Comment history for NoBS

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

WHEN Ervin finally snaps and seriously harms or kills someone, every judge and court official who let this piece of scum walk free should be held accountable. They won't, of course.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

It's hard to take seriously - and why would anybody? - any group who can't even bother to get accurate figures before they begin rabble-rousing.

These are simply more people of the "I don't get any, so nobody else should either!" mindset.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

Huh. How 'bout that? Kasich's Kronies get twice what he claimed they'd get, to do something the majority of the public DOES NOT WANT. Does he work for us, or not?

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

commoncitizen - if you think the Ohio Turnpike has raised its rates, let it go private, and you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Faith has it right - the Ohio Turnpike costs us taxpayers nothing. Kasich is looking for as large a pile of money as he can gather, and then, just like when he was with Lehman Bros, the state will collapse and Kasich will slither away with his fortune intact.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

Thanks to King John keeping more of our money for himself and his cronies, this is going to be the norm. Don't blame the local officials - blame the state official who created the mess.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

dimebag - how many mortgages did you have to take out on your house to travel the Indiana 'Pike? Don't even try to say the price didn't go up SIGNIFICANTLY.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

Kasich lacks the foresight to recognize, and the integrity to admit, that selling or leasing the Turnpike to a private concern will give the state a one-time-only cash infusion, after which the state will have lost a valuable, profitable asset. After the one-time-only bonanza is gone, we'll be in worse shape than we are now.

We can look at our neighbors to the west - Indiana - to see an example of why privatizing the Turnpike is a bad idea, especially for the residents of the state.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

If we keep giving free money to these people without reservation and without qualification, why are we surprised when they then refuse to accept any responsibility whatever for their actions or inactions? If they don't comply with the law, they don't get their free money, Period.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

ytown, you know nothing of what killed the steel industry. Quit being so ill-informed, and stop hating.

Are the judges and court officials claiming bringing criminals into the courtroom for their arraignment is dangerous because the process can lead to brawls and other out-of-control behavior? Yes. That's their claim. Do the judges have the authority and power to order the courtroom cleared so this does not happen? Yes, they do.

ytown, let he help you with your comprehension: the claim is that in-person arraignments undermines the SAFETY in the courtrooms.

Neither the Vindy nor such blowhands as ytown will acknowledge what the head of the Sherriff's union said on the TV News - that every time the county wants to pass a new tax levy, they lay off deputies and close part of the jail, releasing prisoners back into the public. They don't lay off pencil-pushers, and they don't lay off road workers or sewer workers or anybody else. They do what they do because they believe the public will react more strongly to the closure of the jail than they will to less potholes being patched.

NoBS  (anonymous) says...

So, when you say the "Premium should be on safety" you mean for the court officials who have the power to clear the riff-raff out of the courtroom, but choose not to do so, rather than the safety of the deputies and staff at the jails.

Just so we're clear. As usual, the focus of this editorial is anti-union and anti-public employee, rather than in any way problem-solving.

What did the courts do before there was such a thing as video arraignments? How did they ever get along??