The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
#1301
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Is California real life?
This week, Los Angeles County okayed a new regulation banning the throwing of Frisbees or footballs on the beaches – which, of course, destroys the purpose of living in Southern California in the first place. The first offense will earn you a hefty $100 fine; the second, $200; the third and beyond, $500. You can, of course, apply for a permit. For parents with industrious children, holes deeper than 18 inches are also banned – so get your kids the cheap plastic shovels or pay a fine.
What’s the point of this law? Unless it’s to prevent horrific incidents like this, the only point is to raise cash for the state. This has become the MO for California law enforcement: higher ticket costs, more tickets written. California is now a police state – except when it comes to policing actual crime in hard-hit areas. The state, counties, and cities task police officers with going after soccer moms going 45 in a 35 zone rather than monitoring drug-ridden precincts.
The trend is obvious, and California motorists know it: as McClatchy reported back in August 2011, “As the state and cities wrestled with shrinking revenue and growing budget gaps, the California Highway Patrol issued about 200,000 more traffic citations in 2009 than it did two years before. Sacramento Superior Court, meanwhile, processed about 37,000 more traffic filings last year than in 2006 – a 16 percent increase.” The size of the fines has escalated dramatically, too: “With the average fine costing as much as $250 and rising, the increase in CHP tickets produced as much as $50 million over two years. That money went to state and local courts, crime labs and other purposes.”
While officials maintain that no edict has gone out to give more tickets, the politics of the situation is clear: California’s hard up for cash, and they’re willing to do virtually anything to raise it. That’s why in October, California created an “amnesty” plan for drivers with tickets older than January 2009 – if they paid up by the end of the year, they could pay half price. That wouldn’t disincentivize bad driving, of course – it would just raise money faster for the state. Meanwhile, liberals in California have rammed through a bill that blocks police from impounding cars of unlicensed drivers, mainly illegal immigrants – a measure that obviously increases vehicle danger, since illegal immigrants do not have insurance and are disproportionately likely to be involved in accidents. In fact, unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to be involved in traffic fatality accidents than licensed drivers.
So this isn’t about safety. It’s about cash, as always. This is how police states are created – by out-of-control spending requiring somebody to fork over more dough.
What’s the point of this law? Unless it’s to prevent horrific incidents like this, the only point is to raise cash for the state. This has become the MO for California law enforcement: higher ticket costs, more tickets written. California is now a police state – except when it comes to policing actual crime in hard-hit areas. The state, counties, and cities task police officers with going after soccer moms going 45 in a 35 zone rather than monitoring drug-ridden precincts.
The trend is obvious, and California motorists know it: as McClatchy reported back in August 2011, “As the state and cities wrestled with shrinking revenue and growing budget gaps, the California Highway Patrol issued about 200,000 more traffic citations in 2009 than it did two years before. Sacramento Superior Court, meanwhile, processed about 37,000 more traffic filings last year than in 2006 – a 16 percent increase.” The size of the fines has escalated dramatically, too: “With the average fine costing as much as $250 and rising, the increase in CHP tickets produced as much as $50 million over two years. That money went to state and local courts, crime labs and other purposes.”
While officials maintain that no edict has gone out to give more tickets, the politics of the situation is clear: California’s hard up for cash, and they’re willing to do virtually anything to raise it. That’s why in October, California created an “amnesty” plan for drivers with tickets older than January 2009 – if they paid up by the end of the year, they could pay half price. That wouldn’t disincentivize bad driving, of course – it would just raise money faster for the state. Meanwhile, liberals in California have rammed through a bill that blocks police from impounding cars of unlicensed drivers, mainly illegal immigrants – a measure that obviously increases vehicle danger, since illegal immigrants do not have insurance and are disproportionately likely to be involved in accidents. In fact, unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to be involved in traffic fatality accidents than licensed drivers.
So this isn’t about safety. It’s about cash, as always. This is how police states are created – by out-of-control spending requiring somebody to fork over more dough.
#1303
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Noteable quotes:
"we need a global minimum tax...[to ensure that]...nobody is escaping doing their fair share."
"shared scarifice to our greater good."
"democratic budget."
"And in terms of the revenues, the president is looking for shared sacrifice"
What the ----. Pure Evil.
#1304
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
OMG. Seriously, the news today is killing me.
According to President Obama’s budget proposal today, his budget would continue “investment in program integrity by providing $1 billion to ensure benefits are paid to the right person and in the right amount.” Yes, you read that correctly: we are supposed to spend one thousand million dollars in order to achieve what American Express does correctly every single day (or, come to mention it, what the Dewey Decimal System did for books 100 years ago).
#1305
My city was in the news yesterday, in a good way though.
Our mayor refused a $2.1 million grant for the local firefighters here in Danbury.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articl...nt-3242091.php
Our mayor refused a $2.1 million grant for the local firefighters here in Danbury.
http://www.newstimes.com/news/articl...nt-3242091.php
#1314
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Cool story.
Big Brother is watching you play COD:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/13/c...ille-911-call/
Big Brother is watching you play COD:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/13/c...ille-911-call/
#1315
i just plain dont understand how someone could like obama and Ron Paul at the same time
yes im talkin bout u blaen
correct me if i am wrong please
as far as obama breaking the law goes
he did extend the patriot act. am i wrong?
dont forget bout NDAA fiscal year 2012
ya know that one he promised to veto then signed on new years eve
and no i am not saying this applies to obama breaking the law everyday
just to him breaking the law
yes im talkin bout u blaen
correct me if i am wrong please
as far as obama breaking the law goes
he did extend the patriot act. am i wrong?
dont forget bout NDAA fiscal year 2012
ya know that one he promised to veto then signed on new years eve
and no i am not saying this applies to obama breaking the law everyday
just to him breaking the law
#1316
i just plain dont understand how someone could like obama and Ron Paul at the same time
yes im talkin bout u blaen
correct me if i am wrong please
as far as obama breaking the law goes
he did extend the patriot act. am i wrong?
dont forget bout NDAA fiscal year 2012
ya know that one he promised to veto then signed on new years eve
and no i am not saying this applies to obama breaking the law everyday
just to him breaking the law
yes im talkin bout u blaen
correct me if i am wrong please
as far as obama breaking the law goes
he did extend the patriot act. am i wrong?
dont forget bout NDAA fiscal year 2012
ya know that one he promised to veto then signed on new years eve
and no i am not saying this applies to obama breaking the law everyday
just to him breaking the law
Obama is just superior to any of the non-Paul Republican choices. The same logic can be used in your argument for any non-Paul Republican choice as well as for Obama. I.e., how can you like Romney and Paul at the same time?
#1318
no need to get defensive
then make a counter arguement
that is why i asked you to correct me if i am wrong
i wasn't 100% positive if you had said you liked obama or not
my arguement? republicans?
yeah i can honestly say i never even came close to even implying what it is you said i argued
i think you got me mixed up for brain
imo if RP isn't president then it don't matter who we get
everything is gonna end up the same way
i dont care if they are red or blue
they are all idiots in the white house
im writing in Ron Paul if i have too
#1320
Sorry if I came off a bit strong Jared, didn't mean to come across as that way.
My "support" for Obama is of the "least worst" kind. It's the same as my "support" for Romney.
As an example, Romney is light years better than Gingrich or Santorum. But it doesn't mean I like or support Romney.
My "support" for Obama is of the "least worst" kind. It's the same as my "support" for Romney.
As an example, Romney is light years better than Gingrich or Santorum. But it doesn't mean I like or support Romney.