Member Profile

TawanaNBD

Member

32 posts
Recent Replies 5 items

Unions and Walmart: Picketers for Hire

General Topics • Oct 7, 2005 8:04 PM

I'm kind of dense today...irony in what sense? What struck me was that the workers protesting the bad working conditions were working in worse conditions (and shopping at the store they were protesting). And that the workers didn't care enough to do it themselves! As for the conditions at WM, I hope they get them improved but the reason I boycott them is their routine drug screening. Principle of the thing and all. Plus their stores give me claustrophobia. My PO Box: http://members.aol.com/TawanaNBD2/images.htm

Has anybody seen the PO's latest work?

General Topics • Oct 4, 2005 3:09 PM

>>TawanaNBD this service has been around for a while now and there have actually been a couple of instances where someone has got through a person of notorious fame. Supposedly the company that provides the service is supposed to screen the entries but I am not sure how any one could do so with 100% accuracy. I am not too bothered by this. Although I am a traditionalist by nature I don't think this, in it itself, will do any harm to our country's image. Sure people can abuse it but there are many things in pop culture that are abused by the masses.<< I still find it tacky but this reassures me a little. If it's been around and I haven't gotten a bunch of "ad" stamps on my mail, hopefully that won't happen. I'm sure if it IS abused or gets out of control, someone will put an end to it. Interestingly, I wrote a friend in Australia and she said they have it there too. >>By the way, what is so wrong with crass American commercialism? It is the motor that turns the capitalistic wheel our Country thrives on. You should see how crass socialism can be.<< Heh, it's the crass part that's worse than the commercialism. Honestly, there's not a thing wrong with commercialism...in moderation. Moderation in all things. There comes a point where it passes from selling to prostituting. We don't mind Mc Donald's down the street from the White House, but most of us (hopefully) wouldn't want to see the yellow arches on a big billboard OVER the White House. From my perspective, this is a national-pride and culture issue. Postage that can be sent to every country on the globe is not the place for mass marketing. I consider postage an ambassador of my country as much as currency or...well, the ambassador. But, I can run things the way I want when I buy my island. :) In the meantime, thanks Buck, now I can quit being upset. :) BTW, I know this really isn't a civil liberty issue but it seemed to just fit here so thanks for answering. My PO Box: http://members.aol.com/TawanaNBD2/images.htm

Click it or kick it? (Seat belt law challenged)

These United States • May 19, 2005 3:01 AM

Okay, I have to revive this post, because it's CIOT time again (got to find some way to change that acronym to IDIOT :). I don't know, my moon must be in the sign of rebellion this month but I am just SICK to death of this crap...first the liability insurance, now the yearly seatbelt ordeal, so I'm reposting the first post to see if anyone has heard any updates on this. I spent quite a bit of time searching last night and I just could not find much on it. I found a lot of protests about it (a really good one at http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=357&sortorder=articledate) but not much about any court challenges. Maybe I wasn't using good search words or something. Anyway, I ran across a "loophole" mentioned at one site that older cars which do not have seatbelts may be exempt. This gave me the wicked idea to cut the damn thing out of my car. (The thing is like a straitjacket anyway, I consider it actually more a danger in hampering mobility than driving w/o it and will never wear it, and I am the sole driver.) I finally tracked down the actual ordinance and am now trying to wade through the legalese and references to other obscure ordinances labeled with obscure numbers like 297.863.929 that I am mystified by to find out if this might actually work. I mean, what if I tell the cop I bought the car used and it didn't have a belt? What will they do? So anyway, again, if anyone has heard anything recently about this, please let me know. << Posted - 11/24/2003 : 1:05:04 PM Show Profile Email Poster Visit Buck's Homepage Reply with Quote quote: Click it or kick it? Ken Prazak stood outside a McHenry County courtroom with his arms crossed and a huge smile across his face. "It's a madhouse in there," he said of Judge Suzanne Mangiomele's traffic courtroom. "I bet a good minority of those people in there are for seat-belt violations. It's just crazy." And it is exactly what he hopes to eliminate. Prazak has filed two motions to dismiss a $25 seat-belt ticket on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. "I believe it is my constitutional and natural-law right for me to decide what is safe for me," he said. One motion argues that the seat-belt requirement violates the Ninth Amendment, which allows someone to retain individual rights not circumscribed by the Constitution. Another motion was filed under the Fifth Amendment's due-process clause. >> My PO Box: http://members.aol.com/TawanaNBD2/images.htm

Girl Scouts Vow To Take On NYPD In Cookie Flap

General Topics • May 12, 2005 7:50 PM

>>It was probably some type of antiterrorist thing. You may be jesting but from what I have heard, that whole antiterrorist has been stretched to bizarre limits...such as against gangs. Somebody needs to define what terrorism is...to me it should be political in nature or otherwise you could say burglaries with hostages, even schoolyard bullies, just about anything is terrorism. I mean, just because it terrorizes you, does that make it terrorism? Then so is rape, carjacking, etc. My PO Box: http://members.aol.com/TawanaNBD2/images.htm

Required apartment liability insurance

General Topics • May 12, 2005 7:47 PM

RE informing my complex, there is a clause on how to opt out for distribution of info and I plan to look into that. However, in speaking to various people, from apartment mgt to my insurance agent, I have become more and more mystified by the system. The apt. rep told me an example of a personal experience in which she had let a friend dog-sit. The dog had absolutely no history of attacks or viciousness but went berserk on a walk with the friend and ended up killing another dog. The girl brought this up as an example of how her liability policy saved her ass...ets. (My cynical view is that if she had had no liability policy, the folks would have just had to bite the bullet and accept the death of the dog, not to sound harsh, but frankly, spit happens.) I personally thought the friend might be liable but not the owner, who was not present and who had left the dog with a competent caretaker. But no. OTOH, the insurance rep told me how she herself was having a kids birthday party and had one of those bouncing houses. A boy bounced out and broke his arm, yet she was not liable. These two cases seem exactly opposite to me. To me, the bouncing house WAS a potentially dangerous sport (and I bet SHE had to sign a release to rent it) and it was her responsibility in letting the children at the party enter it w/o signing any kind of release. So any injury from it would be no different from someone tripping on your sidewalk and suing you--in fact it makes more sense to me because those bouncing houses just seem intrinsically more dangerous than your average sidewalk. But yet she said it was NOT her liability. So...my conclusion...whoever has the better lawyer wins. :) My PO Box: http://members.aol.com/TawanaNBD2/images.htm