Joined June 11, 2007
5 years, 5 months agoRobert Lilly's comment on:
Smoking is not a right, true. Smoking is a choice.
In a free society people need to be allowed to make their own choices. Including the choice NOT to frequent any venue that allows smoking. In a free market economy the choice NOT TO DO SOMETHING is what makes or breaks free enterprise. If enough people choose NOT to patronize a product or establishment then, guess what, it does not survive and disappears or closes down.
Regulation is tyranny when applied to objects of free choice and degrades everyone's "right" to the choices they make.
Don't like something? Then don't watch, patronize, buy, attend, or support it in anyway. Enough people do that and whatever it is will cease to exist because there is no demand for it.
Regulation of free choice is nothing but domination by a few, through law, over the many which that few cannot sway by any other means.
Domination of the many by the few - hum, does this sound like many cases in human history? Does this sound like the definition of oppression?
AGAIN: Regulation is tyranny when applied to objects of free choice and degrades everyone's "right" to the choices they make.
5 years, 9 months agoRobert Lilly's comment on:
One of the best Poker Rooms this side of Vegas. Forty + tables. Lounge, two sets of restrooms, snack bar, all INSIDE the poker room.
5 years, 11 months agoRobert Lilly's comment on:
It is very interesting how these articles do not address the underlying and very serious problems with this section of the Fort Worth Police Department. Interesting that it doesn't mention the HUGE personnel turnover rate in this section - for sometime one having the highest turnover of any City department.
Why should this be?
Could it be that there are NO commissioned police officers or commissioned police supervisors working anywhere in a section that is so import to the safety and welfare of the citizens of Fort Worth – all in the name of “saving money”? Could it be that the non-commissioned manager in charge of this section (for many years)is incapable of retaining employees because of the "draconian" management methods employed? Could it be that the same "manager" consistently fails to have any respect or consideration for either the section's employees or for the field officers or field supervisors who are tasked to provide timely service?
Could it be a certain deputy chief - who has current designs for becoming chief of the department - has unwaveringly supported this "manager" and the decades long inadequate state of affairs in the communications section and who has relentlessly failed to support anyone who might criticize the "status quo" or who might even suggest that the system might be "broken" or could be drastically improved?
Could it be that the Chief of Police was fully aware, from the day he took office, of the serious problems inherent in this “broken system” but, who has for years, allowed himself to be consistently “talked out of” taking any action - for whatever “pressing” reasons that existed each time?
These are serious and important questions that need to be dispassionately and intelligently evaluated and addressed. Why? Because failures here can easily, and repeatedly, place the lives and well being of citizens and field police officers at risk should the system fail.
There ARE a myriad of serious problems involved in this issue that a "new phone system" will not even begin to address.
This unit of the Fort Worth Police Department needs to be "razed" and completely reorganized (and directly managed) by experienced commissioned personnel who have sworn the oath to “protect and serve” the citizens of Fort Worth and who have a real concern and caring for said citizens, the field units that this most important of Sections is required to support, and for their “sworn duty”.
You do get what you pay for.
6 years, 2 months agoRobert Lilly's comment on:
The "downside" listed doesn't exist. The database will not relieve any driver from being required to carry proof of current minimum liability coverage.
In all cases where a person is cited for an insurance violation - If that person appears in court and shows proof that they had insurance in effect on the date and time of the citation then the charge IS dismissed. Therefore, the actual downside is someone who didn't carry their "proof", as they are required to do, being inconvenienced due to their own failure to acquire or carry it. Paper documentation of proof of insurance will always be acceptable to the officer in the field and to the courts regardless of what the "computer" says.