oreoz wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

dmark526 wrote:
I will hold my nose and vote for Menendez for one reason. ...

...
Because the GOP is the only party that is capable and expected to stand on principle.

Not at all - the reason the GOP is expected to act on morals is because they sell themselves that way. Since they lay claim to being the moral, good Christian party, that's how they are judged. ...

JSleeze wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Well, if the other space is just as prominent, let's leave monument where it is - and whatever we planned to replace it with goes into that "other space" instead.

win-win.

You don't understand the issue, do you?

dmark526 wrote:
I will hold my nose and vote for Menendez for one reason. ...

Volga2112 wrote:
Eh, it does look grotesque, but I feel that it's somehow appropriate. I mean, it catches one's attention and looks as violent as what it's commemorating.

If I were to choose, I'd let the monument be. Some people don't like it ; tough shit, some people didn't like the Eiffel Tower and wanted it gone as well.

parkman wrote:
Question #2 is a non-binding referendum, which means the City is gauging residents? willingness to pay a small amount of money directed specifically to improve our parks & public spaces & preserve our historic sites....

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Here's an easy way to settle this - who is Yvonne voting for? Vote the opposite. Easy.

hero69 wrote:
I'm not having it. nope. hillary may have been "negligent," but donald was and is downright criminal imo. why don't gop zealots defend his sexual assaults, misuse of his charities, racists talk, his unwillingness to pay his employees and contractors properly if at all, or his business failures.

never in million years would hillary hire a caterer for a wedding, praise the caterer's work and then refuse to pay. donald trump belongs in jail.

Stringer wrote:

Jersey City United BOE slate pushes for ‘community connected schools’

September 20, 2016 - Jersey City, News -

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
wow, i just saw trmpy's comments on warren. he is just a foul-mouthed POS bully. does he ever address the issues?

Yet this is appropriate language that Sen. Warren used in her speech last night..right?

"Donald Trump is a loud, nasty, thin-skinned fraud?.?
"?? exactly what you?d expect from a thin-skinned, racist bully,"
"We will not allow a small, insecure, thin-skinned, wannabe tyrant?..?

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

OneSkirt wrote:
JC Mayors and Planning have been way over-building without any planning for infrastructure growth and improvements.

As in, Jersey City is supposed to build a multi-billion dollar tunnel to NYC? All by its lonesome? C'mon, man.

Water, sewage, streets etc yes. Mass transit? No.

heights wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Councilman Yun represents many in the Asian community and citizens for which English is a second language - Councilman-at-large Daniel Rivera is obviously an ignorant buffoon of the highest order.

You're right on both counts, although neither should be accepted.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
And who is Ejaz Khan??


Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Top 10 countries with highest rape crime :

The winner is USA

http://www.wonderslist.com/10-countries-highest-rape-crime/

some dude that has quoted The U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics on Rape ... that's all

JSleeze wrote:
UPDATE: My daughter and I were in Target last night. She used the bathroom and wasn't raped. Just thought I'd provide a measure, albeit small, of actual real life experience into the conversation.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
I really fear that the unintended consequence of this will be facilitating more suburban drivers as they get off the turnpike early and tear through downtown on their way to the tunnel.

A well founded fear, indeed. Lots of small communities around the country are now complaining of increased traffic on local streets as people are routed through local neighborhood streets by Waze and other similar apps.

JPhurst wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
These are tricky issues and the balancing tests are both fact intensive and somewhat subjective.

Yes, censorship and other totalitarian ideas can be this way. I mean - it's really hard to compile a list of permissible things to say. Especially since one thing may be judged ok today - but what if we need to get it verboten tomorrow? Not an easy task. And then there are people who always want to say prohibited things, and sometimes they write them down...

BTW, could you tell me, when you hear a phrase "freedom of speech", what do you think it means?

With respect to the issue at hand, I think it means what is set out in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on public employee speech, which is what I outlined above. A public employee has a right to speak on issues of public concern without fear for his or her job. This is balanced against the disruption and effect on government operations such speech may have.

This is a liberalization of the First Amendment compared to the initial jurisprudence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, not a totalitarian by any stretch of the imagination, took the position that the government as employer could act as any employer would, and fire an employee for what they said. The first amendment, he opined, did not require the government to give someone a job, or retain them in that job, on the public payroll.

Nevertheless the Supreme Court has, correctly, in my view, recognized that the government, even when acting in its role of employer, can be restricted by the First Amendment. Under the more recent conservative trend on the court, such 1st amendment protection has been reduced (such as in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which has severely curtailed public employee speakers in their role as whistleblowers).

As I said, based on the facts presented, I think the employee in this case may have a viable claim if he can prove it.

JPhurst wrote:
These are tricky issues and the balancing tests are both fact intensive and somewhat subjective.