heights wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Again, and again, and again.

Is it so hard to figure out? Mayor, councilpeople - are hired by us, the taxpayers. When they are buying some services for the City, they are supposed to represent us, the taxpayers, and try to get the best conditions and the best price from our point of view!

If Fullop, Healey, Lavarro and others and want to represent them - they ought to resign their city offices and seek employment with those contractors, - as lobbyist, or negotiators, or whatnot.

P.S. Same about "let's do something for the unions!" idea. You want to benefit the unions, - you should seek employment with the unions, and draw your pay from the unions.

Then in turn you should run for political office as others have done in the past, or at least get appointed to a board.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Probably the kind of place that will bring in the Miller Light chugging crowd from out of town.

GrovePath wrote:
Do you mean even more drunken derelicts wondering over after they are kicked out of the Titled Kilt?

gibbons70 wrote:
Yay for chain restaurants!!!

snowflake20 wrote:
Sorry but I'm not bringing my kids to some place where the women are dressed like scottish tarts.

RiverRat wrote:
Women should be able to wear whatever they want, but when they are objectified like this, it tends to attract some sad and ugly men.

snowflake20 wrote:
My kids see me naked all of the time. My issue isn't nudity, which is normal, my issue is the way the women are dressed. They look like they are out of a Brazzers porno.

StevenFulop wrote:

Regardless of financial support, it doesn?t change my view that when the city uses subsidies to private developers for market rate housing there is an opportunity to ensure that both certain numbers of people get the opportunity to work from Jersey City and that fair wages are paid.

MDM wrote:
why did Fulop vote for that abomination of a law?

jsquared wrote:

#1 Guns are not going to be outlawed in NJ or any other state. Even the most liberal policy-makers wouldn't argue for that. Let's cut the hyperbole.

HOWEVER, just because you have a permit to own and operate a firearm doesn't allow you to carry a concealed, loaded weapon.

Have you actually shot a handgun richieveal? How about in a high-stress situation, in a populated urban environment? It's one thing to face down a burglar with a shotgun in your home and quite another to play vigilante justice in the street without training.

Handguns are much harder to aim accurately. (Look at how often cops miss their targets, and they receive regular training.)

Most law abiding citizens would have their gun stripped away and used against them OR end up hurting innocents while trying to play hero OR shooting themselves ala Plaxico.

Let's be real buddy. Going out armed with handguns is not going to help law-abiding citizens. Also, it's just not going to happen in the most densely populated state in the country.

New Jersey Concealed Carry Permit Information:
Issuance of the permit is almost completely discretionary, and New Jersey courts have upheld the policy of strictly limiting permits ?to persons specifically employed in security work . . . and to others who can establish an urgent necessity for carrying guns for self-protection.?

holdonaminute11 wrote:
http://www.jerseycityindependent.com/ ... -push-for-jciadpw-merger/

So..........what now, fulop? What happened to your support?

Rorschach wrote:
This says it all on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

CatDog wrote:
I really find the idea that we'd be better off with a tiny federal government laughable. It?s not always great, but if we were basically 50 different countries competing with each other, with a mishmash of totally different laws in each one, we?d not be the rich superpower we are now.

Probably would have been overrun by the French or Spanish or even the Brits.

jcwalkingman wrote:
SammytheT: At the planning board meetings back in 2007, Toll Bros stated that they would preserve the facade of the A&P warehouse on the Provost Street side...I guess that wasn't part of the final plan though.

In any case, I hope the tower design has changed. The design shown on the SLCE website is about unimaginative as a design can get. Why don't they just stack a bunch of shipping containers and paint the whole thing brown if they're just making a big rectangular building?

Crazy_Chester wrote:
Quote:

cheese7 wrote:
I'd much rather my neighborhood look like a "rat's hole" than have it crawling with people and cars. One of the many reasons I like my neighborhood is because it is quiet and peaceful. Neighbors look out for one another. It's a good little community. This is just another travesty to add to JC's list of shame.

This is a city. If you want peace, quiet, and fewer people, buy a farm.

1stStGuy wrote:


The RR plan isn't FORCING new restaurants to open, but ALLOWING them to open. Whether new or existing restaurants succeed or fail is completely up to them.

jaspernoone wrote:
We all should applaude Councilman Steven Fulop for his efforts to make our school system a better place.

CatDog wrote:
I didn't say they're invulnerable, I said they're a lot harder to break than a regular bulb. Regular bulbs are super fragile, in case you haven't noticed.

And wasn't it you that said CFLs have 7% less mercury? Or something along those lines?

I don't know, I don't really go around smashing lightbulbs in my house so I'm not particularly worried about anything.

CatDog wrote:

Man have you ever messed around with a CFL? They're much harder to break than a regular lightbulb.

And I don't understand the point anyway? CFLs use wayyyy less electricity, they last longer, and they're not as fragile. I save money, and I don't have to break out the ladder to change bulbs as often. And apparently there's less mercury too. Why wouldn't I use them?

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

stillinjc wrote:
Belgium can kiss my American ass.

And don't be calling bullshit on my can-do spirit, bud, because I came to this country from rotten Europe with $100 to my name, and now I am proudly a 1-percenter, in the OWS parlance.

Every cent of it earned by hard, honest work, not WS shenanigans. Could never happen in Europe. Please tell the kind Belgians to go eff themselves from me. Thanks so much.

how are you American if you came here from Europe?

Have you heard of naturalization?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Well, here is a thought:

If someone says "Let's break communism!"
And everyone else responds with "oh, no, it is impossible!"
If that someone says, - "here is HOW we are going to do that"
And everyone else responds with "oh, no it's impossible"

And then it happens exactly like that someone predicted.

And everyone else says "oh, but it didn't happen because of you, it happened on its own, we all knew it was going to happen..."


Well, sorry, but no. If you guys are really that smart - why did not you predict it BEFORE it happened?

How do you fit into your story the various people, like, oh, every single president, who had been working for and predicting the fall of the USSR for the previous 70 years? Just ahead of their time? Reagan's arms race was no different than the "missile gap" arms race of the late 50's or the space race. He won the musical chairs of doing it when the system was tired and had a leader who wasn't committed to keeping it going. I'll bet had Putin been in Gorbachev's seat things would have turned out differently.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:

I guess this means math proved to be too hard to try, eh?

P.S. BTW, I too used to argue along the lines of "but X also does it!" I remember it fondly - nice, easy argument. Had to abandon it though in high-school. My mom told me that it is not for grown-ups.

You should probably read up on the Dunning?Kruger effect before you comment anymore on the internet.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
[quote]


I mean, otherwise it would look like I am the only one who can add numbers... That would be somewhat embarrassing, no? After all, I am but a stoopid unedukatid simpleton...

Even China is phasing out incandescent bulbs. China! China, where they substitute anti-freeze in place of sugar and rivers of sewage and toxic chemicals are tapped for drinking water.

But you know what, if you start eating shards of a your CFL, I'll nominate you for a Darwin award.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:


Mercury from the CFLs and their use = 2,259 pounds
Mercury from incandescent bulb usage = 2,425 pounds

Did you note that the comparison is based on ALL the CFL's ending up the environment rather than being properly disposed of? Everyone I know keeps a box of dead CFL's and gets rid of them properly every year or 2, rather than ritualistically smashing them and distributing the remains in their children's beds.

Asif wrote:
You may want to read this article which contests that Reagan was the one who broke the Soviets. As you have said, lets stop wasting taxpayer money....if the private sector wishes to save this ship so be it....but no more money from the public till. We could spend this money on education, job training or stop invading countries on false lies or supporting dictators, or overthrowing democratic regimes....yeah...democracy my foot!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles ... the_soviet_union_is_wrong

brewster wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Nah. They are great as symbols of stupidity.

You see, since winds are not always blowing, and the electricity can not be stored in large quantities, windmills do have to have a conventional power as a backup in any case.

And so they are extremely inefficient.

What I love about you is that no matter how uneducated on a topic you are, you still think you deserve an opinion. ....

Well done! I didn't have the stomach to wack Boris on the nose again. The rote Heritage talking points just make me ill. I specifically mentioned mercury because of the nonsense about them and CFL's. The mercury kept out of the environment by using CFL's to reduce coal electricity production greatly outweighs the amounts put in by CFL breakage and disposal.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:


Nice strawman. However, public transportation actually assists thousands of people daily, as well as helps link communities. .

Well, this kind of statement is easy to validate. If the light rail is profitable, than it was a good investment. If not, - it is a bad one.

That's actually missing the point of public transportation. It is not meant to be a for-profit venture, it is a public service. At best, they exist not to lose money while providing the service.