40,000 new laws enacted for 2011

NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
I was wrong. That was for 2010.

But there are 725 new laws for 2011 in California alone... I wouldnt be surprised if the number was close to 40K...
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
DSB65 said:
By the way, you do know that ignorance of the law is no excuse right??

THE JUDGE TOLD ME THIS VERY THING RIGHT BEFORE GIVING ME 5 YEARS...
Click to expand...
That's what the coppers, prosecutors, judges, and legislators all tell themselves so they can go to sleep at night.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
my wife, who i keep telling to create an account as chanicekobolowski, just wanted to point this out first: the job of congress is to create legislation (aka laws). so you complain when they do their job? what is the point of legislators other than to legislate?

my point would be...what type of laws are these? ones that state "you can insure yourself under your parents until you're 26"? yep, that's in there. "you can't deny someone who has paid into insurance their whole life once they get sick"? yep, that's in there.

you don't even count repeal of laws...such as DADT. or maybe they count the repeal of DADT as a NEW law...which would be dishonest at best. laws that extend civil liberties to more americans that deserve it like those who serve our country? i am all for those kind of laws.

also, how many laws get passed in an average year? and why did i find this article on the spokane examiner, a backwoods militia publication if i ever saw one. just scan the articles there. some of the top headlines include the tea party condemning the aclu as a 'hate group' (how dare they defend our civil liberties) and the southern poverty law center condemning 'christian organizations' as hate groups (did they mention the southern poverty law center also categorizes several black power organizations as hate groups? answer: no).

so, my response to this article found on the *totally* non-biased spokane examiner (that prestigious publication) would be: what *specific* laws do you object to? let's discuss them, chicken little.:joint:
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
By the way, you do know that ignorance of the law is no excuse right?? :twisted:
Click to expand...
DSB65 said:
THE JUDGE TOLD ME THIS VERY THING RIGHT BEFORE GIVING ME 5 YEARS...
Click to expand...
Johnnyorganic said:
That's what the coppers, prosecutors, judges, and legislators all tell themselves so they can go to sleep at night.
Click to expand...
i'm so sorry officer, i had no idea that red light meant 'stop'.

i was ignorant of the law. how dare you prosecute me.

seriously though, let's talk about which specific laws we object to.

otherwise, this is all masturbatory fodder for the idiots who say 'i had no idea that i couldn't do that'.

fuck all those who lost their livelihood through no fault of their own, let's defend the deadbeats who exploit our nation of laws.

deadbeats like the ones who defraud public assistance programs, giving rise to racist stereotypes like 'the welfare queen'.

i see what conservative values are all about now... :roll:
 
darkdestruction420

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
my wife, who i keep telling to create an account as chanicekobolowski, just wanted to point this out first: the job of congress is to create legislation (aka laws). so you complain when they do their job? what is the point of legislators other than to legislate?

my point would be...what type of laws are these? ones that state "you can insure yourself under your parents until you're 26"? yep, that's in there. "you can't deny someone who has paid into insurance their whole life once they get sick"? yep, that's in there.

you don't even count repeal of laws...such as DADT. or maybe they count the repeal of DADT as a NEW law...which would be dishonest at best. laws that extend civil liberties to more americans that deserve it like those who serve our country? i am all for those kind of laws.

also, how many laws get passed in an average year? and why did i find this article on the spokane examiner, a backwoods militia publication if i ever saw one. just scan the articles there. some of the top headlines include the tea party condemning the aclu as a 'hate group' (how dare they defend our civil liberties) and the southern poverty law center condemning 'christian organizations' as hate groups (did they mention the southern poverty law center also categorizes several black power organizations as hate groups? answer: no).

so, my response to this article found on the *totally* non-biased spokane examiner (that prestigious publication) would be: what *specific* laws do you object to? let's discuss them, chicken little.:joint:
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap: Thanks for being the voice of reason. I was contemplating it but you did it much better than i would of. :peace:
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
The evolved Progressive attitude toward DADT is quite confusing.

During the Clinton Administration, it was crucial to preserve the equality of homosexuals.

But during the Obama Administration, it was a symbol of discrimination.

Did I miss something along the way?
 
darkdestruction420

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
The evolved Progressive attitude toward DADT is quite confusing.

During the Clinton Administration, it was crucial to preserve the equality of homosexuals.

But during the Obama Administration, it was a symbol of discrimination.

Did I miss something along the way?
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. Homosexuality became more acceptable , during clinton they were afraid people would treat each other differently/negatively if they were gay and that gays couldnt be counted on it combat. Now they realize that was a bunch of bullshit.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
an ounce or less of pot is simply a ticket now in cali.

that's a new law today. :)
Click to expand...
There should be no penalty attached to it at all.

What is your opinion of of AB 97, which bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities?

That's right. Food police.

Most new laws authorize government agencies rule-making authority. Meaning they are given increased regulatory powers. Thus shifting legislative powers to the the government.

Nice.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
darkdestruction420 said:
Yes, you did. Homosexuality became more acceptable , during clinton they were afraid people would treat each other differently/negatively if they were gay and that gays couldnt be counted on it combat. Now they realize that was a bunch of bullshit.
Click to expand...
So you are saying situations change with time.

Does that mean it's okay now that Donald Rumsfeld shook Sadam Hussein's hand when Iraq was an ally, before it became an enemy, before it again became an ally?
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
There should be no penalty attached to it at all.

What is your opinion of of AB 97, which bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities?

That's right. Food police.

Most new laws authorize government agencies rule-making authority. Meaning they are given increased regulatory powers. Thus shifting legislative powers to the the government.

Nice.
Click to expand...

most people would benefit from being arrested for what they eat. ;)
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
More laws equal more criminals in the eyes of the law.

That's all I'm saying.

Repeals are few and far between.

fdd2blk said:
most people would benefit from being arrested for what they eat. ;)
Click to expand...
That statement is so far outside the bounds of liberty I can scarcely comprehend it.
 
darkdestruction420

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
So you are saying situations change with time.

Does that mean it's okay now that Donald Rumsfeld shook Sadam Hussein's hand when Iraq was an ally, before it became an enemy, before it again became an ally?
Click to expand...
Of course situations can change with time.......what does donald rumsfeld shaking saddam husseins hand in 1983 as personal envoy to iraq of ronald reagen when the government decided to go from just *watching* iraqs war with iran to helping iraq by giving iraq a bunch of cash and weapons have to do with dadt?both ronald reagen and bush both throwing trillions of dollars away giving it to other countries as "aid" for letting us have bases there and other bullshit like that.....?
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
darkdestruction420 said:
Of course situations can change with time.......what does donald rumsfeld shaking saddam husseins hand in 1983 as personal envoy to iraq of ronald reagen when the government decided to go from just *watching* iraqs war with iran to helping iraq by giving iraq a bunch of cash and weapons have to do with dadt?both ronald reagen and bush both throwing trillions of dollars away giving it to other countries as "aid" for letting us have bases there and other bullshit like that.....?
Click to expand...
The two are analogous in that situations change with time.

Liberals used that photo of Rummy and Saddam to demonize George W. Bush. The situation between the two nations changed, but to Bush Haters that photo was proof that Dubya was the devil or something like that.

I guess what confused me about the current Progressive abhorrence to DADT is that before DADT any admission of homosexuality meant automatic discharge. However, some service people were gay and other people knew or suspected it, but the only time I ever saw a soldier discharged over gayness was when he outed himself because the job was too tough. Gay was just a handy excuse and a quick solution to rid himself of that heavy rucksack on his back.

So I suppose my follow up question would be, why did we need DADT in the first place?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
my wife, who i keep telling to create an account as chanicekobolowski, just wanted to point this out first: the job of congress is to create legislation (aka laws).
Click to expand...
Thats not the only Job of Congress, tell your wife she is mostly wrong. Tell your wife she needs to go back and read article 1 of the Constitution.

Let me help you understand what Congress REALLY does.

Originate all bills for raising revenues
Collect taxes, duties, and excise, pay debts, and provide for the common defense
Borrow money on the credit of the United States
Regulate commerce with foreign nations and among states
Establish a uniform rule of naturalization
Establish a uniform rule of bankruptcy
Coin money
Promote the progress of science and useful arts
Establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
Declare war (Congress adjusted this power with the War Powers act)
Raise and maintain the military
Make all laws necessary for the execution of our constitution and government
Override Presidential veto with two-thirds majority vote.
(Additional expressed powers)


Thats what Congress does, you think they just sit around coming up with new laws all day? We don't need 99% of all the laws that have been made. IMO Half the laws are only made so as to enrich the government coffers with arbitrary fines for doing things that have no victim.
​
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Most new laws authorize government agencies rule-making authority. Meaning they are given increased regulatory powers. Thus shifting legislative powers to the the government.

Nice.
Click to expand...
A Huge problem from where I sit. Federal Agencies given the authority to determine how much authority they will have. Well when given authority to determine your own authority, it doesn't take a very intelligent person to decide to have unlimited authority, then no one can challenge you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top