Seriously, the politics is a side conversation. A request to move it offline was all that was needed, not rudeness.<div><br></div><div>As for the original issue, I'm really not interested in yet another solution that involves going to more meetings or anyone with the rank of "captain" who isn't a police officer, in charge of a ship or in the military. I will keep an eye on my neighbor's property, report suspicious things, continue to monitor this discussion group for tips and advice on preventing crime (even though most of the things that people beat to death her do not interest me any more than the political thread I participated in interests you - but I haven't called it "drivel"). Beyond that, I expect the police to do better. Everything I've read seems to point towards this strategy of analyzing data and predicting where trouble is brewing and deploying police presence to the right locations. It is very difficult to do anything after the fact and even if you catch the criminal they are likely to go right back to crime when let out of jail (if they even do time). So I think we need the police to do the former.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sorry, but even as I write this I find myself resenting the unregulated, automobile worshiping world idealized by conservatives that has built sprawling suburbs where I do not wish to live but left me with bad schools and crime in the neglected cities where I do wish to live. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, it is not unreasonable to ask what security measures the person had and perhaps how they were circumvented. That's how we learn. </div><div><br></div><div>I liked it better when were were beating the dead recycling bin horse!</div>
<div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:43 AM, JaNean Fisher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jfchocomom77@gmail.com" target="_blank">jfchocomom77@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Seriously, only on the East Side could someone let everyone know that they had a break-in to make others<div>aware,and then be condemned for having security lights, not having an alarm, blame the police for not doing </div>
<div>their job, change the entire thread of conversation to a political rant (as though we haven't </div><div>already listened to your drivel for the last 2 months!) as if MItt/O were personally responsible.</div><div>
<br></div><div>Focus and respond responsibly and keep your political opinions to yourself! I care about a neighbor</div><div>experiencing a problem and if I can help, I will. I don't care to know what you think about the election,</div>
<div><br></div><div>JaNean</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Emlyn Addison <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:noisyblocks@gmail.com" target="_blank">noisyblocks@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Isn't Mitt saying he won't raise taxes on the middle class as well? It's<br>
hard to keep track of what Mitt is saying. It's not a choice between being<br>
fiscally conservative and socially just, the republicans are NOT the party<br>
of fiscal conservatism. They are the party of small government. Since<br>
Gingrich shut down the government during the Clinton years, republicans<br>
have sought to starve the government of funds. They are somewhat good at<br>
cutting taxes but not so good at cutting spending, particularly military<br>
spending. GW Bush cut taxes, did nothing to cut spending, and put 2 wars<br>
on the credit card. Reagan blew up the deficit as well, BTW. How can<br>
anyone think republicans are a fiscally conservative party? Where is the<br>
evidence of that?<br></blockquote><div class="im"><div><br></div><div>True; I guess "fiscal conservatism" is in the eye of the beholder: "Hey, if we cut all these social programs for those 47% of freeloading, thieving, victimized layabouts, then we're being fiscally conservative!"</div>
<div><br></div><div>What is, perhaps, most egregious--and ironic--in all this is that Mitt Romney apparently paid nearly zero income taxes between 1996 and 2009 (the year before the 2010 tax return he actually made public):</div>
<div><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>So Mr Romney, it turns out, is one of the 47%. Interesting.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Emlyn</div><div><br></div></font></span></div></div><div class="im">
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Summit mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Summit@sna.providence.ri.us" target="_blank">Summit@sna.providence.ri.us</a><br>
<a href="http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us" target="_blank">http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us</a><br>
SNA Website: <a href="http://sna.providence.ri.us/" target="_blank">http://sna.providence.ri.us/</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Summit mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Summit@sna.providence.ri.us">Summit@sna.providence.ri.us</a><br>
<a href="http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us" target="_blank">http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us</a><br>
SNA Website: <a href="http://sna.providence.ri.us/" target="_blank">http://sna.providence.ri.us/</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>