You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Isn't there a name for this?
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
My favorite part:
So we are to have the police imposing curfews as bureaucratic institution of the policy? Their will be done?
Aldous? Are you there?
Curran said he modeled his plan after an approach advocated by Philadelphia mayoral candidate Michael Nutter, who won the Democratic nomination Tuesday. Nutter has called for declarations of a "state of emergency" in high-crime neighborhoods, where police would conduct aggressive stop-and-frisk searches and impose curfews.
So we are to have the police imposing curfews as bureaucratic institution of the policy? Their will be done?
Aldous? Are you there?
Hmmm glad I quit my job in Baltimore
and how is this not martial law? other then it being called
and how is this not martial law? other then it being called
public safety act zones
In THIS POST -- in the "What might the president do with his new power to declare martial law?" thread -- I spoke of SEC. 90107. "VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS" in the "VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993" also known as the "Assault Weapon Ban" or "AWB".
This is merely a localized version with still one more level of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy added in. I guess they don't know about Sec. 90107 or they would be in that money trough with both front feet tomorrow.
This is merely a localized version with still one more level of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy added in. I guess they don't know about Sec. 90107 or they would be in that money trough with both front feet tomorrow.
Yes..Misters Huxley and Orwell are either rolling in their graves..or patting each other on the back for their amazing foresight.
I certainly hope it is the former!
Science Fiction is really not about technology, but about the human condition. It isn't about the robots, but what we would do if we don't have to do menial tasks. It is about taking someone and putting them in a novel (bad pun, I know) situation. You take a certain premise (like complete control of the media), define the conditions and and follow it to it's conclusion based on guesses from human behavior.
In any case, it pays to be aware of the flaws in our own nature. I am a firm believer in checks and balances.
Last edited:
So, do the good politicos of Baltimore have "D" or "R" after their names? Dollars to doughnuts on the "D". Hmmm?
My point being that a goodly number of our members trash the Republicans for wanting to hijack our civil liberties.
This whole thing stinks, no matter what party they're with; how long to we expect this idea to linger before they start swimming backwards on it?
My point being that a goodly number of our members trash the Republicans for wanting to hijack our civil liberties.
This whole thing stinks, no matter what party they're with; how long to we expect this idea to linger before they start swimming backwards on it?
This whole R vs D thing reminds me of a wrestling match that my Dad took me to when I was a kid. The wrestlers all hated each other, called each other names, beat each other with chairs, etc. Then, after the match was over, they all got on the same bus and went to the next town. Another illusion shattered.
badbob
badbob
Ohio recently passed a smoking ban also...Curran, who also sponsored Baltimore's recently passed smoking ban, said he expects opposition.
People look at me like I have an eyestock growing from my forehead when I tell them it has absolutely nothing to do with smoking..
It's all about the .gov gaining more and more and more and more control under the guise of **safety**.
*sigh*
Where it's all going to eventually end is not going to be pretty.
DonR101395
New member
Without getting into the R vs D vs L debate. It doesn't matter what party they are a part of these people are as un-American as as a Gaz4. I've argued a fair amount in support of certain controversial "AT/CT" legislation, but I draw the line at "safety zones". The zones would be safe if they would get out and A. enforce the laws they already have against murder etc. B. the court system would not let these repeat offenders continue to get out and repeat offenses.
Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious, but apparently it's not so obvious to those in Baltimore.
Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious, but apparently it's not so obvious to those in Baltimore.
People look at me like I have an eyestock growing from my forehead when I tell them it has absolutely nothing to do with smoking..
It's all about the .gov gaining more and more and more and more control under the guise of **safety**.
There is nothing about "safety" involved with any government program designed to protect you from yourself. Helmet, bicycle, seatbelt, airbag, smoking laws are for one thing and one thing only -- the preservation of your life.
The reason?
Live taxpayers pay taxes every year; while dead taxpayers pay only once.
In all things governmental always follow the money. Revenue enhancement will always take precedent over all other things.
Jimpeel,smoking laws are for one thing and one thing only -- the preservation of your life.
Beg to differ with you my friend. Ohio's smoking ban has absolutely nothing to do with protecting me from myself.
It's 100% about "workplace safety". The law was passed to protect the health of employees. Smoking is prohibited in bars, restaurants, businesses and even in some private homes under certain circumstances.
The state of Ohio assumed since they pay out for medical costs, they have the authority to dictate workplace practices.(imagine that - an arrogant set of lifetime politicians thinking of themselves as rulers - what will they think of next?)
The Ohio smoking ban is simply another missed stop on the slippery slope of .gov control over every facet of life. (similar to,, but an expansion on,, the drug testing policies set out by the Ohio Bureau of Workman's Comp.)
I understand the money trail - unfortunate all too well - but that's another story for another day/thread.
I believe it's gone beyond simply that though and is being taken to another level.
To give you some insight into Ohio's law against smoking:
- It was put on the ballot last fall, with another issue similar in nature, but worded so it would allow private businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or not. There was an enormous propaganda campaign against the other issue.
- The issue passed and the No Smoking signs went up the very next day.
Now - here's where it gets dicey.
- There were no set penalties for violations.
- There were no set guidelines about who or what agency would enforce the new law.
- The law wasn't scheduled to be in effect until some 6 months later
HOWEVER - it began to be immediately enforced!
- Anonymous "tips" against businesses that allowed smoking were being taken and citations were being issued against those businesses based on the anonymous tips alone.
In short, it was (and is) a horrible law, horribly enacted and horribly enforced.
Had it been for something other than smoking, their would have been a public outcry against it.
Where gun owners should take heed (and this goes along with your initial post):
- Whatever someone deems to be *unsafe*, is on the chopping block. It can be argured that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a right that's protected by the Constituion - fat lot of good that does.
The right free and unhindered travel is pretty much dead these days, as anyone that's flown since the 1980's can attest to.
Now, along comes another "do-gooder" that feels it's perfectly fine to aggressivly stop and frisk people.
'scuse me but isn't that something that's protected by some right we supposedly have?
Sorry to ramble on so...
It's 100% about "workplace safety".
And then you post this:
The state of Ohio assumed since they pay out for medical costs, they have the authority to dictate workplace practices.
It's about the MONEY. It's ALWAYS about the money.
HOWEVER - it began to be immediately enforced! ... and citations were being issued ...
Also known as "revenue enhancement". The revenue enhancement officers are dedicated to earning their weight in gold every day.
It's about the MONEY. It's ALWAYS about the money.
Keeping you "safe" means you will live longer. If you live longer you will pay taxes longer. If you pay taxes longer they glean more money from you. If they glean more money from you they have more to spend on their pet projects and socialist agenda. If they have more to spend they have more to work with to pass further legislation to eliminate more bad habits to make you live longer.
Quite the viscious circle, eh?
"It's about the MONEY. It's ALWAYS about the money."
Jim,
Reread what I said about no set penalty and no set enforcement.
There was no money.
There were no set penalties and no set enforcement agency. That didn't stop the citations being iissued by the health department though.
Even though they were worthless pieces of paper,,,they still were issued.
There was no "revenue enhancement" since there was no penalty (only threats) and no agency to follow through on the citations.
The health department cited one local resteraunt (Brubaker's Pub) repeatedly for violations,,,,unit the resteraunt owner simply told them to kiss off.
Mind you - I agree somewhat about the money and following the money trail.
8-9 years ago, I'm right there with you on it.
I believe it's gone beyond simple greed now.
Jim,
Reread what I said about no set penalty and no set enforcement.
There was no money.
There were no set penalties and no set enforcement agency. That didn't stop the citations being iissued by the health department though.
Even though they were worthless pieces of paper,,,they still were issued.
There was no "revenue enhancement" since there was no penalty (only threats) and no agency to follow through on the citations.
The health department cited one local resteraunt (Brubaker's Pub) repeatedly for violations,,,,unit the resteraunt owner simply told them to kiss off.
Mind you - I agree somewhat about the money and following the money trail.
8-9 years ago, I'm right there with you on it.
I believe it's gone beyond simple greed now.
America was not founded on the premise of making ourselves better, it was founded on the philosphy of doing whatever the hell we wanted. (Someone famous said that once, or words to that effect).
If I wanted to be safe I would stay home, instead I got some idiot somewhere telling me he is worried about my health, well piss off buddy, I will worry about me, you worry about you.
If I wanted to be safe I would stay home, instead I got some idiot somewhere telling me he is worried about my health, well piss off buddy, I will worry about me, you worry about you.
Reread what I said about no set penalty and no set enforcement.
There was no money.
There were no set penalties and no set enforcement agency. That didn't stop the citations being iissued by the health department though.
Even though they were worthless pieces of paper,,,they still were issued.
Then you seem to have little knowledge of how the system works. Ever hear of creeping incrementalism? That's when they start small and work their way up inch by inch.
The anti-smoking lobby originally asked for a "simple common sense" area for non-smokers on short flight aircraft and in restaurants. They worked their way up, through creeping incrementalism inch by inch, until you can no longer smoke at outdoor venues -- or in your own home in some cases.
California's seatbelt law started as a "secondary violation" in which you had to be stopped for another primary violation, such as speeding, for them to cite you. It was touted as a "safety measure". "You can drive past the police department with it hanging out the door and you cannot be cited", is what they told us, "and besides, the fine is only twenty dollars."
It took about five years as they worked their way up, through creeping incrementalism inch by inch, and the law was changed to a primary violation and the fine is over $200.
The same thing happened in Colorado, with the same admonitions, but the recent effort to make the law a primary violation was voted down. Well, maybe next year.
Fort Collins, CO, installed red light cameras and was charging $40 per violation. When they were accused of installing the cameras for revenue enhancement by their critics they retorted that it was not for revenue enhancement -- it was for safety. When the state legislature capped fines for red light camera citations at $25 the city of Fort Collins cried "But we will barely break even at that amount." If it were truly for safety, breaking even should be the goal.
Keep your fingers firmly on the heartbeat of this legislation and you will find, over time, it will start racing wildly.
It's about the MONEY. It's ALWAYS about the money.