Massachusetts-State of Emergency

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I was a kid in the Boston area back in 1978 when that blizzard hit and it came in furiuosly. It also happened to arrive just before rush hour started and this is where things got really ugly. One of the highways, Route 128 (actually a part of I-95 and may not have been renamed to Rt 128 until I was a little older), was slowed to a crawl with thousands of cars on it and the snow was falling faster than it could be cleared. Eventually the cars could not move, plows could not get anywhere and the whole system came to a halt. People were running out of fuel as they tried to run the cars for heat and most people did not have much on hand in terms of extra warmth or food. People were abandoning their cars and trying to to walk out of the mess. Some people toughed it out for the night piling up extra people in cars trying to share body heat. This was a total mess.

I lived in a suburb near Braintree, MA and my street, which was only a block behind the town hall and parallel to the main stree, did not receive much attention until the 2nd or third day when they were finally able to get the front loader down my street to shovel the roads out. Forget plowing, that couldn't happen as there were so many downed trees (this is where walking safety is an issue, if you've ever seen an ice laden limb on an oak tree snap and drop you would not want to be walking under one. We had plenty of trees over our sidewalks there) and stuck cars and heavy wet snow more a couple of feet deep in the way. The loaders dumped enough snow in front of my house that we could walk out a 2nd floor window to the top of the pile and beiings kids, that is what we did. The snow was packed hard and made a great fort when we hollowed it out a bit.

Given this past experience, I would go along with the "get everyone off the roads so we can manage the snow and minimze damage and deaths" on this one.

Here is what I am talking about
edit on 9-2-2013 by evc1shop because: Add a link




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I drove in some nasty snow storms in my day. The most recent and the worst would be Snowmageddon from a couple of years ago.





The governor is not that far off in passing this measure after experiencing and seeing what I saw driving in the storm a few years ago. I was on the Interstate 88 tollway leaving Chicago and I could not drive no more than 15 miles per hour in practically zero visibility. Staying on the main roads did not help. Looked at the side of the road and it looked like Christmas. Scores of tail lights sticking out of the ditch.

At the time, I thought I could beat the storm. Wrong move! It came on so quickly. Just glad I made it to my destination. It could be days before emergency workers can get to people. It is very easy to get buried inside your car and freeze to death. Especially since most people do not prepare for driving in winter conditions, and some don't even have a full tank of gas. This measure is very necessary.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
THIS is Snowmeggedon! (It says it's Oswego but it's actually Nova Scotia Canada)





posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by strokker
 


I live in Mass. and as I am not currently traveling...and BELIEVE ME...I wish I was...I am looking out the window of my office watching 40 to 70 mile per hour winds blowing snow into high drifts.

The 4pm thing reay pissed me off as I had a few things I needed to do and because of this driving ban I could not.

This is a case of an over zealous State Official pacing constraints on the puplic as to not look as if he did not take control of a dangerous situation from the get go.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The reason why they're doing all this is because one of the worst storms in history is about to hit their area. there is no telling how bad this thing is going to be till after it happens. why in their right mind would want to be on the roads during all this is beyond me... i've been through mild blizzards and they were a literal nightmare I almost lost my life trying to drive 4 miles.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   
I am not understanding peoples problem with this? We have driving bans all the time around here, and yes if you are out and about during one for no good reason you can be ticketed. And it is usually issued by the local branch of legalness here. Like a mayor. Like many have said just use common sense they want to keep the roads open for emergency vehicles just like they would during a hurricane down south several hours before the storm hits they shut things down. Talk about making something out of nothing?!!!
I want to add I live just north of Buffalo Ny, this is the most snow we have had in like 5 yrs here. We got around 18" of the heavy wet crap, I think that was our total for the entire year last year. It is strange typing that considering we usually get pounded.
edit on 9-2-2013 by jaynkeel because: add comment



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
'...nothing would MOVE without our consent...."

~Cyrus



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by evc1shop
 


I was a kid back in the storm of 78 also, 4 years old to be exact. I know one thing for certain, when I was young I remember us getting a heck of alot more snow and snow storms than we have had like the last 10 years. Like snow banks 5-6 feet high....seems like we hardly ever have any real bad storms anymore which suits me fine.....I hate the snow and would be perfectly happy if it was 80-90 degrees F all year long.
edit on 9-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by strokker
 


I live in Mass. and as I am not currently traveling...and BELIEVE ME...I wish I was...I am looking out the window of my office watching 40 to 70 mile per hour winds blowing snow into high drifts.

The 4pm thing reay pissed me off as I had a few things I needed to do and because of this driving ban I could not.

This is a case of an over zealous State Official pacing constraints on the puplic as to not look as if he did not take control of a dangerous situation from the get go.

Split Infinity



Would you rather there was no State of Emergency and people ended up dead by being idiots out driving around? Or better yet how would you like it if a tree came through your living room window and injured some of your family and rescue vehicles were detained because some dips**t was blocking the street to your home? You should think of that before complaining about petty inconveniences.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I am not understanding how going outside is now an offense.

I realize everyone repeats the robot answers that it's acceptable to call martial law, but I do recall living in the middle of nowhere and it snowed us in often and I never needed to be told by Uncle Sam when or where I could travel. I just applied common sense and discretion.

I guess humans must be devolving into some sort of irresponsible primitive variation of what it once was, and now requires government oversight to make sure they can survive a mere weather incident.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Look...we live in Massachusetts. We have been in many a Snow Storm. It comes with living here. People here know what they can and cannot do when such storms hit and for some Governor who liven in this state long enough to run for office to decide for us what we can or cannot do and treat us like children...well it is insulting.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Look...we live in Massachusetts. We have been in many a Snow Storm. It comes with living here. People here know what they can and cannot do when such storms hit and for some Governor who liven in this state long enough to run for office to decide for us what we can or cannot do and treat us like children...well it is insulting.

Split Infinity



Incorrect terminology.

Children are allowed to play in the slow.

Slaves, on the other hand, maybe not.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Just picture it for a moment with me:

There is a woman standing there looking out her window all freaked out, calls 911 saying "There is some person out here, you better come get him", "What are they doing ma'am?", "I think he's trying to shovel or something, come get him."

Now, tell yourselves, we are free people.
Repeat it a lot too so we don't realize the reality that has befallen us.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's also about keeping the roads free of traffic so that snow and ice removal apparatus can stay on top of the storm as opposed to letting 2 feet of snow pile up and shutting down the roads for days. That keeps them clear for emergency apparatus and utility apparatus as well. Power lines go down, basements flood knocking out heat, pipes freeze, people have heart attacks shoveling, or serious falls... this is really common sense guys...cmon. If you have a problem with this then maybe go back and time and tell the founders to not give Governors and Presidents this power. Good lord.


Look, it's common sense, I get that.

Guess I just get ouchy when they suspend freedoms. Even for safety.


Incorrect good Beezzer, as we all know, the removal of freedoms does not directly increase the safety of anyone, and now the only real difference is that the government does not consider traveling a legal right (therefore it is unconstitutional and tyrannical). So the safety of the citizenry is null and void, as a citizen without freedom has no safety from tyranny.

I would consider investigating the possibility that this will be used as some form of wealth generation for the state coffers. Will they be impounding these vehicles ? Hmmm.
edit on 9-2-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You are falling for the same old hash that everyone that does not read deeply falls for



They typically quote Robertson v. Washington State Department of Public
Works as their case law precedent.

As an example, one such site is
educate-yourself.org...

There's a current discussion on Amazon.com wherein one of the discussion
participants states he was part of a "mass dismissal" of infractions.

What research I've been able to do does not support any of the claims.
Robertson V. DPW does discuss a "right to travel over public roads" as
fundamental, but nowhere indicates that "right to travel" equals "right to
operate a motor vehicle."

Snopes


It is a privilege granted by the State you live in. The State regulates the rules and restrictions for driving. The State can also pull your privilege and deny you the ability to legally drive. The States also have reciprocity with the other states so if you are licensed in one state you license is valid in all states.

G

Everytime it has come before the SCOTUS, it has been ruled a NON-Constitutional issue as the Constitution DOES NOT address driving.. Only movement

Sorry but you are wrong

Semper


I have not fallen for anything this is Supreme court case law cut in stone! I just posted several supreme court rulings that prove what you are claiming is false and you respond with Snopes???
And then some irrelevant case that I did not even mentioned? You are in denial i have seen hundreds of cases dismissed and the court assessed for frivolous charges. If one knows their constitution and state law they can defend their rights and win every time there is no recourse.

Instead following your cop taught misinformation you should actually study the law. I guarantee you I have read far deeper then you have on this. And I would clean your clock in any court if you cited or arrested me on any unconstitutional statute! Yeah i am sure you think I am just another fool sovereign as you have seen many fools try all kinds of crazy strategies that have no basis in law. However I am not one of them. Every thing I cite is well settled on law and the judge has no recourse but to follow the law.

Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.


Read Listen and learn:

privateaudio.homestead.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


edit on 9-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Maybe that's whats going on here.

Us old farts come from a different school of learning perhaps ?

We've all been through more than our fair share of blizzards in our lifetimes and was never in need for government implementation of enforced laws (that I can ever remember) where it was necessary in order for the citizens to use their common sense of the do's and don'ts in these types of situations.

A nanny state has a tendency to insult our intelligence, IMO... but maybe just to us older generations ?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
That is what a State of Emergency is and is perfectly legal.


Correct, many evils are committed "Legally".
"Legal" is the key phrase that tyrants utilize in promoting their unjust actions.

For example, we can pass a law stating such and such and so forth, and legalize anything, including murder.

So the real question is "Is it the right decision?" And the answer is clearly no it is the wrong one.
People who choose to live in disaster prone areas must become responsible of their own accord without being forced and coerced into it by a government entity that cannot even do basic math correctly.

By rescinding freedom temporarily, they are in effect saying that they give up completely on freedom and it's ideals in response for unrealistic hopes for "additional protection" that may or may not actually eventuate.

What if someone doesn't want to just give up their vehicle? Will they shoot them to prove who is the top authority? I bet they will, because that's what this is really about, authority and power. They want to know exactly how indoctrinated and enslaved we really are, and how gladly we will accept such draconian measures.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge

A nanny state has a tendency to insult our intelligence, IMO... but maybe just to us older generations ?


You mean anyone who can remember the past?

Anyone who remembers living in a United States that wasn't absolute tyranny in our faces daily?

Yeah, that must be us "old farts".



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by CranialSponge

A nanny state has a tendency to insult our intelligence, IMO... but maybe just to us older generations ?


You mean anyone who can remember the past?

Anyone who remembers living in a United States that wasn't absolute tyranny in our faces daily?

Yeah, that must be us "old farts".



Okay okay... maybe I'm the only "old fart" who remembers life before helmets, and seatbelts, and dog licenses, etc.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Look...we live in Massachusetts. We have been in many a Snow Storm. It comes with living here. People here know what they can and cannot do when such storms hit and for some Governor who liven in this state long enough to run for office to decide for us what we can or cannot do and treat us like children...well it is insulting.

Split Infinity



I dunno, I think you are all overreacting a tad. I believe in the Bill of Rights as strongly as any. This is a minor inconvenience....nothing more. I understand you saying it is kind of insulting.....it is, but you have to admit there are some really f**king stupid people these days who would try traveling and getting themselves or others killed.

I don't think Deval Patrick is a particularly good governor myself, but I am not sure just 'urging' people to stay off the roads would have been enough. That said, the punishments are really stupid and on that I would agree. I can see fines if people were dumb enough to drive after being told not to, but possible jail time is a clear abuse of power.





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join