|
Re: parking ticket: motor vehicle nuisance? huh?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
No it is not. No difference whatsoever, - not from legal point of view, not from moral one. I am not sure why you put that word in all caps, by the way? I mean - if someone knows that he is in the red zone - by the same reasoning you should know that you are over time, no? So, you KNOWINGLY exceed the time for which you paid.
Posted on: 2012/2/5 6:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bayonne the new Netherlands ?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I would advise you not to mention mercury. I mean, if enviros want to force us to use CFLs instead of incandescent lights, - they should avoid mentioning mercury. Quote: We have nuclear, but not in our town, and don't even think about storing it's waste! Why not? I have always thought that thinking is preferable to just making wild-eyed claims. Quote: Windmills are great as a symbol of paying the piper, 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. So much so, that Spain that embarked on that "green power" project so much earlier than US... let me find it... Ah, here, - Espana admite que la economia verde que vendio a Obama es una ruina. And, as for whole "becoming Netherlands", what do you know, - Dutch fall out of love with windmills. Wanna more? here. To think how much money - trillions of dollars in total, - people wasted on all those stupid schemes, - and all for no reason other than Al-Gore-fueled hysteria over "man made global warming".
Posted on: 2012/2/5 6:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Embankment- Update Thread
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
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. Simple. As for the embankment, I have a question - what are the grounds for the city to sue for ownership? I.e., does it mean that city may own whatever property it likes?
Posted on: 2012/2/5 5:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Occupy our homes movement in Jersey City?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2012/2/1 2:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Will your taxes go up…or down?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Sorry, I am just not that kind of guy. My blood doesn't boil when I see people increasing the value of their property. Even when by the millions of dollars. No, really, I am absolutely cool with that. I do not see taxes as a way to make developers pay for this affront of making money. I think of taxes more as the way to pay fairly for the city services...
Posted on: 2012/1/24 5:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Heights: woman's purse snatched at knifepoint at 7:20 p.m. on Central Ave.
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You said it. We need the Congress to do something 100% constitutional for once, - and force the full reciprocity for CCW permits just the same as it works with drivers licenses.
Posted on: 2012/1/24 5:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Will your taxes go up…or down?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
... A reval equalizes the tax burden.... And, more importantly, allows the city to increase overall taxes! And, of course, one more thing: the current system taxes the value of the house, not of the land. And this means that we punish those who renovate their property. And here is something interesting about financial stimuli of this kind, - they do work. It is as if we want owners to maintain their properties at the lowest possible level. Just a hair above "this is intolerable".
Posted on: 2012/1/16 5:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Longshoremen's union rallies against plans to automate Jersey City-Bayonne port
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, sure - productivity is the root of all evil! Have you ever heard the word "luddite"?
Posted on: 2012/1/13 0:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 3 Jersey City boys arrested after bringing two plastic pellet guns to school
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, first of all, let's not lie. It is not "zero tolerance for weapons". It is "zero tolerance" period - for weapons, for anything that resembles weapons, for anything that hints at anything that may or may not be weapons. Now, onto your question. Let's review, shall we? Three boys come to school with toys. They do not pose any threat to anyone. Now, how do you think - what is in best interest of those harmless students - to be suspended or to not be suspended? Frankly, I am puzzled - you look at this story, - and you ask THAT question? Do you really not see it? What possible interest of any child was protected by suspending those boys?
Posted on: 2012/1/10 2:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 3 Jersey City boys arrested after bringing two plastic pellet guns to school
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yeah, really, what would I know about kids? Damn. And I am sure - you were serious when you asked the question. Anyways, yours is not an argument against mine. I said that "zero tolerance" means that (1) you are motivated not by what's best for the kids, - but what's best for you, and (2) your solution is to avoid any personal responsibility by using a brainless one-size-fits-all canned solution. You are not arguing that I said something that is not true, you are trying to justify your solution. However, I don't really care WHY you want to go this route. My concern, as a parent, is limited to the fact that you DO.
Posted on: 2012/1/9 4:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 3 Jersey City boys arrested after bringing two plastic pellet guns to school
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
First, this is not what I said. Before you go on evaluating my arguments, it is generally considered a good idea to try understanding them. Second, you think my way of arguing is not too clever, I disagree. However, here is something that we can both agree on - my way is clever enough so that I don't have to resort to calling my opponent names, do I? 
Posted on: 2012/1/9 4:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 3 Jersey City boys arrested after bringing two plastic pellet guns to school
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Some other objects that are dangerous do exist. In fact, some of them are orders of magnitude more dangerous than pellet guns (in fact some of them cause more fatalities than real guns), - like cars and pools. So, out of curiosity, - your attitude about dangerous objects that have no place outside of some special "ranges", - do you feel like that about all those objects, or is it narrowly about guns?
Posted on: 2012/1/8 0:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 3 Jersey City boys arrested after bringing two plastic pellet guns to school
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
How is this different from what I said? I said, - "zero tolerance" means "we are unable and afraid to make intelligent reasoned decisions". Like, for example, unable to tell the difference between a weapon and a plastic pellet gun. And unable to tell the difference between a child playing with a toy - and a "perpetrator". Quote: It means if somebody got hurt there are legal implications for the school. Again, I said the exact same thing - the whole thing is not about students, but 100% about covering your own behinds. So, we are in agreement on both counts. (1) It is about being unable and afraid to take a responsibility for making a judgement call - so reverting to the dumbest canned "one size fits all" recipe, (2) the aforementioned fear is about your well-being, not that of the students. Extra point: (3) judging by the tone of your comment, we are in agreement that this is something you should be ashamed of.
Posted on: 2012/1/6 4:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do Away With Street Cleaning
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Will you vote for one? Or will you vote for the city government that likes unions of city employees??
Posted on: 2011/12/25 2:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Christmas Tree
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Was it a real jail - or you are talking about your basement?
Posted on: 2011/12/25 2:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 3 Jersey City boys arrested after bringing two plastic pellet guns to school
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
"zero tolerance" means "we are unable and afraid to make intelligent reasoned decisions, so we have decided to just have one answer to all questions. Naturally, when we picked the answer, we did not look for one best for the students, but for the one that is most likely to cover our asses. Long live public education!"
Posted on: 2011/12/25 2:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: President Obama betting on new plan for struggling homeowners
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, I would go easier on banks. For a long while, ever since Clinton, the banks were leaned on and forced to lend money to the people with high risk of default. On their own, banks were protecting themselves by (a) charging higher rates for the high-risk loans, (b) asking high-risk customers to insure their loans and so on. It was announced to be a "predatory lending", banks were declared to be Bad Guys who give good rates to rich and bad rates to the poor. HUD and Fanny May were directed by law and Government to fix the situation. What you see now - is the result of the decade of Government fixing. Now, the Government is trying to fix it once more. Of course, the only way it can think of: when it sees that some people behave irresponsibly and got in trouble, - it forces those who were responsible, - to share the burden of those who were not. Basically, the idea is like this: if you behave irresponsibly, and win - it is all yours. If you lose, we will force others to bail you out. Now, for all the marbles, - whoever want to venture a guess, what will the results of this policy be?
Posted on: 2011/12/15 12:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $48,548 a year Public School "messenger" charged with criminal sexual contact with a teacher
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hey, I just thought of a way we can cut $48K from the budget!
Posted on: 2011/11/29 12:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Goya is awarded $80M tax credit in attempt to entice company to move to Jersey City
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It all depends on what your goals are. For example, if you want to attract businesses to the City, you need to create conditions they find attractive. So, what IS your goal?
Posted on: 2011/11/17 1:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Grove Pointe ridiculous rent increase
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
How do you mean it is unfair? If the landlord can find someone else who is willing to pay 2050 for your apartment - why is it not fair for a landlord to take that better deal, - or to ask you to match the price? If someone offered you a job with a 14% raise - would it be unfair for you to take it? Would it be unfair for you to ask you current employer for a raise? If it is ok for you to charge as much as someone is willing to pay you - why is it not fair for a landlord?
Posted on: 2011/11/17 1:02
|
|||
|
||||
.|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Look, it is very simple - I got an example, and you can find none. Unless you do find something - sorry, pal, but outside of your circle "the Party says so, so it must be true", - has no currency. Quote: Quote: What is relevant - is simple question: do you acknowledge existence of a huge number of liberal speech codes, on many campuses, etc, etc. Please, yes - or no.
Posted on: 2011/11/16 3:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote: I also try to base my decision on something more than jingoistic propaganda (I'd argue that Australia is more truly capitalist than the U.S. - it's like a big Texas just with an even stranger accent), but to each his own, I guess. Quote: Why would I leave? More to the point, why would you suggest I move to a socialist country? You are not one of them (sic) people who just reflexively attack (an) other's positions without knowing what they are, no? Quote: I have neither argued against nor for your views, just made the observation that you are clearly a frustrated, unhappy person. Of course, the same situation can be described differently - instead of arguing on merits, you go for an ad hominem attack. Well, I wish you the best of luck.
Posted on: 2011/11/16 2:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Hey don't worry about small things...
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Post! Who cares about post!
Very soon the same kind of organization, with the same motivation to perform, same incentives, same responsibility and accountability, and same monopolisitic power - soon they will be running our health care.
Posted on: 2011/11/15 12:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
As for why I chose this country - simple. Because of the two obscure documents. One is called a "Declaration of Independence", and it proclaims, as a Founding Principle of this country that the only legitimate work for a government is to secure the rights of the people. Another is called "Constitution" and it restricts the power of the government to an enumerated few items, and very sternly says that there are no other powers. Yes, yes, I know, lots of people disregard those documents, - but even than, this country is still so much more free than all others. So, when I decided that I don't want to build socialism - I left and went to live in the most capitalist country in the world. Now, my question: why don't you do the same? Like why not go live in a socialist country, if socialism is much to your liking? This way everybody will have what they want, no? Quote:
You asked me to show you speech codes that liberals create - and I showed you TONS of those speech codes. They exist, they are plentiful, they are everywhere - and it can't be denied. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Funny how so many people believe this - and not one of you can find a single example. For example, my recollection is quite different. My memory is - Obama plainly refused to even consider a compromise. Republicans were given a choice of either signing up for Obama's agenda, or taking a hike. And, when I make a claim like this, - I do have things to support it. Consider the infamous "I won" story. Note the date, - not a week past after the coronation.
Posted on: 2011/11/15 5:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And your point is? No speech code ever - EVER - was created for any other purpose than to prohibit some sort of "bad" speech. With an explanation that it is done to protect people who otherwise would be endangered. Freedom means that ANY speech is free, not only the "good" one. Defending free speech means - defending UNPOPULAR speech first and foremost, - since popular speech needs no defense. So, you need to choose. Either you defend liberties, like freedom of speech. Or you defend the speech codes. But you can't do both. P.S. Thanks for one more example to illustrate my original point - liberals do not defend liberties.
Posted on: 2011/11/14 11:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Would you be willing to provide an example of Obama building a consensus with Republicans? No need to give a lot of them - one would be enough. Let's look at the best one. Also, just in case, you do know which party controlled Congress and Senate during the first two years of Obama's presidency, right? There is no gotchas in the question, it is just that some people - for some reason, - do not have this knowledge.
Posted on: 2011/11/14 0:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
http://thefire.org/code/speechcodereport/ Quote: denying the right to association? what the hell are you talking about? Quote: thought crimes? Is this a sci-fi movie? I don't know what you're talking about! You have never heard of "hate crimes"? You really never heard of an idea that when we punish someone for murder - we need to punish him more if he was thinking bad thoughts when doing it? Quote: prohibiting you from making honest transactions? What does that even mean? Quote: taking a third of what you make? Are you talking about taxes? You mean the tax rates that Republicans set? So, either you agree that Democrats do want to redistribute the fruits of my labor - or you claim that they never do that. Quote: Or are you complaining about how we have the lowest taxes right now that we've ever had in our history? You obviously do not mean "history of the USA", because - as anybody with a most rudimentary knowledge of history knows, - there were times when the income tax did not exist at all. So, when you say "in our history", - who are "we" and what history do you talk about? Quote: The only thing that makes any sense out of what you say is the "forcing me to buy things" which I guess you're talking about health-care. Funny thing is, a lot of Democrats and liberals don't like that either, and it was originally proposed by Republicans in the 90s. What does matter - is that I gave you quite a few examples of how Democrats directly and bluntly violate people's rights. P.S. Sorry, if some generalization offends you, but from my experience, people who claim that liberals DEFEND people's rights, - when faced with the list of violations, - immediately switch to "oh, but it is ok to have those speech codes, because they prohibit BAD speech". Wonder if you are going to do that.
Posted on: 2011/11/14 0:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So, wait, let me figure it out. So, if I borrow money from you... And I spent it... And I can't pay it back... And you think - it is YOUR fault? Nice. And the premium phrase about "bundled INTO a toxic asset"!! This is just perfect. So, when you heard about them nasty toxic assets - you imagined it like bankers take good and clean loans - and dip them into something toxic, and this is why people can't pay? Like they COULD pay before - but after the bankers "bundled the loan into toxic asset" - that's when it all happened, and their ability to repay the loan was ruined? Quote: Quote: Ok, let's say "authority". Happy? Quote: Quote: I was not arguing which speech is good, which is not. I just said that liberals are not defending free speech - and you have just proved my point. Thanks. Quote: Quote: You misunderstood. I was not talking about myself. You see, I already saw the end of the tunnel you're digging. I was born in the USSR. I know how the socialism looks, how it works, and how id dies. Those who build socialism - succeed. Of course, as soon as you socialists succeed, and socialism is achieved, and everybody is in equal poverty - you declare that it was a "wrong" attempt and doesn't count. USSR did not count, Cuba doesn't count, North Korea doesn't count, and so on.
Posted on: 2011/11/12 17:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Name 1, - ONE, - civil liberty that liberals protect. However, here is the tricky part. For example, someone may look like he is defending a liberty of free speech. However, when you look closer, you realize that he doesn't defend ALL speech. Only the speech that he considers to be Good. And he is pretty much ok with banning of what he thinks is Bad Speech. Which means that he doesn't protect liberties, - but only privileges for the things that he likes. So, with this in mind - do you have an example of a liberty that liberals protect? In order to make it simple - let's start with the best example you can think of. Quote: Democrats might make laws against the sale of firearms, or incandescent lightbulbs, and make stricter laws on things like campaign donations and make environmental and food regulations. And make speech codes on campuses, and deny people's rights to association, and create thought-crimes, and force me to buy products and services I may not want, and prohibit me from making honest transaction with another consenting adult, and demand to take a third of what I produce, and force me to pay for government-sponsored teaching of the ideology I find repulsive, and prohibit me from making medical decisions between me and my doctor (with just 1 exception), and so on and so forth. Quote: But in general it's always the ACLU and other liberal organizations that are fighting to protect freedom of religion, of speech, and other civil rights. Really? I have never heard about ACLU taking on, for example, campus speech codes. I know FIRE works on that tirelessly - but ACLU is nowhere to be found. I did not see ACLU support in defense of 2nd Amendment either. If you choose which liberty to protect, and in which cases to protect it - you do not fight for liberty at all. You fight for PRIVILEGES, as I explained above. Quote: The only thing I can think of to ever suggest that Democrats might try to infringe upon free speech would be that equal airtime law in the 90s or whenever, which was quite possibly the dumbest law ever. Depends. If Democrats don't ever violate people's rights - than, yes, sure, it would mean that I am brainwashed. However, if Democrats DO violate people's rights - for example, - if speech codes, and "hate" crimes, and 2nd amendment violations, and all other things do happen, - that would mean that my information sources are fine. In that case we will have to look for an alternative hypothesis to explain why you can't think of any example of Democratic infringement...
Posted on: 2011/11/11 2:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Do we need a strong republican mayor?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If you don't know much about Communists - you can always ask someone who saw them first hand. And then escaped - to educate you. Communists base their political philosophy on the assumptions that some "Good of the Society" is more important than human rights, - especially property rights, freedom of speech and so on. From this point of view - Communists are like the opposite of Republicans. Frankly, they are very close to Democrats on their basic premises. The difference is in the degree of aggression. If you disagree with Communist - he will want you in jail. Disagree with a Democrat - he will slander you and, if you are unlucky enough to be under his control - he will throw some "speech code" at you. Colleges nowadays are like overflowing with speech regulations. However, both will demand that you surrendered fruits of your labor - because they need money to build their utopia. What is especially funny - is that we got to the point where even the most faithful Democrats see that "tax and spend" can't go any further. And yet, - you guys can't get of this drug! You will never, ever, EVER vote for anybody except a Democrat. And no Democrat will ever stop "tax and spend" because this is the CORNERSTONE of being a Democrat. It will all end only after we ran out of money. Things that can't go forever - won't. So, like Greece, Italy, USSR before them - we will go broke. Within few years most of the more affluent residents and businesses will leave. Home prices will drop when those who can't pay city taxes will start a sell-off. And the rest of you will get stuck with the bill. Stunned, depressed and with no idea of what went wrong.
Posted on: 2011/11/10 12:35
|
|||
|
||||
