Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut
Yes... and No. Bear Islander this law on its Merits is exactly what is wrong with government. This law is the poster child for what is wrong. I couldn't possibly write words here to illustrate how strongly I feel. Misdirection is not what I am trying. I am directing you, I am imploring that you please look at the facts. Take the emotion out of it. Take the "feelings" and "Circumstantial and subjective evidence" out of the equation. Look at the cold hard facts. I have never in my life seen a law actually pass based on feelings. This is that law. So misdirection is a very unfair comment. I am merely telling you that on face value this law is based on no facts. So this would pave the way for more laws based on feelings and no facts to be passed. That is my point. I am not trying to deceive or misdirect anyone. I am trying to point everyone to look at what their government is capable of doing. Legislating on fear. That is a VERY dangerous thing.
I feel very strongly about this as you can tell. I can assure you again that I personally do not lose or gain with this law. I merely subscribe to the theory that the government should be held to a higher standard. The government is in place to solve existing problems. They are not there to waste taxpayer dollars on initiatives like this, because one or two legislators wanted to make a name for themselves all in the false name of safety. If they cared, truly cared they would take steps toward increased awareness and education. They would increase funding for Marine Patrol. But NO why would they do that. It's not nearly as sexy as the SL law. They are getting far more mileage and press from this debate and this law. If they went the other way they would be getting little to no press and what press they would be getting is negative due to increased spending. Do you see where I am coming from here? You can call me cynical but I see it differently. I've spent many years around politicians and I have been on the inside. I know exactly how it works. This has nothing to do with safety for these people.
|
I don't know HN, and I don't want to Rush to conclusions here, but some of this talk is starting to sound an awful lot like a certain AM talk radio host, you know, the thrice divorced drug addict who espouses family values and makes millions with his fear mongering. I just think you're reading a little bit more than is warranted into the SL debate and perhaps getting a bit off topic. You know many people wanted this speed limit. It's not a figment of anyone's imagination that people joined Winnfabs, wrote their legislators, or showed up at hearings in favor of a SL. To be dragging this kind of nonsense into the discussion just makes me think perhaps dialogue on this thread is becoming a bit wacky.