If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Nola.com)   New Orleans forgives traffic tickets for city employees because it wasn't entirely clear that they were supposed to obey the law   (nola.com) divider line 85
    More: Stupid, Mitch Landrieu, chief administrative officer, traffic tickets, traffic cameras, NOPD, Amelia Earhart, Times Picayune, New Orleans  
•       •       •

6971 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2012 at 5:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-04 03:07:13 PM  
Landrieu is going into Nagin territory here, watch out dude... you've been a good mayor thus far.
 
2012-03-04 04:09:04 PM  

downstairs: Landrieu is going into Nagin territory here, watch out dude... you've been a good mayor thus far.


I think there is something in that water cooler at City Hall that makes them do things like this.
 
2012-03-04 05:13:53 PM  
It said NOPD officers -- who comprise a large number of the ticket recipients -- must pay traffic-camera tickets unless the officer was responding to a call for service.

But because many officers had been operating under informal guidance that such tickets didn't have to be paid


Why am I not farking surprised that it was the cops that were big offenders and their farking excuse is that they didn't think the law applied to them?
 
2012-03-04 05:16:58 PM  
fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.
 
2012-03-04 05:18:44 PM  

95629: It said NOPD officers -- who comprise a large number of the ticket recipients -- must pay traffic-camera tickets unless the officer was responding to a call for service.

But because many officers had been operating under informal guidance that such tickets didn't have to be paid

Why am I not farking surprised that it was the cops that were big offenders and their farking excuse is that they didn't think the law applied to them?


well of course, that's the whole point, I mean why be a cop at all if you can't run around thinking you're king shiat doing whatever the hell you want and pushing around civilians
 
2012-03-04 05:19:50 PM  

Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.


clear rules like obey traffic laws? you need a departmental memo specifically notifying you that you can't run red lights?
you're a farking idiot.
 
2012-03-04 05:23:18 PM  

Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.


So you missed the part where the clarification was "obey traffic laws except when you're responding to an emergency"? Do you really think that should warrant a clarification?
 
2012-03-04 05:25:28 PM  
SSDD. Actually, all city employees should be fined and pay an extra 25%, for the f**k of it.
 
2012-03-04 05:26:50 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.

So you missed the part where the clarification was "obey traffic laws except when you're responding to an emergency"? Do you really think that should warrant a clarification?


Being a cop in New Orleans? Yes, I'd think that would have to be clarified very clearly, and in very clear letters. Like in those Dick&Jane books:

See red light.
See car stop.
Stop car stop.
Stop stop stop.
 
2012-03-04 05:27:45 PM  
Their excuse is really "no one told me I had to follow the law"? Really? They're farking COPS. And they weren't aware of the need for following laws?

Yeah, this says a lot about our society, doesn't it...
 
2012-03-04 05:30:55 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I May Be Crazy But...: Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.

So you missed the part where the clarification was "obey traffic laws except when you're responding to an emergency"? Do you really think that should warrant a clarification?

Being a cop in New Orleans? Yes, I'd think that would have to be clarified very clearly, and in very clear letters. Like in those Dick&Jane books:

See red light.
See car stop.
Stop car stop.
Stop stop stop.


Point taken. That hadn't occurred to me.
 
2012-03-04 05:31:12 PM  

relcec: Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.

clear rules like obey traffic laws? you need a departmental memo specifically notifying you that you can't run red lights?
you're a farking idiot.


This.

One more reason to laugh at NO.
 
2012-03-04 05:36:51 PM  

relcec: you're a farking idiot.


I May Be Crazy But...: Do you really think that should warrant a clarification?


Different jurisdictions have different rules, especially regarding municipal, service, or e-plate vehicles. TFA clearly states that this jurisdiction had no clear rules, but they are establishing one now. This is a non-story meant to fire up the ignorant.
 
2012-03-04 05:42:16 PM  
1) i don't actually live in new orleans. 2) this is one of many reasons why.

i got here in '78 just before the guy who had been passing for years discovered he could get elected mayor as a black man. we then when through lots of years where the color of the corruption changed but not the corruption. then katrina woke some folks up but nagin got all those folks in atlanta to vote absentee and stayed in by playing the race card.

but the sun came out, rainbows and unicorn farts filled the skies and landrieu got elected. the unicorn farts have dissipated and the rainbows are fast receding. he seems better than other choices would have been but he sure isn't living up to his potential.
 
2012-03-04 05:45:57 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
oldie but goodie
 
2012-03-04 05:47:04 PM  
It's sort of like insider trading in Congress.
 
2012-03-04 05:48:19 PM  

Notabunny: relcec: you're a farking idiot.

I May Be Crazy But...: Do you really think that should warrant a clarification?

Different jurisdictions have different rules, especially regarding municipal, service, or e-plate vehicles. TFA clearly states that this jurisdiction had no clear rules, but they are establishing one now. This is a non-story meant to fire up the ignorant.


How many of them have rules saying, "You're a city employee, so you don't need to follow basic laws meant for public safety"? If there really are a lot, then you're right. But I doubt it.

Oh, and if you're right and there are a lot of cities/states/counties/parishes/whatever with that sort of official rule, then I still maintain that it's a terrible idea.
 
2012-03-04 05:50:39 PM  

Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.


Let me be just another person to say that you are an idiot.

Any cop who ever thought that traffic laws did not apply to him is corrupt -- pure and simple.

The law has always been clear that exception a cop and other emergency workers get is only in the context of performing their duties: i.e. bona fide emergencies, responding to calls, chasing bad guys, etc.
 
2012-03-04 05:55:34 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Notabunny: relcec: you're a farking idiot.

I May Be Crazy But...: Do you really think that should warrant a clarification?

Different jurisdictions have different rules, especially regarding municipal, service, or e-plate vehicles. TFA clearly states that this jurisdiction had no clear rules, but they are establishing one now. This is a non-story meant to fire up the ignorant.

How many of them have rules saying, "You're a city employee, so you don't need to follow basic laws meant for public safety"? If there really are a lot, then you're right. But I doubt it.

Oh, and if you're right and there are a lot of cities/states/counties/parishes/whatever with that sort of official rule, then I still maintain that it's a terrible idea.


I am right. I have not opinion as to whether the rules are "good" or "terrible", but they exist (or not) in varying forms. And they aren't limited to rules governing a vehicle in operation, either. Many municipalities allow e-plate vehicles to double park, park in red zones and in front of hydrants, and park w/o feeding meters or obeying time limits. Again, rules which are applied to most vehicles, but from which municipal vehicles are exempt.
 
2012-03-04 05:56:19 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Let me be just another person to say that you are an idiot.


Perhaps. But I'm also right.
 
2012-03-04 06:02:18 PM  
In my town I see cops routinely breaking traffic laws that would get a citizen a ticket. No turn signals when turning, stopped in the cross walk, etc. I'm glad to see that the mayor of Nola decided the laws were 'unclear' and to retroactively nullify all tickets.
 
2012-03-04 06:05:21 PM  

Notabunny: I am right. I have not opinion as to whether the rules are "good" or "terrible", but they exist (or not) in varying forms. And they aren't limited to rules governing a vehicle in operation, either. Many municipalities allow e-plate vehicles to double park, park in red zones and in front of hydrants, and park w/o feeding meters or obeying time limits. Again, rules which are applied to most vehicles, but from which municipal vehicles are exempt.


I guess I should clarify what I meant. How many (rough percentage, even) cities have rules that people in city vehicles don't ever need to follow laws. And the specific laws I'm talking about are the public safety type ones. Speed limits, red lights, parking in the right of way. That sort of thing. Not parking meters. And not when responding to an emergency.

Also, what's your opinion about whether these are good rules to have? Not are they there or not, but whether they SHOULD be there.
 
2012-03-04 06:07:50 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: How many of them have rules saying, "You're a city employee, so you don't need to follow basic laws meant for public safety"? If there really are a lot, then you're right. But I doubt it.


I not only doubt it. I am damn certain there are no local laws that says "traffic laws don't apply to our employees." There are corrupt cops and indeed corrupt departments that act like cops don't have to obey the law.

The law is the law. Everyone has to obey it. There are no exceptions even to city employees except what is directly spelled out by law. Sadly there is a lot of corruption on this issue. Indeed, there are certainly cops (though not all of them) who act like laws against beating the crap out of people they don't like does not apply to them either. It does not change what the text of the laws actually say.

In any event, that the law applies to everyone is legally the default condition. It is assumed unless otherwise stated.
 
2012-03-04 06:12:59 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Notabunny: I am right. I have not opinion as to whether the rules are "good" or "terrible", but they exist (or not) in varying forms. And they aren't limited to rules governing a vehicle in operation, either. Many municipalities allow e-plate vehicles to double park, park in red zones and in front of hydrants, and park w/o feeding meters or obeying time limits. Again, rules which are applied to most vehicles, but from which municipal vehicles are exempt.

I guess I should clarify what I meant. How many (rough percentage, even) cities have rules that people in city vehicles don't ever need to follow laws. And the specific laws I'm talking about are the public safety type ones. Speed limits, red lights, parking in the right of way. That sort of thing. Not parking meters. And not when responding to an emergency.

Also, what's your opinion about whether these are good rules to have? Not are they there or not, but whether they SHOULD be there.


From the institute of keister-mined statistics, it wouldn't surprise me at all if 10% to 15% of all municipalities either have no clear rules, or specifically exempt in service vehicles with some sort of "reasonable and prudent" or "endangering the public" clause. So 10 mph over the limit, or not coming to a full and complete stop? Exempt. As far as my opinion? I don't really care. It doesn't effect me either way.
 
2012-03-04 06:14:31 PM  

Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.


I can't honestly tell if you're trolling or stupid.
 
2012-03-04 06:15:13 PM  
fark new orleans city employees. and fark those cameras too. i ain't payin'.
 
2012-03-04 06:15:21 PM  
I remember asking my mom why Batman (1960s) needed a license plate on his car. And she said no one is above the law.

Ahh ,the good old days of onions and pleasant clouds.


/currently has vines hanging off a tree in front of my driveway, like the old bat cave. lol
 
2012-03-04 06:18:23 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Notabunny: fta Kopplin said he doesn't think it would be fair to try to go after employees who have racked up tickets because the city has not spelled out clear rules thus far.

So, there was no clear rule established, they're establishing one now, and they're not going to apply the new rule retroactively. Thanks for the update, Trollmitter.

I can't honestly tell if you're trolling or stupid.


Why? Did I say something incorrect or misleading?
 
2012-03-04 06:19:29 PM  

Notabunny: From the institute of keister-mined statistics, it wouldn't surprise me at all if 10% to 15% of all municipalities either have no clear rules, or specifically exempt in service vehicles with some sort of "reasonable and prudent" or "endangering the public" clause. So 10 mph over the limit, or not coming to a full and complete stop? Exempt. As far as my opinion? I don't really care. It doesn't effect me either way.


Hehehe.

No clear rules means "follow the law" not "do whatever you want."

You really should care, though. If doing something is safe, why is it against the law? If it isn't, why is it allowed for these folks in anything but an emergency (with a siren and lights so everyone knows to get out of the way)?
 
2012-03-04 06:20:58 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: I May Be Crazy But...: How many of them have rules saying, "You're a city employee, so you don't need to follow basic laws meant for public safety"? If there really are a lot, then you're right. But I doubt it.

I not only doubt it. I am damn certain there are no local laws that says "traffic laws don't apply to our employees." There are corrupt cops and indeed corrupt departments that act like cops don't have to obey the law.

The law is the law. Everyone has to obey it. There are no exceptions even to city employees except what is directly spelled out by law. Sadly there is a lot of corruption on this issue. Indeed, there are certainly cops (though not all of them) who act like laws against beating the crap out of people they don't like does not apply to them either. It does not change what the text of the laws actually say.

In any event, that the law applies to everyone is legally the default condition. It is assumed unless otherwise stated.


This was my understanding, but I'm not a lawyer, or know much about it.
 
2012-03-04 06:22:11 PM  

Notabunny: m right. I have not opinion as to whether the rules are "good" or "terrible", but they exist (or not) in varying forms. And they aren't limited to rules governing a vehicle in operation, either. Many municipalities allow e-plate vehicles to double park, park in red zones and in front of hydrants, and park w/o feeding meters or obeying time limits. Again, rules which are applied to most vehicles, but from which municipal vehicles are exempt.


Yes, the laws make certain exceptions. That is not in doubt. But those exceptions are spelled out by law. And oh yes, they don't apply when those vehicles not being used in performance of official business. A cop can't park by fire hydrant legally because he wants to park closer to the store where he wants to make a personal purchase. He can do it in the performance of his duties. A cop can't use red lights to speed because he want to get to the video rental store faster so he can pick up a movie. He can do it when he job makes it a necessity.

Here is an ironclad rule: If you don't have an exception spelled out explicitly, you don't have one at all. I don't think that anyone who does not understand that should even be considered to be a city employee.
 
2012-03-04 06:22:11 PM  
Liberals and corruption are like peanut butter and chocolate.
 
2012-03-04 06:27:49 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Notabunny: From the institute of keister-mined statistics, it wouldn't surprise me at all if 10% to 15% of all municipalities either have no clear rules, or specifically exempt in service vehicles with some sort of "reasonable and prudent" or "endangering the public" clause. So 10 mph over the limit, or not coming to a full and complete stop? Exempt. As far as my opinion? I don't really care. It doesn't effect me either way.

Hehehe.

No clear rules means "follow the law" not "do whatever you want."

You really should care, though. If doing something is safe, why is it against the law? If it isn't, why is it allowed for these folks in anything but an emergency (with a siren and lights so everyone knows to get out of the way)?


You may personally believe it reasonable to think the default setting is "follow the law", but we're talking about municipalities governing themselves. "Reasonable" and "reality" may well be different things. Snark aside, sometimes those vagaries and exemptions come into being for well-intended reasons And really, I don't care and can't imagine why anyone should. If traffic is doing 80 in a 70 zone, I don't care if one of the cars is a City car. If I'm #24 in line at a stop sign, and every car ahead of me fails to come to a full and complete stop, I don't care if one of them is a City car. If I see 40 cars change lanes w/o signaling, I don't care if one of them is a City car.
 
2012-03-04 06:30:08 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Notabunny: m right. I have not opinion as to whether the rules are "good" or "terrible", but they exist (or not) in varying forms. And they aren't limited to rules governing a vehicle in operation, either. Many municipalities allow e-plate vehicles to double park, park in red zones and in front of hydrants, and park w/o feeding meters or obeying time limits. Again, rules which are applied to most vehicles, but from which municipal vehicles are exempt.

Yes, the laws make certain exceptions. That is not in doubt. But those exceptions are spelled out by law. And oh yes, they don't apply when those vehicles not being used in performance of official business. A cop can't park by fire hydrant legally because he wants to park closer to the store where he wants to make a personal purchase. He can do it in the performance of his duties. A cop can't use red lights to speed because he want to get to the video rental store faster so he can pick up a movie. He can do it when he job makes it a necessity.

Here is an ironclad rule: If you don't have an exception spelled out explicitly, you don't have one at all. I don't think that anyone who does not understand that should even be considered to be a city employee.


Quit feeding the idiot troll.
 
2012-03-04 06:30:28 PM  
Corrupt bastards.
 
2012-03-04 06:31:46 PM  
It isnt racist to point out the fact that these are mostly negroes
 
2012-03-04 06:32:23 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: No clear rules means "follow the law" not "do whatever you want."


Best statement of the issue.

Obeying the law is default. Unless the situation fits a defined exception, there is never any need to specify that there is no exception. If there needs to be an exception that is not clearly there the proper course of action is to take the issue to the appropriate law making body.
 
2012-03-04 06:34:10 PM  
"I'm sorry Officer, I was unaware that I was breaking the law - I was misled by someone else. Now that you've told me, I will be sure not to do it again. Of course, since this was all a big misunderstanding, I won't be charged... right? "
 
2012-03-04 06:34:17 PM  
Absolutely mind blowing. What kind of employees are they anyway?rewardslink.info
 
2012-03-04 06:34:20 PM  

brewswane: It isnt racist to point out the fact that these are mostly negroes


We've got a whitey in charge now. Corrupt government employees come in all flavors.
 
2012-03-04 06:34:54 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Notabunny: m right. I have not opinion as to whether the rules are "good" or "terrible", but they exist (or not) in varying forms. And they aren't limited to rules governing a vehicle in operation, either. Many municipalities allow e-plate vehicles to double park, park in red zones and in front of hydrants, and park w/o feeding meters or obeying time limits. Again, rules which are applied to most vehicles, but from which municipal vehicles are exempt.

Yes, the laws make certain exceptions. That is not in doubt. But those exceptions are spelled out by law. And oh yes, they don't apply when those vehicles not being used in performance of official business. A cop can't park by fire hydrant legally because he wants to park closer to the store where he wants to make a personal purchase. He can do it in the performance of his duties. A cop can't use red lights to speed because he want to get to the video rental store faster so he can pick up a movie. He can do it when he job makes it a necessity.

Here is an ironclad rule: If you don't have an exception spelled out explicitly, you don't have one at all. I don't think that anyone who does not understand that should even be considered to be a city employee.


Perhaps that's your emotional reaction. Perhaps you really believe that. But clearly there was no such iron clad rule in play in New Orleans. And there is going to be some such rule, soon. Which is why this is a non-issue meant only to get people fired up.
 
2012-03-04 06:37:49 PM  
As has always been the case, government, those who work for government, and those who rely on government, tend to be the most corrupt. This is the primary reason behind one having a desire for smaller government. The ideal is that more government is supposed to help more people. Reality has never reflected this. The reality has always been like this story. Government tends to cost more, take more time, produce inferior quality work, and do it with more corruption. From Rome to the US Senate to New Orleans traffic law, this is a constant of life. If government is involved in something, anything, it is probably worse than if it hadn't been.
 
2012-03-04 06:42:34 PM  

taurusowner: As has always been the case, government, those who work for government, and those who rely on government, tend to be the most corrupt. This is the primary reason behind one having a desire for smaller government. The ideal is that more government is supposed to help more people. Reality has never reflected this. The reality has always been like this story. Government tends to cost more, take more time, produce inferior quality work, and do it with more corruption. From Rome to the US Senate to New Orleans traffic law, this is a constant of life. If government is involved in something, anything, it is probably worse than if it hadn't been.


So your point is that City employees "operating under informal guidance that such tickets didn't have to be paid" and in violation of no clear policy are automatically corrupt?
 
2012-03-04 06:45:42 PM  
70slivekidvid.com

hotlink
 
2012-03-04 06:45:48 PM  

Notabunny: taurusowner: As has always been the case, government, those who work for government, and those who rely on government, tend to be the most corrupt. This is the primary reason behind one having a desire for smaller government. The ideal is that more government is supposed to help more people. Reality has never reflected this. The reality has always been like this story. Government tends to cost more, take more time, produce inferior quality work, and do it with more corruption. From Rome to the US Senate to New Orleans traffic law, this is a constant of life. If government is involved in something, anything, it is probably worse than if it hadn't been.

So your point is that City employees "operating under informal guidance that such tickets didn't have to be paid" and in violation of no clear policy are automatically corrupt?


Yeah, more than likely. Add County, State, and Federal Employees to that too.
 
2012-03-04 06:47:44 PM  

Notabunny: taurusowner: As has always been the case, government, those who work for government, and those who rely on government, tend to be the most corrupt. This is the primary reason behind one having a desire for smaller government. The ideal is that more government is supposed to help more people. Reality has never reflected this. The reality has always been like this story. Government tends to cost more, take more time, produce inferior quality work, and do it with more corruption. From Rome to the US Senate to New Orleans traffic law, this is a constant of life. If government is involved in something, anything, it is probably worse than if it hadn't been.

So your point is that City employees "operating under informal guidance that such tickets didn't have to be paid" and in violation of no clear policy are automatically corrupt?


Congrats on being a good troll. You're pulling them in left and right. Kind of amazing, actually.
 
2012-03-04 06:48:29 PM  

Notabunny: You may personally believe it reasonable to think the default setting is "follow the law", but we're talking about municipalities governing themselves. "Reasonable" and "reality" may well be different things. Snark aside, sometimes those vagaries and exemptions come into being for well-intended reasons And really, I don't care and can't imagine why anyone should. If traffic is doing 80 in a 70 zone, I don't care if one of the cars is a City car. If I'm #24 in line at a stop sign, and every car ahead of me fails to come to a full and complete stop, I don't care if one of them is a City car. If I see 40 cars change lanes w/o signaling, I don't care if one of them is a City car.


It is not only reasonable to say the default is to follow the law, it is one of the most basic concepts of law. Indeed that is what "rule of law" is all about.

Really, you don't see what the objection to the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law not obeying it themselves? They are the ones who who are supposed to be setting the example. And nothing breeds contempt for the law faster than when it is clear that government types need not be concerned with obeying the law. And the idea that is okay to break the law because others do it is bull.

(Speed limits can be a pet peeve of mine. Some areas have unwritten laws that allow people to speed up to a point. Set the speed limit to the point where you are willing to enforce it and then enforce it.)
 
2012-03-04 06:48:42 PM  
These are the same killers that lined the streets calling their fellow thugs "Heroes" for murdering unarmed black men, by shooting them in the back.

A few fudged tickets is no surprise. Hopefully every last one will DIAF.
 
2012-03-04 06:50:34 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: It is not only reasonable to say the default is to follow the law, it is one of the most basic concepts of law. Indeed that is what "rule of law" is all about.

Really, you don't see what the objection to the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law not obeying it themselves? They are the ones who who are supposed to be setting the example. And nothing breeds contempt for the law faster than when it is clear that government types need not be concerned with obeying the law. And the idea that is okay to break the law because others do it is bull.

(Speed limits can be a pet peeve of mine. Some areas have unwritten laws that allow people to speed up to a point. Set the speed limit to the point where you are willing to enforce it and then enforce it.)


You are responding to an idiot troll. A very effective idiot troll, but still an idiot troll.
 
2012-03-04 06:54:27 PM  

taurusowner: As has always been the case, government, those who work for government, and those who rely on government, tend to be the most corrupt. This is the primary reason behind one having a desire for smaller government. The ideal is that more government is supposed to help more people. Reality has never reflected this. The reality has always been like this story. Government tends to cost more, take more time, produce inferior quality work, and do it with more corruption. From Rome to the US Senate to New Orleans traffic law, this is a constant of life. If government is involved in something, anything, it is probably worse than if it hadn't been.


It must take some serious editing of history to come to THAT conclusion.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report