Comments on: Hey, big spender err brother

By: homebru

homebru — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:53:28 +0000

He wants cameras, give him cameras. Old Kodak 127 rollfilm cameras are available constantly on eBay for under $10 each. Bet his decree doesn’t say anything about “must include film and processing”.

By: _Jon

_Jon — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:38:53 +0000

I agree that cameras are helpful with regard to crime prevention and resolution.

But how one goes from “cameras are good” to “let’s require private businesses to have them” is a stretch that only a “gifted” mind could have.

As I wrote that, this mind-thought came floating in;
“Everyone needs energy. Let’s form a company that trades only in energy. That’s not legal. Well, I’ll buy off a few politicos to make it legal. OK!” (That’s how Enron was born.)

By: tkdkerry

tkdkerry — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:39:28 +0000

Let’s go even further to help out dear old Turd Daley; make everybody wear a camera so we can see what they see! We’ll have the footage to prove the suspect actually dropped the hammer on the store clerk. We’ll also have the footage to show ye olde Mayor banging someone not his wife! It’ll be wonderful! What’s that? You say important people will be exempt? Just like they get body guards with guns now and we don’t? Aaaaawww……

( idea shamelessly stolen from the upcoming idiotic Harrison Ford movie )

By: #9

#9 — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:35:58 +0000

How can a law like that be constitutional? Did this requirement also state that the films are subject to review by the City?

Sounds like City imposed Big Brother but the private businesses have to pay for the cameras.