilation of people from a culture whose values are diametrically opposite of our own American value system. You will learn to love Sharia Law.

I don't think anybody on this board is defending mass immigration without vetting? Actually, there is a already a lot vetting in the current immigration process. Could it be better? I guess but I don't know enough to judge.

I am an immigrant and I went though the process. After more than 16 years legally in the country, I am actually still going through it...

You followed the rules. Following the rules is the harder path. That is why many do not. The argument here is there are many who believe all that made it here are entitled to stay.

What make you think that refugees are not following the rules?

Whomever follows the legal process IS entitled to stay.

So that settles the Syrian refugees conversation then. As long as they follow the process, they should be welcomed.

Haha, absolutely not. Not until there is a 100% way of vetting them, which we currently don't have. Until then President Trump can set the level he is comfortable with, which may be none for the time being.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Trump is a very flawed presidential candidate. I will not deny that, but people are voting for him because they do not feel safe. How can you feel safe when liberals have an agenda of letting in more people who want to kill Americans? Trump's candidacy is due to the liberal agenda in this country including the shipping of jobs overseas. I remember when NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton and good paying factory jobs went away. So yes, Trump is a flawed candidate but the idea of letting in 500,000 more immigrants is quite scary.

And yet just because people don't "feel safe" doesn't mean they actually in any significant danger.

If terrorism scares you, then using the same logic, you should never enter a car, since you have an exponentially higher chance in dying in an auto accident.

This guy planted a bomb right on the train tracks, along with NYC and Seaside Heights. If he wasn't a complete idiot, he could have killed a lot of people.

And there are others who are more intelligent who share the same goals. That doesn't scare you?

Yvonne wrote:
Trump is a very flawed presidential candidate. I will not deny that, but people are voting for him because they do not feel safe. How can you feel safe when liberals have an agenda of letting in more people who want to kill Americans? Trump's candidacy is due to the liberal agenda in this country including the shipping of jobs overseas. I remember when NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton and good paying factory jobs went away. So yes, Trump is a flawed candidate but the idea of letting in 500,000 more immigrants is quite scary.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Ahmad Khan Rahami has been arrested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/nyr ... mad-khan-rahami.html?_r=0

We didn't go without a fight. Cop reported as being shot. I wonder if the perp took a bullet as well?

Monroe wrote:
Did anyone see Hillary comment on the bombings? She was totally out of it, she barely could put a thought together. The debates will finish the race.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Example: The people that attacked abortion clinics in the name of christianity or personal beliefs are deemed terrorists

And you're quoting the US Code of Federal Regulations... why exactly?

There are ridiculous and self-serving laws that are created all of the time. We can go over countless examples if you'd like..

I like quoting THE LAW as it was written and not peoples individual interpretations or personal opinions of what it should be in their minds!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

Example: The people that attacked abortion clinics in the name of christianity or personal beliefs are deemed terrorists

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

And the general understanding of terrorism is commonly misunderstood because people continually don't make the distinction. A deranged, irrational serial killer causes fear - that doesn't make him a terrorist.

WOW... I guess that definition is really owned by the person or persons being victimized by acts of violence?

WOW... not at all. Terrorism has a clear and specific meaning. It's not my fault you're using the word incorrectly.

Terrorism is using violence to achieve a political purpose. That's it.

Can't argue with a narrow mind.... you are right!

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
So a recent IRS filing states that for all the millions taken in that filing year only 5.47% was given out to charities.

Now they are raking in millions more to celebrate Bill's birthday. These people have no shame.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/15/bill-cli ... t-stop-influence-peddling

mmmmk, do u understand how charities work, endowments.....

Ha! Clearly you don't understand how non-profits work.

I've audited them for a living. A 5% program expense rate is pitiful.. far worse than your average non-profit. Educate yourself before you post.

Here you go genius... http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/c ... t-charitable-grants-2014/

Perhaps you need to read the entire thread.... because you made my point about the Clinton Foundation.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

And the general understanding of terrorism is commonly misunderstood because people continually don't make the distinction. A deranged, irrational serial killer causes fear - that doesn't make him a terrorist.

WOW... I guess that definition is really owned by the person or persons being victimized by acts of violence?

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
So a recent IRS filing states that for all the millions taken in that filing year only 5.47% was given out to charities.

Now they are raking in millions more to celebrate Bill's birthday. These people have no shame.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/15/bill-cli ... t-stop-influence-peddling

mmmmk, do u understand how charities work, endowments.....

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
There was also just an explosion in a Virginia mall.

And an earlier explosion in a garbage in NJ.

Could be ISIS or another Muslim group.

STOP - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT IS A MUSLIM GROUP - JUST STOP IT ALREADY!

Yvonne wrote:
For 19 years, I walked on that block getting the PATH train going to work and returning home. I know that block quite well, there is a School for the Blind located there as well as St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church. That church has a homeless ministry.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

HelenaJC wrote:
Historically, the term 'terrorism' refers to a deadly act done in the name of political, racial, or religious ideology. A large-scale killing perpetuated for the sake of violence is not the same thing as terrorism, although both are reprehensible and both cause terror.

For this reason, it is customary for most officials to wait to label it until a motive is established.

It is fine to dispute the need for such distinctions, but you can't pretend that this distinction doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't see the harm in waiting to make pronouncements until more information is available. It's not as if every lead won't be examined, etc. To me, this just shows prudence and level-headedness on the part of authorities.




Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
We don't have a clue who did it, but Comrade de Blasio has no clue if he's saying that there is no link to terrorism. It may not be Muslims, or some right or left wing nutjob, but it was meant to cause terror.

I thought the same thing... on the one hand he states in no uncertain terms that the device and explosion were on purpose, but then goes on to deny it has any links to terrorism. I don't think he understands the meaning of that word. Perhaps he meant to say that there is no known link to terrorist organizations, or Islamic terrorism, but a premeditated bomb explosion is terrorism, no ifs or buts about it.

I have to disagree with you. Yes, the legal definition of terrorism is indeed somewhat more narrowly defined to specify that the act was conducted for political, religious or other ideological reasons. But, the more general understanding of terrorism is that it is an act meant to foster, propagate, or spread, fear [terror] among the population at large. Whether the act was conducted for political or ideological reasons is simply a distinction without a difference: the public at large is now more prone to live with a heightened sense of fear and more wary of their surroundings.

drifterx wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

drifterx wrote:
Massive speed bumps. Not sure if it reduces speeding, but it will definitely reduce your car if you do.

On Columbus or Grand? No.

It would be hilarious, not to mention a boost to the local economy of your neighborhood auto shops.

As for police enforcement, it usually takes a tragedy for that to happen, like that piece of human garbage who mowed down two kids in Union City. Cops on Kennedy started ticketing for a few months then it's back to usual.

drifterx wrote:
Massive speed bumps. Not sure if it reduces speeding, but it will definitely reduce your car if you do.