Worst towns in NJ (Newark, Jersey City: murders, places, to work)

[nbnj4life]

Originally Posted by Nativeblac

I'm viewing all of your posts and are sad how many of you people who think Newark, Irivington, Passaic, Jersey City, Camden, Patterson are the worst places, maybe so. I moved here to New Jersey in 03 from Oklahoma City Ok, and have traveled to the worst and most dangerous place unknown and these place will blow your minds, I have been to New Orleans which is the most "Disqusting City" I have ever visited, St. Louis Mo is the most Dangerous City in the Nation, Detroit is very Disgusting and dangerous, Chicago is very messed up as well, I drive thru Newark everyday to work coming from Scotch Plains and when I sometimes read the Star Ledger it amazes me of the murders in the areas such as Newark, Irvington these murders are usually when someone have some beef with, I have been to places where people were murdered and drive by's were common, the Gang situations here in New Jersey are weak compared to LA, Chicago, Detroit (Pony Down Orginazation), St. Louis. Some of you people should visit these places and determine from your own minds which is worst because there are some places that would make you appreciate living here in New Jersey....

i agree with u but its pretty sad for a small city like newark compared to all these huge cities like st louis detroit to have all these shootings for no reason i read the paper everyday and in camden a little 12 yr old boy gets shot for no reason he was playin in a car u dont read that about in all them other cities i rather walk the streets of la then any other city in jersey i wont walk newark and definitly not camden ur not safe anywer anymore

[nbnj4life]

Originally Posted by marybarr

It's a whole new ballgame here. There is extensive renovation going on and new restaurants. In 2 years you'll wish you hadn't sold your places and/or moved. I love it here!

have u ever herd of the hights in jc

[nbnj4life]

Originally Posted by jerz189

yeah, nj is getting pretty bad.. those towns down in south jersey you guys are talking about don't even belong on a list of worst towns
it's
Newark
Irvington
East Orange
Orange
Elizabeth
Plainfield
Patterson
Passaic
Atlantic City
Camden
Jersey City
Trenton
New Brunswick

there are a couple others too but that's off the top of my head... but the problem is with newark, they are building up the downtown area and not helping the poverty situation but rather, pushing it further and further West into towns like Bloomfield, East Orange, Irvington, Orange, and now even as far as South Orange, West Orange, and Maplewood, Union etc. Newark officials were happy that they kept the murder rate in 2007 to "99" because it was under 100.. in my book that is still totally unacceptable. I have a feeling if you look at the crime rates for the surrounding cities u will probably see a jump in violent crimes in all the surrounding cities, but I haven't done my research.

i agree with ui live in new brunswick its very messed up down here and its getting worse

[nbnj4life]

Originally Posted by anthony07801

dovers not ghetto, in some placesdover is mad wight

dover aint nothin neither is those other farm lands in burlington and that other place

[FilthySailor]

Originally Posted by Nativeblac

I'm viewing all of your posts and are sad how many of you people who think Newark, Irivington, Passaic, Jersey City, Camden, Patterson are the worst places, maybe so. I moved here to New Jersey in 03 from Oklahoma City Ok, and have traveled to the worst and most dangerous place unknown and these place will blow your minds, I have been to New Orleans which is the most "Disqusting City" I have ever visited, St. Louis Mo is the most Dangerous City in the Nation, Detroit is very Disgusting and dangerous, Chicago is very messed up as well, I drive thru Newark everyday to work coming from Scotch Plains and when I sometimes read the Star Ledger it amazes me of the murders in the areas such as Newark, Irvington these murders are usually when someone have some beef with, I have been to places where people were murdered and drive by's were common, the Gang situations here in New Jersey are weak compared to LA, Chicago, Detroit (Pony Down Orginazation), St. Louis. Some of you people should visit these places and determine from your own minds which is worst because there are some places that would make you appreciate living here in New Jersey....

Do some research, you'll find that those city's you mention are the few cities above Camden and Newark on the crime lists. NJ has two cities in the top 10 according to an article I read on Yahoo one morning. I saw something similar on AOL as well a month or so after that. Driving through these places and living in them are two different things. ....but hey all isn't bad in NJ. Brick NJ (located in South Jersey) is the #1 Safest city in America. If it stays like that I plan to move there when I retire.

[mike0421]

Originally Posted by SWB

We're too busy chasing Usama bin Laden in Iraq. After all, Iraq was MUCH more of a threat to our nation than Al-Qaeda, according to President Bush! (Snicker, snicker). Why utilize our troops to defend our own nation when we can just send them into nations that had no credible threats lodged against us in order to lure the South into a false sense of security?

I feel the need to respond here. I will preface it by saying I am not the biggest fan of President Bush, but there seems to be a prevailing trend lately to blame this man for EVERYTHING, whether it be Iraq, Katrina, or a tire blow out on the way to work. At the time, it was determined (albiet, through faulty intelligence, due to poor collaboration between agencies on the federal level) that Iraq had WMDs. 77 out of 100 senators voted on the resolutions, including 29 out of 50 Democrat senators. 74% of the American population at the time supported the resolution, and believed WMD's existed. Clearly, at the time, there was consensus for this invasion. So, to was there on December 1998, when BILL CLINTON launched operation "Desert Fox" and appropriately bombed Iraq after Hussein's continued failure to comply with UN Security Council's resolutions, and shortly after he signed H.R. 4655 into law. Again, at the time, though not a big Bill Clinton fan, I agreed with these actions.

It seems to me that those who are in favor of big government controlling our actions, reducing our economic liberties, the same who use the tired 'tax breaks for the rich' mantra, seem to disagree and scapegoat Bush for this action, while similarly giving the Bill Clinton administration a free pass. In essence, those who prefer socialism to capitalism are going to blame Bush for everything, and extoll Clinton's virtues for similar actions, as it pertains to the War in Iraq.

Oh yeah, SWB, and anyone else, here is a trivia question: Who made the following speech? I'll insert a exerpt of the transcript....


"Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."

And....

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region."

Finally....

"Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

Guess who delivered that speech? And guess when it occurred?

December 16th, 1998. Bill Clinton. Oh yeah, it was delivered on the eve of his impeachment proceedings, you know, for lying under oath, and subborning testimony to a witness. Coincidence? I don't know.

My advice to anyone who now says we shouldn't have invaded this nation, particularly a year and a half after what transpired on Sept 11th, 2001, is to stop possessing a short and selective memory, stop thinking in a vaccum, and go back, way back.

Sorry to have hijacked this thread, but this is the kind of stuff that really pisses me off.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by mike0421

I feel the need to respond here. I will preface it by saying I am not the biggest fan of President Bush, but there seems to be a prevailing trend lately to blame this man for EVERYTHING, whether it be Iraq, Katrina, or a tire blow out on the way to work. At the time, it was determined (albiet, through faulty intelligence, due to poor collaboration between agencies on the federal level) that Iraq had WMDs. 77 out of 100 senators voted on the resolutions, including 29 out of 50 Democrat senators. 74% of the American population at the time supported the resolution, and believed WMD's existed. Clearly, at the time, there was consensus for this invasion. So, to was there on December 1998, when BILL CLINTON launched operation "Desert Fox" and appropriately bombed Iraq after Hussein's continued failure to comply with UN Security Council's resolutions, and shortly after he signed H.R. 4655 into law. Again, at the time, though not a big Bill Clinton fan, I agreed with these actions.

It seems to me that those who are in favor of big government controlling our actions, reducing our economic liberties, the same who use the tired 'tax breaks for the rich' mantra, seem to disagree and scapegoat Bush for this action, while similarly giving the Bill Clinton administration a free pass. In essence, those who prefer socialism to capitalism are going to blame Bush for everything, and extoll Clinton's virtues for similar actions, as it pertains to the War in Iraq.

Oh yeah, SWB, and anyone else, here is a trivia question: Who made the following speech? I'll insert a exerpt of the transcript....


"Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability."

And....

"This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region."

Finally....

"Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

Guess who delivered that speech? And guess when it occurred?

December 16th, 1998. Bill Clinton. Oh yeah, it was delivered on the eve of his impeachment proceedings, you know, for lying under oath, and subborning testimony to a witness. Coincidence? I don't know.

My advice to anyone who now says we shouldn't have invaded this nation, particularly a year and a half after what transpired on Sept 11th, 2001, is to stop possessing a short and selective memory, stop thinking in a vaccum, and go back, way back.

Sorry to have hijacked this thread, but this is the kind of stuff that really pisses me off.

I agree. I am certainly no GWB fan- I did not vote for him in either election- I wrote in candidates both times. I have many problems with him. However, it seems it is almost vogue to blame everything on him. If Bill Clinton did many of the things that Bush did-he would be praised not villified.


Nicolem

[66nexus]

Originally Posted by FilthySailor

Do some research, you'll find that those city's you mention are the few cities above Camden and Newark on the crime lists. NJ has two cities in the top 10 according to an article I read on Yahoo one morning. I saw something similar on AOL as well a month or so after that. Driving through these places and living in them are two different things. ....but hey all isn't bad in NJ. Brick NJ (located in South Jersey) is the #1 Safest city in America. If it stays like that I plan to move there when I retire.

Safest and Most Dangerous U.S. Cities, 2007 — Infoplease.com

Only one city in the top ten on this list

[haze2o]

I grew up in the hood or the ghetto(as you may call it) and id have to say theres only a few towns id really label as bad.

Paterson
Newark
East Orange
Irvington
Camden
Passaic
Jersey city

i have been in the worst neighborhoods of these cities and could definitely say there far worse than most of the other cities and towns listed. Ive also been to most of the other towns listed and dont see what i concider a ghetto. what i concider a ghetto is a community where most homes are abandoned or burned down, the streets are littered and homelessness prevails and gangs run the block. The truth is most suburban new jerseyians never been in a real ghetto and just assume any town with a very slight delinquency problem is a ghetto. you wanta see a real ghetto take a drive threw the 4th ward, Paterson

[haze2o]

Iv also lived in Guatemala city(murder capital of the world!..) so ive seen how bad ghettos could be.