|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: Zero Tolerance started by: thibodeaux Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 30 2012,10:17
< I've been saying this for a while >:QUOTE ‘zero tolerance’ policies, far from existing to protect the kids or whatever their supporting propaganda says, exist only to protect those people – namely the bureaucrats who apply them. People in mid-level, white-collar, low-productivity bureaucratic jobs need such things as ‘zero tolerance’ and other mindlessly reality-immune policies so that their cushy existence can be hermetically-sealed from all possible criticisms and setbacks. Sweeping and uniform, such a policy requires no judgment whatsoever which means that no one can be held responsible for their failure or any damage they may cause. This is also how TSA operates. They MUST follow The Rules, because if they do that, they can't be blamed. Some of the blame for this mentality, of course, must be place upon the lawyers who sue anybody and everybody. Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 30 2012,10:42
Lawyers don't sue unless someone pays them to.
Posted by GORDON on Aug. 30 2012,11:08
(Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:42) QUOTE Lawyers don't sue unless someone pays them to. There is a term I can't recall at the moment.... it means entrepreneurial litigation. Lawyers send, for example, handicapped people into local businesses to see if the business is compliant with accessibility laws, and if not the lawyers can threaten/blackmail/whatever the company into paying up if they don't want to get sued. Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 30 2012,11:27
QUOTE There is a term I can't recall at the moment.... it means entrepreneurial litigation. "Being an asshole." And they can only chisel them for as much as the perceived (from the defendant's perspective) loss would be. Otherwise, you'd just take the loss to spite the litigious douche suing you. I'd also like to add that the populous tends to elect lawyers to public office. Maybe the citizenry should pull its collective head out of its ass and not vote for them. And it looks like Nevada < just removed the only candidate I'd ever vote for >. Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 30 2012,11:40
(Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:27) QUOTE Maybe the citizenry should pull its collective head out of its ass and not vote for them. Sadly you can only vote for candidates on the ballot, which are usually all lawyers. And if you don't vote they call it apathy. Maybe it's time we founded the Mad as Hell Party Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 30 2012,11:46
(TPRJones @ Aug. 30 2012,13:40) QUOTE (Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:27) QUOTE Maybe the citizenry should pull its collective head out of its ass and not vote for them. Sadly you can only vote for candidates on the ballot, which are usually all lawyers. And if you don't vote they call it apathy. You can always do a write-in, but that takes getting loads of people to write down the same series of letters on the same day. That's more forethought than large groups of this species can handle. And fuck "no voting" = "apathy." By voting, you're giving your implicit consent to a bloated, corrupt, and worthless system of choosing officials. Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 30 2012,11:49
(Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:27) QUOTE And it looks like Nevada < just removed the only candidate I'd ever vote for >. Fuck that judge right in the ass. He's flat out wrong. Citizens have a right to choose their speech, and voting "None of the Above" sends a clear message of contempt. It says you are NOT apathetic, that you care very much and dragged your ass down to the polls and made your opinion known. It needs to be counted and published, regardless of whether or not it effects the actual outcome. I would argue that any democracy without that option - or something functionally similar - is not a real democracy because the people do not have all the options required to make their collective will known. QUOTE “You’re free to stay home on the couch,” he said, arguing that such non-votes don’t count either. You are free to get your ignorant fucking ass off the bench, cockmunch. Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 30 2012,11:52
(Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:46) QUOTE You can always do a write-in... Unfortunately that is not true. In most races in most voting districts write-ins are not an option. And in the majority of those where it is an option it's not a free-for-all; write-in candidates must register with the election board in advance to be an official write-in candidate or they won't be counted. Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 30 2012,12:18
< "Go ahead, throw your vote away." >
Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 30 2012,12:23
(Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:42) QUOTE Lawyers don't sue unless someone pays them to. Ok, fine. Can I at least blame the judges that allow these cases to proceed? Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 30 2012,13:42
(thibodeaux @ Aug. 30 2012,14:23) QUOTE (Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:42) QUOTE Lawyers don't sue unless someone pays them to. Ok, fine. Can I at least blame the judges that allow these cases to proceed? Who are, naturally, former lawyers all taught that independent thinking and straying from precedent are dangerous. It isn't just mid-level, white-collar bureaucrats who need these laws. All types of lowlife can benefit from imposing double-think on those under their thumb. Posted by GORDON on Oct. 03 2012,04:34
(GORDON @ Aug. 30 2012,14:08) QUOTE (Malcolm @ Aug. 30 2012,13:42) QUOTE Lawyers don't sue unless someone pays them to. There is a term I can't recall at the moment.... it means entrepreneurial litigation. Lawyers send, for example, handicapped people into local businesses to see if the business is compliant with accessibility laws, and if not the lawyers can threaten/blackmail/whatever the company into paying up if they don't want to get sued. < http://www.news10.net/news....assment > Posted by Malcolm on Oct. 03 2012,07:00
QUOTE Scott Johnson, the quadriplegic attorney who has sued more than 2,100 businesses for violating his civil rights Shoot this fucker. Shoot him now, if nothing else because of the drain he is on the legal system. Posted by thibodeaux on Oct. 03 2012,08:19
For 'tis the sport to have the enginerHoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 13 2013,15:14
< Zero Tolerance policy kills an asmathic kid. >Someone at the school should be charged with manslaughter in this case, IMO. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 13 2013,18:18
I'd go depraved indifference. This is beyond manslaughter.
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 13 2013,18:22
Yeah, they killed a kid by separating him from medication a doctor said he'd need to avoid breathing problems. Will depend on how close of buddies the local prosecutor is with the head of the school board.
|