1 posted on
01/20/2008 3:14:50 PM PST by
neverdem
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: neverdem
2 posted on
01/20/2008 3:20:03 PM PST by
Fiddlstix
(Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
To: neverdem
I’m shocked that the NY Slimes published this article!
3 posted on
01/20/2008 3:21:06 PM PST by
GovernmentIsTheProblem
(We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed. - Thomas Jefferson)
To: neverdem
Because if there is any law more powerful than the ones constructed in a place like Washington, it is the law of unintended consequences. Excellent! Thanks for posting.
To: neverdem
This great article was in the NYT? Wonders never cease!
5 posted on
01/20/2008 3:21:38 PM PST by
srmorton
(Choose life!)
To: neverdem
It’s classic. I knew someone who owned rental apartments. She specifically rented only apartments too small to rent to more than one, because the laws that protect families against landlords are bankrupting for the landlord in NYC.
So laws designed to protect the family, in essence kept them out of apartments.
6 posted on
01/20/2008 3:24:56 PM PST by
I still care
("Remember... for it is the doom of men that they forget" - Merlin, from Excalibur)
To: neverdem
An unintended consequence of laws banning incandescent light bulbs, in the name of fighting global warming, is mercury in land fills.
An unintended consequence of laws mandating ethanol fuel is higher food prices, and likely will eventually be famines.
To: neverdem
For those of you that haven't read Freakonomics, I highly encourage it. The book is by the same authors as this article, and contains equally fascinating information.
To: neverdem
Is the NYT trying to salvage at least a vestige of its credibility?
11 posted on
01/20/2008 3:33:05 PM PST by
Past Your Eyes
(You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.)
To: neverdem
In a new working paper that examines the plight of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, the economists John List, Michael Margolis and Daniel Osgood found that landowners near Tucson rushed to clear their property for development rather than risk having it declared a safe haven for the owl. The economists make the argument for the distinct possibility that the Endangered Species Act is actually endangering, rather than protecting, species. Government will ALWAYS make things worse, it is not the solution to problems - but the cause. With thanks to RR
12 posted on
01/20/2008 3:41:43 PM PST by
2banana
(My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
To: neverdem
Thanks for posting this!
I deal with the ADA everyday. People do not realize that ADA is not, I repeat, NOT, a building code. It is a Civil Rights Act.
Even if a property owner retrofits his property to meet the ADA guidelines he/she may still be sued if a disabled person thinks that some part of the facility is not 'accessible'. That's right. If, for example, the toilet is not 'accessible' to that person, and the person complains, and it is not made 'accessible' for that one person, that person can sue under the ADA ... even if the toilet was changed to meet the ADA Guidelines.
Also, a property owner can be sued if a person becomes lost on his property. Even non-blind people with 'cognitive difficulties' who cannot read directional signage or maps, have to be 'accomodated' in some other way or the property owner can be sued. (He does have some time to rectify the situation for each individual before he is sued). But, like the doctor in the story, he must make the accomodation at his own cost for each individual person who claims his property is 'inaccessible' in some particular and individual way.
These are just two examples out of possibly hundreds or more.
14 posted on
01/20/2008 3:56:59 PM PST by
Lorianne
To: neverdem
Ever wonder why so many places that used to have drinking fountaiins don’t have them any more? Thank the ADA. Place that provided them as a convenience but weren’t required to have them, took them out because they are a liability towards an ADA suit. Even if they are lowered for wheelchair users, tall people with back problems can sue if they are too low. So a lot of property owners simply took them out.
Ditto with restromms that weren’t required. Rather than retrofit them and still face a possible ADA suit, they were removed or made off limits to the public.
15 posted on
01/20/2008 4:01:00 PM PST by
Lorianne
To: neverdem
16 posted on
01/20/2008 4:09:26 PM PST by
El Sordo
To: neverdem
Ah-hah! The root of the old adage, “shoot, shovel, and shut-up!
almost any government program touted to address some inequity, injustice, or need is guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite of it’s stated intent.
17 posted on
01/20/2008 4:17:11 PM PST by
Segovia
(Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.)
To: neverdem
This is a "Must-Read".
On the local news the other night, they announced the upcoming story :
"President Bush and congress vow to help the economy-When can you expect your check in the mail".
Everyone should see this.
18 posted on
01/20/2008 5:08:40 PM PST by
Pajamajan
(Pray for president Bush. Pray for our troops. Pray for congress, Pray for our nation.)
To: neverdem
I could rant for an hour on this one. But I won’t.
The most egregious of laws that has a direct negative effect on our economy and society is the minimum wage law.
It’s damages run wide and deep.
19 posted on
01/20/2008 5:25:02 PM PST by
papasmurf
(I'm voting for FRed, even if I have to write him in.)
To: neverdem
Excellent article. Amazing that the Times published it. It goes against everything they stand for.
20 posted on
01/20/2008 5:41:57 PM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: neverdem
Let’s not get too far down the thread before remembering that the ADA was signed into law by GHW Bush and there lies the lesson — an R after a candidate’s name has little to do with overall political philosophy. Just something to think about during this political season that is filled with R-Nannystate candidates of all stripes.
23 posted on
01/21/2008 2:30:05 AM PST by
T-Bird45
(It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
To: neverdem
They all said, If I ever get a call from someone like that, Ill never see her, he says.Taxation without representation comes to mind.
People WILL find a way to avoid unreasonable demands put upon them!
24 posted on
01/21/2008 5:39:49 AM PST by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
To: neverdem; Timesink; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; ...
I'm almost speechless. Heads will roll at the Times! Or maybe it's been seven years since the Times last reported a common sense article and the editors are/were on sabbatical??? Or maybe they thought their hit counter was stuck and wanted to give it a proper test.
Apologies for duplicate pings.
26 posted on
02/16/2008 9:03:04 AM PST by
ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
To: neverdem
The New York Times ??? OMG it looks like a liberal brain has trumped liberal "feelings". Is it possible?
If a liberal can understand unintended consequences, surely pigs are flying.
27 posted on
02/16/2008 9:33:24 AM PST by
GOPJ
(Take your ball - go home - sit this one out? Fifty years of liberal Supreme Court decisions? NO WAY.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson