[njtosd]

I don’t think it’s the same – there weren’t protests like those that are happening tonight. I think Hillary’s vocal supporters thought they were too smart to lose. Their sense of self has been jarred. I find the protests interesting. What are people protesting? Are they saying the election was unfair? They’re not really protesting, actually, I think it’s just group griping.

[njtosd]

[quote=zk]Maybe. And maybe this is why:

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-fbi-trump-2016-11

I’ve been busy (and I still am – the parade is tomorrow) following the World Champion Chicago Cubs around the country and watching them win, and there will be more to follow on the Clinton / FBI subject later. But for now, just this link.[/quote]

CUBS WIN!

Never thought I’d live to see it!

[njtosd]

[quote=grange9]How are children assigned to elementary schools in RSF and Carmel Valley? For example, if you live in the Roger Rowe zone, do the children still have a choice of elementary schools, like high schools, or are they confined to attending that one school? Likewise, if you live in 92130, do you have a choice of several elementary schools to choose from, or restricted to the nearest one? Thanks.[/quote]

In CV kids are generally assigned based on a boundary map. In the past, there have been oversubscribed schools where even kids within the area for that school have to attend a different school with more available space. This was generally associated with neighborhoods that were quickly developed and filled with families who generally had young students. Since most of CV is now developed, that sort of unevenness is becoming less of a problem.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]

Don’t underestimate the desire for safety and the momma-bear instinct.[/quote]

My brother blames over policing and big bother on democrats.
I blame the momma bears who want zero tolerance, except when their own kids do something bad, they beg for mercy.

Momma bears usually follow the politics of their husbands. But this election, with Trump, they see that men hold power they are feeling fed up. I’m talking suburban college educated women. We will see how they vote on Tuesday.[/quote]

It is so not surprising that you are single.

[njtosd]

[quote=flu]Come to think about it… the church/priest/whatever that came out and said voting for democrats is damning those people to hell… Didn’t they just violate what IRS Ruling 2007-41 said was prohibited?

http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_activity.html

CHURCHES POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY AND TAX EXEMPT STATUS

Political activity by a Church can jeopardize its tax-exempt status under IRC § 501(c)(3).

Partisan Campaign Support or Opposition Prohibited:

A church, as a tax-exempt organization under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 501(c)(3), is absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign in support or opposition to any candidate for elective public office. See Treasury Regulation §1.501(c)(3)—1(c)(3)(iii).

This prohibition applies to all national (federal), state, or local elective public office campaigns.

See IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-41 (provides concise summary of law, factors, and 21 situational factual examples covering a wide range of issues within this topic).

Note: A church pastor or minister may mention a candidate or a near future election but may not speak in favor of (or encourage the congregation to vote for or against) a particular candidate.
[/quote]

Later in the article you linked to, there is the following:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego on Wednesday said the messages in the flier and bulletin do not reflect Catholic teaching or diocese policies, are inappropriate, and that voters should use their conscience to determine which candidates to support.

“It’s not a mortal sin to vote for Democrats, number one. And number two, the church doesn’t take positions on this, and we’re not going to,” diocese spokesman Kevin Eckery said.

[njtosd]

[quote=outtamojo]I would expect 0 child molestations by Catholic priests, is that unreasonable?[/quote]

I would also expect 0 by rabbis, imams, and pastors of any other faith. They all seem to engage in such things at the same rate, however – so no reason to point out one over another. Actually, the hope would be that no one would do such a thing – but there are a lot of people (the vast majority of whom are men) out there who don’t seem to be able to control themselves.

[njtosd]

[quote=flu]Have you heard? If you vote for a Democrat , you are going to hell.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-church-bulletin-20161102-story.html

Lol… I guess Catholic priests molesting little boys get a free pass to heaven as long as they pretend to repent.[/quote]

Sounds like someone went off the rails a bit. What about Republican support for capital punishment, reduction in social services and support for military spending in situations where the US is not in direct danger? Oddly, we don’t seem to have a party that represents what are considered to be traditional Christian values (i.e. Anti abortion, anti capital punishment, etc).

In terms of your swipe at Catholic priests, the insurance rates for all congregations are apparently about the same:

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations.

http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

(One factor is that 96% of child molesters are men – and all priests are men.)

Actually, if anything there seems to be a growing problem among educators: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/20/more-teachers-are-having-sex-with-their-students-heres-how-schools-can-stop-them/?utm_term=.12f3fcc164ed&0p19G=c

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd]
Once again, BG, you have misquoted me by adding emphasis where there was none. It really riles me – I have explained on a couple of occasions now in painfully clear terms that I resent your misrepresentations. So have other people. Stop it.[/quote]nj, you’re certainly free to tell the Piggs what you meant by this phrase you posted:

[quote=njtosd]…Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. …[/quote]

Instead of berating me for giving MY opinion, why don’t you give yours? What exactly did to mean by the [bolded] phrase?[/quote]

All right – I understand you’re not so bright, but this shouldn’t be difficult. It is my choice to express what I think and to emphasize one point over another if I choose to. Do not change what I write. I don’t need to explain myself to you upon demand. Speak for yourself – you’ve done a lot of that already.[/quote]Good L@rd, I never thought I would actually agree with SK on this issue but those are YOUR words (above). No one has changed anything you have written. How did you expect your words to be interpreted, especially since you are apparently unwilling to clarify them?

Absolutely amazing …. :-0[/quote]

My point is (if you are really dim enough to miss this) is that I never italicize or bold anything. I believe that if you use the right words, italics and bold are almost never required. You have in this thread and others changed the font, which I have nicely asked you to stop – but yet you go on. And yes – you are absolutely amazing in a sad way.

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd]
I said potential crime – sexting with a 15 year old and sending lewd images is a problem, which is the reason Weiner’s being investigated. Poor judgement – hmm. Let’s say this – I hope my daughters never even date people like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner.[/quote]

So you’re saying that Secretary Clinton is “potentially” guilty of something because of something that Weiner did? She is guilty of poor judgment because someone who is married to her employee did something despicable? Really? Am I guilty of bad judgement because one of my high school buddies, and groomsman at my wedding, was later convicted of a crime and did time in a federal prison? Is my wife, who I married more than 30 year later, also guilty of bad judgement?[/quote]

Go back and read what I wrote. I specifically said a potential crime by a close Clinton connection. Why do you (and BG for that matter) keep trying to change what people say? I guess because doing so strengthens the arguments that you want to make. I don’t know whether you or your wife exhibited bad judgment – that’s for the two of you to figure out.

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd] . . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .[/quote]That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can’t for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ….

I note Huma isn’t traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a “come to Jes*s convo” with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt “trapped” into staying with “Mr. Danger” fully 5 years and 2 months past his “sell-by date” and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid “sexual phone forays.”

HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, “Mr. Danger” was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family’s computers and cell phones. Still …. she kept Huma on and didn’t bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her “right-hand woman’s” (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC’s e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America’s secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.[/quote]

Once again, BG, you have misquoted me by adding emphasis where there was none. It really riles me – I have explained on a couple of occasions now in painfully clear terms that I resent your misrepresentations. So have other people. Stop it.[/quote]nj, you’re certainly free to tell the Piggs what you meant by this phrase you posted:

[quote=njtosd]…Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. …[/quote]

Instead of berating me for giving MY opinion, why don’t you give yours? What exactly did to mean by the [bolded] phrase?[/quote]

All right – I understand you’re not so bright, but this shouldn’t be difficult. It is my choice to express what I think and to emphasize one point over another if I choose to. Do not change what I write. I don’t need to explain myself to you upon demand. Speak for yourself – you’ve done a lot of that already.

[njtosd]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd] . . . Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives . . .[/quote]That something else is an obvious codependency. Did Huma learn this behavior from her mentor, HRC, whom she has been attached to at the hip since she was an (impressionable) 19-20 years old? She had no shortage of very powerful executives as well as celebrities fawning all over her when she was a single up and coming politico! I can’t for the life of me understand what she saw in Weiner. But I digress ….

I note Huma isn’t traveling with HRC today. As it should be. She needs to go into hiding right now and schedule a “come to Jes*s convo” with her counsel in the coming week. The Clinton campaign can pay the retainer. She should also seek therapy asap on why she felt “trapped” into staying with “Mr. Danger” fully 5 years and 2 months past his “sell-by date” and have a baby with him in the interim, all the while being repeatedly humiliated by the relentless media fallout from his sordid “sexual phone forays.”

HRC well knew all of this and had to have known Huma was working at home and that her esteemed spouse, “Mr. Danger” was under investigation by the FBI over soliciting sexual favors from minors online and had seized his family’s computers and cell phones. Still …. she kept Huma on and didn’t bother to ask or see what State Dept matters might have been stored on her “right-hand woman’s” (now seized) computer or question her if she erased any of it before her computers were seized by the FBI. Huma was in charge of putting ALL of HRC’s e-mails into folders and/or moving them to other hard drives or the cloud. As such, HRC deserves all of the fallout she is getting. She is too careless with the safeguarding of US government e-mails, and as a byproduct, America’s secrets . . . yes, even at this late date. The buck stops with HER.[/quote]

Once again, BG, you have misquoted me by adding emphasis where there was none. It really riles me – I have explained on a couple of occasions now in painfully clear terms that I resent your misrepresentations. So have other people. Stop it.

[njtosd]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=njtosd][quote=harvey] Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won’t affect the outcome on Nov 8.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Logically, you may be right. Comey’s caught between an AG who has had allegations of bias and future allegations of a cover up.

Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. None of these things are qualities of great leaders. Before anyone else says it – the very SAME THING can be said for Trump. He’s hideous – no doubt. This new stuff just brings her collective baggage closer to his.[/quote]

What exactly do you think is the crime that’s been committed? Or even the “poor judgement “?[/quote]

I said potential crime – sexting with a 15 year old and sending lewd images is a problem, which is the reason Weiner’s being investigated. Poor judgement – hmm. Let’s say this – I hope my daughters never even date people like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner.

[njtosd]

[quote=harvey] Of course the Trump partisans will interpret that as a smoking gun. But it won’t affect the outcome on Nov 8.

[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Logically, you may be right. Comey’s caught between an AG who has had allegations of bias and future allegations of a cover up.

Emotionally, though, this brings front and center a very distasteful potential crime by a close Clinton connection. And it also reinforces the notion that both Hillary and her closest aid have (a) willful blindness, (b) poor judgment or (c) something else when it comes to what would normally be considered one of the most important relationships in their lives. None of these things are qualities of great leaders. Before anyone else says it – the very SAME THING can be said for Trump. He’s hideous – no doubt. This new stuff just brings her collective baggage closer to his.

[njtosd]

Water leak showing on driveway, or maybe it’s from backed up drain for AC? I would wonder whether it was run off from irrigation, but . . .

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=La Jolla Renter]
Am I the only one that finds Michael Moore and his 50M net worth and 9 houses a tad hypocritical?[/quote]

Yes.
Just because one is an advocate doesn’t mean one should live in poverty.[/quote]

I don’t care whether you agree with MM or not, he is VERY full of himself and does not come across as a nice guy. I don’t think he operates based on his concern for the downtrodden. I think his engine runs on hate for the 1%, of which he is now a part.

[Author]

Posts