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. |
i never liked cali
|
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. |
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). |
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 |
don't worry, the unions will vote him out and ruin the state's budget and ultimately raise taxes in repsonse and ruin everything for eveyone.
|
|
Obama violates that law errrr day.
|
Originally Posted by braineack
(Post 834939)
politicians violates the law errrr day.
|
So like, that article, do they have any real evidence?
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 834945)
So like, that article, do they have any real evidence?
But, on a more serious note, they have enough evidence that Walker is meeting with the DA for "preliminary discussion" and caused Walker to hire two high-profile criminal defense attorney's. |
I'm not writing articles about it, but I'm sure I could pull the criminal history of all his bros and then say he sucks as a president or something.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 834956)
I'm not writing articles about it, but I'm sure I could pull the criminal history of all his bros and then say he sucks as a president or something.
|
Cool story.
Big Brother is watching you play COD: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/02/13/c...ille-911-call/ |
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 |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 835127)
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 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? |
Obama is my lord and savior.
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 835135)
Where did I say I like Obama? Anywhere?
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? 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 |
1 Attachment(s)
|
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. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands