TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I find it quite funny how delicate and pathetic the white males are on this message board. Seriously, colleges are predominantly white but a few people get a chance to better themselves and they cry foul. There has never been a white person denied a college education due to a minority getting into one school.

The fact that they decide to continue their racist agenda really shows how pathetic they are.

What happened to "picking yourself up by your boot straps" or "overcoming obstacles"? Seems that those slogans only apply to minorities.

Such a sad lot you people are. Your wittle feewings were hurt...

More progressive racial double talk ... "There has never been a white person denied a college education due to a minority getting into one school."

A "college education" and "college admission" are very carefully chosen phrases... there have been white people denied college admission to the college of their choice because of minority preferences, over academic performance.

This practice has been upheld by SCOTUS. If these little white racist students wanted to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, perhaps they should consider attending a HWCU?

Azul_the_Cat wrote:
Now we have the full transcript of Trump's phone calls with Mexican President Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Turnbull.

Trump admits he is in a tough spot, politically, with all those chants of making Mexico pay for his border wall. He sounds like a child asking Mexican President Nieto not to say that "Mexico will not pay for the wall".

When Trump has Prime Minister Turnbull on the phone, Trump doesn't seem to understand the details of this agreement between the US and Australia; even after Prime Minister Turnbull tries to explain it several times. All he can think about is himself and how he will look to his supporters.

I guess, at the end of the day, how Trump looks to his supporters is all he cares about. Then again, it is par for the course for politicians to only care about their base. I guess Trump is just like the rest of the politicians in the swamp after all.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Not for nothing, but the reval has been discussed over the course of *years* not days. The reval began in Fulop's inaugural year (2013). That means people have had 4 years to prepare and "phase in" the potential cost of their tax bill. They have been able to determine whether they can afford or not the increased cost.

Indeed not for nothing. Fulop stopped the reval, and if the City has made any announcements indicating the potential tax rate post-reval, they've been well hidden from me. Perhaps had they gone on the public record indicating the anticipated range of the expected rate, people might have had a better opportunity to prepare. But that didn't happen. And the City didn't conduct revals for over 25 years either.

The City bears a large measure of culpability for this mess, and should undertake reasonable steps to mitigate the inevitable negative impact as the tax changes are implemented.

As I think I've said here before ? I'm not paying any more tax than I already do to the City and State. I've taken several steps to insulate myself from any future increases. Unless the City and State start showing some degree of responsibility and reasonableness, well they'll just have to do without my contributions altogether.

bodhipooh wrote:
While I can certainly understand (and, perhaps even sympathize) with the concept that the tax increase will be hard (even impossible) for some to absorb, it should also be pointed out that people have had time to plan accordingly (as Pebble points out) and those same people that will get a huge tax increase have been getting a free ride for a long time, some even 10+ years. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has been saving 10-15 K per year by being under assessed and did nothing to prepare for what should have been an obvious future increase in tax levy.

I have heard people gloating about their insanely low tax bills in DTJC, so yeah... this increase will hit them hard, but they are now conveniently forgetting about the many years of riding the gravy train.

JCGuys wrote:
Isn't the new skyscraper planned next door suppose to renovate the site? If not, they should...

135jc wrote:
Not true. While I could have selected a smaller deductible I am on the same plan I had previously. Had I chose the other plan with a smaller deductible I would have spent even more on higher premiums. In addition after the Ahca my firm has decided it is cost effective to insure us themselves. This was not the case under the prior system

Yvonne wrote:
Pebble, if you know by doctor, and most likely you don't he will tell you he was not making money under Obamacare. You pretend you are a "know it all on all subjects." By the way, my doctor was the person who got an award that was written in the Jersey Journal several months. I don't make it a practice of using someone's name unless they are a politician. But if you have the energy and go back several months you will find an article about him.

Monroe wrote:
Obamacare was never about affordable healthcare for all, it was a mass means to redistribute wealth (and control the poor). That's why he had to lie about it to sell it, and the chumps believed him.

JCMan8 wrote:
He's still making a lot of good moves. And more importantly, continues to be a magnet for winning.

MDM wrote:
...Before that I obtained a sharpshooter rating from the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship in high school. ...

MDM wrote:
But I want the ability to do so should the need arise, no matter how unlikely.

Bamb00zle wrote:
The discussion in another string about fences and historic preservation requirements made me think of that guy from the recently created historic district on the West Side and the City's effort to dismiss his law suit. Turns out there's an initial ruling, although the case still has a long way to go: http://cases.justia.com/federal/distr ... 97/10/0.pdf?ts=1498739790

In short, the City was NOT successful in getting the case dismissed, so the Judge hearing the matter must think it possible that Fernandez's complaints have some merit. Certain complaints were dismissed but it seems the Judge invited Fernandez to re-file with more information. If Fernandez plans to re-file, his attorney might take a good look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling that disparate impact can apply in certain housing cases.

Fernandez might go to the State Courts, although that's difficult for procedural reasons. First, he'd apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness permit, and likely be denied by the HPC. Next, he appeals to the Zoning Board, and likely be denied again. Then, if he has followed all the required rules and met all the deadlines, he can appeal to the Superior Court. There he'd argue the denial by the City is ultra vires ? provided that house did NOT have original historic wood siding torn off by the contractor. If the siding was original, it's a different story.

The HPO and HPC often use section 345-71 G. 3. of the JC Code to deny requested work, saying the proposed materials are inappropriate. They'd probably cite that sub-section in their denial of his application. However, that would be a misreading of the section, taking it out of context completely. I'm shocked they get away with it, since they are supposed to be competent to undertake their duties as HPC commissioners. And that means correctly applying the code.

Like any code (or law, or regulation...), 345-71 G. must be read fully and in context, to be properly applied. Looking at 345-71 G. 1-5. as a whole, it is clear that G. 3., about materials, only applies when ?reconstruction? is proposed. Moreover, 345-71 G. 1-5., is explicit that reconstruction is only permitted under limited, strictly defined conditions. But you have to read all of 345-71 G., and the associated definitions to know. The HPO and HPC either don't know their own code, or they deliberately ignore it, and all to frequently apply that clause (G. 3.) incorrectly. Taking a sub-section of code and incorrectly applying it to a different set of circumstances than those defined in the code makes the HPC's denial an error and is beyond their authority. The HPC doesn't write the rules ? they must follow the code ? just like everybody else.

As he's in a historic district, Fernandez needs to use siding that is aesthetically sympathetic with the neighboring houses. However, although he can't just use any type of cheap siding he might want, he also can't be compelled to ?reconstruct? replica wood siding, if the original historic wood siding was removed before the HD designation came into effect. If original historic siding was removed only after the HD designation went into effect, then he's out of luck and the situation is more complicated.

I haven't seen that house in a while, and don't know what it looks like at the present. I might go by sometime this weekend. Has anyone else here been by there recently...?.

stillinjc wrote:
For the newbies on this board:

Pebble: "You are racist and a bigot"

Translation: "You have a lot of common sense"

TheBigGuy wrote:
Quote:

Hamparkvet wrote:
The convicted James O'Keefe grasping for straws. I'll wait for the investigation to run it's course thank you very much.

It appears that you won't have to wait long... the whole Russia / Trump fairytale is falling apart for the media and moonbat conspiracy whackos....

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cn ... ess-on-the-russia-threat/

135jc wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I was listening to the car radio last week, I don't know the station but was shocked when a person called in to the station and said he pays $3,200 a month for insurance for 3 people. His wife has cancer. I figure he makes a good salary when he said he sold his home to make monthly payments.

yes, $3,200 is a lot but you don't know how much this person makes. i know people, before obamacare, could not even get coverage with cancer or other pre-exising conditions.

It is obvious, it is not a lot or he would not have to sell his home in order to pay $3,200 monthy. I do feel for people without insurance. That is why states covered them with Medicaid. Some people are not getting insurance, they are just paying the fine because they cannot afford even the cheapest plan. My doctor who is in his early 60s closed his practice due to Obamacare. He is now working for an insurance company as a visiting doctor for homebound patients. I went to him for 20 plus years.

Your doctor is in his 60's. He didn't close practice because of Obamacare. That's a beyond stupid statement.

Under Obamacare, the federal government has been spending less money on healthcare while the number of insured people have gone up.

I thought Republicans wanted government spending to go down? Oh, right... A black guy proposed it and put it in place...

My deductible has gone from $500 to $3200 in the past 4-5 yrs.Now I basically have insurance just for major issues

JCMan8 wrote: The Supreme Court reversed the liberal activist judges and ruled that a large chunk of Trump's travel ban is back in effect. Good. A shame we have to go all the way to the top before we can find judges that put the Constitution ahead of their personal politics.

TheBigGuy wrote: Quote:

Hamparkvet wrote: Quote:

JCMan8 wrote: Quote:

Azul_the_Cat wrote: Quote:

JCMan8 wrote: The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled that a large chunk of Trump's travel ban is back in effect while the Supreme Court hears arguments related to the travel ban. Good.

FTFY

As one of the judges already said: by deciding to restore the ban, the Supreme Court already tipped its hand that Trump was right. If he was wrong, they would have just prevented the ban from being restored while they heard arguments. This is a great day for America. Liberal activist judges getting reversed as they should. The next step is to remove these liberal judges who have decided to place politics above doing their jobs.

It's a temporary ban. They have 3 months to prove that it is necessary to continue. If not it will be ended. Meanwhile, people will help refugees get into our country by any means necessary.

That is the point you progressives missed, it always has been a temporary ban till we see who the heck is coming into the country, legally or illegally. The objective of the temporary ban was to review the vetting processes that the Obama Administration claimed were in place. The good news on the southern border is that the influx of illegal aliens has been cut by 70%. Which probably saved countless lives with the extreme heat being experienced in the SW. Of course deaths of exploited illegal aliens means nothing on the alter of progressive anarchists. There is a cost to anarchy and revolution that the exploited masses must pay if they want to be free. Had you foolish people not "resisted" it all would have been over by now.... and then to the progressive's delight, all future terror acts in the USA would be on Trump

TheBigGuy wrote: If this isn't the kiss of death.... http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/27/yellen ... kely-in-our-lifetime.html

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I was listening to the car radio last week, I don't know the station but was shocked when a person called in to the station and said he pays $3,200 a month for insurance for 3 people. His wife has cancer. I figure he makes a good salary when he said he sold his home to make monthly payments.

yes, $3,200 is a lot but you don't know how much this person makes. i know people, before obamacare, could not even get coverage with cancer or other pre-exising conditions.

It is obvious, it is not a lot or he would not have to sell his home in order to pay $3,200 monthy. I do feel for people without insurance. That is why states covered them with Medicaid. Some people are not getting insurance, they are just paying the fine because they cannot afford even the cheapest plan. My doctor who is in his early 60s closed his practice due to Obamacare. He is now working for an insurance company as a visiting doctor for homebound patients. I went to him for 20 plus years.

135jc wrote:
Oh no! Another out of work hipster!

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin?s specific instructions on the operation?s audacious objectives ? defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I hope the city holds the line, as we should be embracing and encouraging the use of such cars to help reduce contamination, and exhaust fumes, while also doing a tiny little part towards preserving regional environmental health.

If you look at the life-cycle cost of electric vehicles (i.e. take in account the energy needed to make the batteries, generating source of the electricity, etc.) you get little in the what you described above.

Modern gasoline powered cars are pretty clean when it comes to CO, SOx, NOx, and VOCs (the latter two causing smog and ozone). In fact, if you tried committing suicide by filling your car with exhaust, it would take a while since CO levels produced by modern cars is so low.

There are other issue is with electric car batteries, which aren't affordable or practical (car batteries need to be heated and cooled). Unless someone invents a super capacitor with the same amount of energy storage as a tank of gasoline (similar size / weight), electric cars are just going to be expensive toys for very wealthy people.

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Ha! What is it like to talk to JCman8 or Monroe in real life?? I just assume everyone nods their head and starts to back away slowly. "Your misogyny is showing" LOL

psyop wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Hamparkvet wrote:
HARDLY unexpected. They elected a lily white woman who dresses like a grandma. The district is 70% white but that will be ending soon as white people slip into the minority across the country. This is simply the dying tantrum of scared white people. She wouldn't even mention the POTUS's name in her speech!!

Election results from presidential races:
Year Office Results
2000 President George W. Bush 68% - Al Gore 32%
2004 President George W. Bush 70% - John Kerry 29%
2008 President John McCain 62% - Barack Obama 37%
2012 President Mitt Romney 61% - Barack Obama 38%
2016 President Donald Trump 48% - Hillary Clinton 47%

So, you're openly hoping for a white extinction in order to further your political ambitions.

Ok Hitler, racist much?

LOL king jclist racist calling someone racist.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The Democrat in Georgia spent 5X more than the Republican, and they still lost. How humiliating.

Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection.

Exactly. It is worth noting that the incumbent had a primary challenge from a person that ran on Trump's white nationalist platform and lost.

'White nationalist platform', lol. That kind of rhetoric is what loses elections for Democrats.

bodhipooh wrote:
Regardless of where you sit in the political spectrum, you ought to be asking yourself why is the mainstream media so out of touch with the realities of the current political winds. All the way until yesterday, most outlets were predicting a loss for the Republicans that would show how support for Trump had eroded and which could be harbinger of more bad news and perhaps even the beginning of the end for his presidency. Despite a reported $23MM investment by the Democratic Party, their candidate still lost. If that kind of money can't secure an election victory, there should be some serious soul searching as to why that is, and how to fix that problem.

Now, today, much is being made about the fact that the margin of victory was slim (just a hair under 4%) and the meaning of that, but what is being ignored by most (but, surprisingly, it was highlighted by an NPR analyst) is the fact that Handel made a HUGE comeback after garnering under 20% of the general vote during the first round of voting that led to this runoff election.

Ultimately, why are CNN, NYT, and all these other news outlets, getting it so wrong in forecasting these elections? Why is the "Trump voter" so underestimated or improperly polled or missed? These are all questions that will gain more importance and urgency as the mid term elections approach.

GrovePath wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The Democrat in Georgia spent 5X more than the Republican, and they still lost. How humiliating.

Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection.

Monroe wrote:
Regardless of where anyone sits on the political spectrum, the Kushner family has been doing quite well in the real estate business well before our president was elected. His election had nothing to do with their success.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
I don't think anyone who loves giving pain and have the legal right to carry a gun should be a sheriff or police officer. Look at the recent incident where a man is on fire and a police officer kicked him. I am tired of paying these lawsuits. It is time to screen the sheriff/police officer candidates.

Amazing... your ignorance knows no bounds. Do you even REALIZE that saying a dominatrix should not be able to be a police officer (because she role plays as a dominant - and maybe also sadistic - person) is like saying that an actor that plays a sadist in a movie should be banned from ever being a police officer? It's ROLE PLAYING. It's not necessarily their public persona. And, seriously, the government needs to stay out of people's bedrooms and their sexual preferences. What happens between two (or, more) consenting adults, in their own privacy, is none of the government's business. Nor yours, by the way.

Some people who become sheriffs/police officers want to serve the community, but others want to control it, perhaps punish it. I think we have all seen officers who have behaved as though they are judge, jury and executioner. They have that dominatrix personality. I do not want that person with a gun with the legal authority to stop someone.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Tony, tony, please link us to your concerns over the last 8 years over the EB5 abuses. Ya know, when your guy Barack Hussein Obama was in the White House, and his fanboy Chuckie Schumer was the Senate leader. Get back to me when you dig that up, thankee!

Gee can't seem to find anything showing Obama's son in law/top advisor (lol) directly profiting off of this abuse. Let me know when you dig that up big guy!

Jared was doing quite well in real estate before his father in law became our President, but nice try. I don't think Trump ran to become our President to help Jared get investment money from the EB5 program, given than so much of the Kushner family real estate portfolio has no EB5 investment connection. But any Trump/anti-Semitic smear is a good one, right?