Speak Out

The place to speak your mind on everything from politics to potholes.

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
tom July 22, 2014 at 03:12 PM
So, having a platform and his own beliefs that differ from yours makes him bad????? Give it upRead Morealrea dy, we all get it, you hate him and will stop at nothing to discredit him. And, I'm still waiting for YOU to explain why you touted in your first write ups and on your facebook page that you were a 501c3 non-profit, but there is no record of you existing in the official listing on NJ 501c3 non-profits. You have since taken that blurb off your facebook page...I wonder why?????
Thomas Scarano July 22, 2014 at 06:21 PM
This group has endorsed Scolavino for congress...despite this claim made by them...District 4Read MoreCoalit ion for Change May 08, 2014 at 08:36 AM District 4 Coalition is about public awareness. We do not endorse any politiicans. They are a radical liberal group who has endorsed a person who favor partial birth abortion and amnesty for illegal immigrants
Thomas Scarano July 22, 2014 at 06:31 PM
Non profit or political action committee ? District 4 Coalition for Change (D4CC) is a non-profitRead Moreor ganization that was formed expressly for galvanizing the voters in Congressional District #4 which is situated in forty-four municipalities in Mercer, Monmouth and Ocean Counties. Their words.
Christina Johnson July 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM
Please see the article for information on how to apply for housing at The Bluffs, or go directly to Read Morethe Aberdeen Township page at http://www.aberdeennj.org/blog
Martin B. Brilliant July 09, 2014 at 10:49 AM
I think the missing matching statistic is how many times each year a gun is used to commit a crime. Read MoreI don't have easy access to recent data, but for 1993 we have (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF) "According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations occurred in 1993.... Of the victims of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm." I'm sure there were victims who did not survive to make a statement, so that's an underestimate. It may also underestimate the same statistic some 20 years later. So it might well match your 1.5, 1.9 or 2.5 million prevented with guns. The upshot is that if there were no guns (outside of those in a well regulated militia) the number of crimes both prevented and committed with guns would be a lot smaller.
Thomas Scarano July 09, 2014 at 11:00 AM
Myth #1: A Gun In The Home Means You Are Three Times More Likely To Be Killed 1. Fact: Guns areRead Moreuse d more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. (1) That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker. (2) 2. Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one's own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. (3) Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long: * Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home." (4) In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household." * In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim's "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."(5) 1. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, "Guns in the Medical Literature -- A Failure of Peer Review," The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, vol. 83 (March 1994):136. 2. Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime," at 173, 185. 3. Don B. Kates, "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of Propaganda?" in Gary Kleck & Kates, Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control (2001), p. 79. 4. Ibid., p. 75. 5. Ibid., p. 76.
Thomas Scarano July 09, 2014 at 11:01 AM
every law abiding citizen is the "well regulated militia"
Mortimer Snerd July 04, 2014 at 09:55 AM
The Koch Bros. have started to spend more in support of their puppet Chris Smith's re-election.
Thomas Scarano July 04, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Thanks....I needed a good laugh
Thomas Scarano July 04, 2014 at 03:54 PM
Thanks Mortimer....I needed a good laugh and liberal stupidity is the best comic relief
Thomas Scarano July 03, 2014 at 03:25 PM
Here's what hobby Libby pays for..hardly a denial of healthcare Myth #1: Hobby Lobby won’tRead Morecov er female contraception. The truth? Wildly incorrect. Hobby Lobby’s health plans, pre-Obamacare and through present day, cover 16 of 20 FDA-proved forms of contraception including multiple forms of the birth control pill: Male condoms Female condoms Diaphragms with spermicide Sponges with spermicide Cervical caps with spermicide Spermicide alone Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill) Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill) Birth control pills (extended/continuous use) Contraceptive patches Contraceptive rings Progestin injections Implantable rods Vasectomies Female sterilization surgeries Female sterilization
District 4 Coalition for Change July 03, 2014 at 04:18 PM
Thomas Scarano July 03, 2014 at 05:51 PM
Thomas Scarano June 23, 2014 at 08:53 PM
I am assuming this is meant as a joke?
Thomas Scarano June 23, 2014 at 09:15 PM
1.even with the small cut the amount of money spent is double from the previous six years....theRead Moresta te department also has great latitude on the use of the funds. This is a false flag 2. Lots of blame to go around. However, Obama has failed to address the issue.3. Less people are covered on Obamacare and health care and the cost is skyrocketing 4. The five that Obama released are extremely dangerous unlike the others released by Bush...5. Lie. The number is at least 162 conservative groups denied. And by the way where are those emails. 6. Another lie..Obama has more then doubled the national debt. It was nine trillion when bush alert office
Jennifer June 24, 2014 at 08:33 AM
Bush let as many prisoners go as he thought he safely could, because it is morally questionable toRead Mored etain people without trial forever. Obama promised to shut down Guantanamo, because he was a naive fool. When he took office and realized who these people were, he decided he COULDN'T let them go. For 6 years. Unitl now, because he wanted to create a big, feel-good moment. Still seems surprised that it blew up in his face. And Obamacare sucks for me - I kept my family's insurance, but now our copay has gone from 10% to 20%. Our out-of-network deductible is so high $11,600 - and the co-pay after that $50%- that it is the same as having no out-of-network coverage, because who could afford to use it? I have friends with real Obamacare policies - their boss stopped covering them because he couldn't find an affordable policy. So she got an open-market policy, and said she can afford it, but she can't use it - because her Doctor and dentist are not in it, and she does not want to change since she has a special needs child and he is used to these professionals, and they know his needs. So she was forced to buy even dental separately, KNOWING she would not use it. A LOT of people are pissed off about Obama care, and the 'poor' are not going to cover his a$$ on this one, because they already had medicaid. Oh, and since we are going back into Iraq, I think you guys can stop calling it 'Bush's war" now. Hey, how about letting Microsoft and Pearson buy the entire US education market? How about that card Arne Duncan, saying that 'white suburban moms are just angry because they are finding out their kids aren't as smart as they thought?" Now picture an education secretary under a republican president saying that "the achievement gap" is not a social justice issue, it is just "minority urban moms who are angry that their kids aren't as smart as the white kids" Why was that man not fired?????
Pradeep Jhanjee July 01, 2014 at 01:34 AM
Jennifer, I too believe that the members of the TC are good people, who work hard and have goodRead Moreint entions. It is their vision that is being discussed. The TC is pro-development and they are delivering according to that vision. The Lucent process has not been a transparent one, yes legal procedure of openness has been followed but it really was form over function. There is absolutely no implication of impropriety but rather that the process was “closed door” and the thrust was you elected us now “trust us”. An aside, I am still awaiting the posting of the missing 11 to 30 years of Exhibit H “Fiscal Plan” that was promised at the PILOT June 17th meeting. Regarding it being a thankless job, well they have a vision and got themselves elected to fulfill it and by golly they are well on their way. They are mature and able enough to take the heat of opposing views. The type of town Holmdel is to become is at play, the lifestyle and lifecycle cost issues are simply too important for people to remain silent. We need damage control. Writing opinion pieces is not exactly my cup of tea either however on-ward ho!
Jennifer July 01, 2014 at 11:40 AM
I agree that this could have an enormous impact on the town and school, which I believe this TC has Read Morenot been willing to consider. I really think they are convinced they have closed the door on anything that would massively change the quality of life in the town. I really believe they think the building itself will not attract any population that would skew the funding of the school district, that the economics of any housing on the property vis-a-vis the school district would be the similar to the impact of any similar-size development elsewhere in town, and this is where I really disagree. The say it was fair to do the PILOT because the building itself will not add a single child to the school district. Well, 30 years is a long time, and the decline of Lakewood schools over the past 30 years, from a decent district to one that is bankrupt, and being investigated by the FBI and state agencies for fraud and misappropriation of funds, that was not a result of adding children to the (public) school district. That was a result in part of an exploding population of private school students sucking resources away from the public schools, and a school board composed entirely of parents of private school students. Ralph Zucker was on the Master Plan committee for Lakewood. If he would do that to his own home town, really, why do we think Holmdel would be any different?
Pradeep Jhanjee July 01, 2014 at 11:22 PM
Yes Jennifer I am sure TC members are truly convinced that they are doing what is right howeverRead Moresinc erity does not change the results on the ground. All we can now hope for is damage control. Regarding the PILOT gift, it should have been negotiated away. No developer would have walked away from a project of this size and declared minimum IIR. Drawing comfort from the rationale that the building does not add students to the school system is disingenuous. By this logic all businesses should not contribute to the school system. The reality is that the citizens bear the burden of both the schools and township government. Shoveling monies one way or another does not change the total bill. The cynic in me says perhaps, just perhaps it was not weak negotiating skills but rather a weak resolve to challenge PILOT given the ability to sequester revenues away from the schools and hence cosmetically improve finances at the township level. I hope it was just poor negotiating skills else it cost the town $30million to accomplish moving monies from one pant pocket to another.
See more »