Do we really have freedom of speech?

[arauca]

Freedom of speech is restricted by people like you - people who want to silence tollbooth operators because they don't want to hear what's coming out of their booth.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (That's an English expression that means "if you demand others be quiet, don't complain when you are told to be quiet.)

Pal how many times and in what form do I have to tell you it does not have any thing to do with the tollbooth.

 

[joepistole]

Pal how many times and in what form do I have to tell you it does not have any thing to do with the tollbooth.

A simple declaration is not a proof. You are avoiding the issue.

 

[Read-Only]

What a convoluted load of crap! I think you had better reread Read-Only’s posts and then take your own advice and contemplate what he has written instead of mindlessly repeating conservative talking points that are repeated ad nauseum daily in all the various branches of the Republican/conservative entertainment industry.

You cannot get specific, you cannot answer the questions that have been put to you. Because if you did, you would have to admit to the vacuous nature of your argument and commentary. All you can do is what you have done and what the many ditto heads before you have done is dump and run.

Here's betting he never replies to you, Joe - because he can't.

I don't think he's politically minded (it would be difficult to even consider him "minded" at all), he's just insufferably ignorant, illogical and bull-headed.

 

[billvon]

Pal how many times and in what form do I have to tell you it does not have any thing to do with the tollbooth.

Your claim does not make it true.

If you seek to restrict other's freedoms, do not be shocked when the same is done to you.

 

[arauca]

What a convoluted load of crap! I think you had better reread Read-Only’s posts and then take your own advice and contemplate what he has written instead of mindlessly repeating conservative talking points that are repeated ad nauseum daily in all the various branches of the Republican/conservative entertainment industry.


I don't think you have read his position , because the only thing he is after " is give me evidence" So read first from the beginning the open your mouth
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You cannot get specific, you cannot answer the questions that have been put to you. Because if you did, you would have to admit to the vacuous nature of your argument and commentary. All you can do is what you have done and what the many ditto heads before you have done is dump and run.

Specific what ? again read my last answer to Read only I can not spoon feed you with been more specific. Thank you for your comment.

 

[arauca]

Your claim does not make it true.

So if I follow the law, and my claim does not make true , So the government have enacted a law to protect us, and yet the same government violate its enacted law so were is the freedom that you claim.??

 

[billvon]

So the government have enacted a law to protect us, and yet the same government violate its enacted law so were is the freedom that you claim.??

Where is the freedom? You took it away from the tollboth operators - so ask yourself where you took it.

 

[joepistole]

Specific what ? again read my last answer to Read only I can not spoon feed you with been more specific. Thank you for your comment.

For starters, how about accurately quoting me (i.e. not writing garbage and falsely attributing it to me)? Two, no one is asking you to spoon feed me. You are being asked to cogently answer the questions that have been put to you by Billvon and Read-Only. And you have repeatedly dodged those questions by dumping a load of nonsense, cluttering up the discussion with a load of chaff, with superfluous nonsense, and running away from the issues that have been raised.

 

[arauca]

Here's betting he never replies to you, Joe - because he can't.

I don't think he's politically minded (it would be difficult to even consider him "minded" at all), he's just insufferably ignorant, illogical and bull-headed.

The way you reply to post #103 you pal Joe 's replication fits yo you ."A simple declaration is not a proof"
" I don't think he's politically minded (it would be difficult to even consider him "minded" at all), he's just insufferably ignorant, illogical and bull-headed. " that applies to you

Quick reply to this message

 

[arauca]

Where is the freedom? You took it away from the tollboth operators - so ask yourself where you took it.

Pardon me you just like to argue of some thing that you don't know the facts . That is enough for me , I will not reply.

 

[joepistole]

The way you reply to post #103 you pal Joe 's replication fits yo you ."A simple declaration is not a proof"
" I don't think he's politically minded (it would be difficult to even consider him "minded" at all), he's just insufferably ignorant, illogical and bull-headed. " that applies to you

Quick reply to this message

The old schoolyard idiom,” I'm rubber and you're glue", is a bit juvenile, don’t you think?

 

[billvon]

Pardon me you just like to argue of some thing that you don't know the facts .

So what are "the facts?" Or is it just something you made up?

 

[leopold]

. . . you don't know the facts .

true, because you haven't provide any.
the only thing you stated was you are suing a tollroad for noise pollution.
even that hasn't been verified.
if you want help with this then we MUST have full disclosure.

 

[rpenner]

You are just like the Illinois pollution board I have evidence of noise pollution proven by professional and they don't have any thing to disprove but because they are a government agency and the claim is against government so they dismiss it. Talk to me about Illinois tollway authority that will show you more about freedom and justice of the citizen .

what kind of "noise pollution", and more specifically where?

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/COOL/external/CaseView.aspx?referer=results&case=13665 2009-04-28 to 2012-07-12

The Board finds that Mr. [A] has established that the noise from the I-355 extension constitutes a substantial interference with his enjoyment of life. However, he has not established that the interference is unreasonable under all of the facts and circumstances of this case. The record demonstrates that ISTHA has met with Mr. [A] and his neighbors at various times during the planning and construction phase of the I-355 extension, has made responsive changes in noise abatement strategies, and has spent about $1.3 million to mitigate noise impacts on just over 20 properties, including Mr. [A]’s. Finding that no unreasonable noise nuisance has been proven, the Board dismisses this action.

... The term “noise pollution” is defined in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.101 as “the emission of sound that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or with any lawful business or activity.”
...

In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall take into consideration all the facts and circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions, discharges or deposits involved including, but not limited to:

• the character and degree of injury to, or interference with
  the protection of the health, general welfare and physical property of the people;
• the social and economic value of the pollution source;
• the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution source to the area in which it is located, including the question of priority of location in the area involved;
• the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from such pollution source; and
• any subsequent compliance.

... the Board finds that the noise emitting from the I-355 extension has caused interference with Mr. [A]’s enjoyment of life at his property.
... The Board finds that this level of interference goes “beyond minor or trifling annoyance or discomfort” and, therefore, [the factor of the character and degree of interference] favors a finding that the interference is unreasonable.
... When taking the positions of both parties into account, the Board finds that [the factor of the social and economic value of the noise source] does not support a finding that the noise generated by the I-355 bridge extension is unreasonable.
... the Board finds that [the factor of the suitability of the source to the area] weighs against a finding that the interference is unreasonable.
... Given the lack of evidence that a higher wall would alleviate the noise level, coupled with ISTHA’s position that the further expansion of a wall is not possible (and no evidence was presented stating otherwise), [the factor of the technical practicability and economic reasonableness] favors a finding that the interference is not unreasonable.
... Taking into account the considerable improvements performed by ISTHA to this point, [the factor of subsequent compliance] favors a finding that the interference is not unreasonable.
... Conclusion
The Board finds that the noise emanating from the I-355 extension constitutes a substantial interference with Mr. [A]’s enjoyment of his property. However, after evaluating the Section 33(c) factors, the Board finds that the noise interference is not unreasonable under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102.

Based on search results of public records, I'm guessing this is either arauca's case or a similar one.

 

[arauca]

true, because you haven't provide any.
the only thing you stated was you are suing a tollroad for noise pollution.
even that hasn't been verified.
if you want help with this then we MUST have full disclosure.

Pardon me you must be retarded I give you my case number and give to you the government agency , and you could not find it .HAVE YOU IN YOUR BLOODY LIFE MADE ANY LITERATURE SEARCH > I believe at one time you said you have a Phd How did you manage to do research if you don't know how to make a literature search , did you buy your Phd ?

 

[rpenner]

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/COOL/external/CaseView.aspx?referer=results&case=13665 2009-04-28 to 2012-07-12
Based on search results of public records, I'm guessing this is either arauca's case or a similar one.

The Board ruled against the complaint because ISTHA is protected by the same laws as other alleged violators of the law -- all parts of the statute have to apply if the respondent is to be judged in violation of the law. Now if back at the point that Mr. A first found out that an Interstate extension was going to run past his property and if the realtor/sellor knew or should have known and if state law obliged them to disclose that to Mr. A and they did not in some provable way, then Mr. A would have had a good case -- but it is likely that a statute of limitations would apply that might block the suit. Mr. A. should stop being his own lawyer if he really cares about the outcome of the cases and not just venting his spleen in public.

I give you my case number

Where?

 

[arauca]

The Board ruled against the complaint because ISTHA is protected by the same laws as other alleged violators of the law -- all parts of the statute have to apply if the respondent is to be judged in violation of the law. Now if back at the point that Mr. A first found out that an Interstate extension was going to run past his property and if the realtor/sellor knew or should have known and if state law obliged them to disclose that to Mr. A and they did not in some provable way, then Mr. A would have had a good case -- but it is likely that a statute of limitations would apply that might block the suit. Mr. A. should stop being his own lawyer if he really cares about the outcome of the cases and not just venting his spleen in public.

Where?

In the complain I have mentioned several neighbors that were older then the preliminary proposal of the road , yet they did not wanted taken them into account , When the preliminary proposal was made we had over 40 signatures so the alignment would be moved 1800 feet into an area of lesser disturbance to the community. But because a wealthy individual with political influence we were dismissed . Fuck it . Please talk to me about citizen tight and freedom of speech,. Arshe holes that have not been exposed to the system., continue deeming on what they have been brain washed in grade school.

 

[leopold]

HAVE YOU IN YOUR BLOODY LIFE MADE ANY LITERATURE SEARCH >

depends on what you mean by literature search.
i've searched for specific things using google and other search engines.

I believe at one time you said you have a Phd

you would be amazed at the amount of "formal" education i have.
for the record, i never stated here or anywhere else that i had a Ph.D. in anything.

. . . , did you buy your Phd ?

no, it flew out of a car window and landed on my lawn.

how exactly did the tollroad affect your enjoyment?
someone that owned or owns your land HAD to give the tollroad consent to build close to your house.

 

[arauca]

depends on what you mean by literature search.
i've searched for specific things using google and other search engines.

you would be amazed at the amount of "formal" education i have.
for the record, i never stated here or anywhere else that i had a Ph.D. in anything.

no, it flew out of a car window and landed on my lawn.

how exactly did the tollroad affect your enjoyment?
someone that owned or owns your land HAD to give the tollroad consent to build close to your house.

Find what does "eminent domain" does if the government wants to use it . and rip off the old lady and sent her to a nursing home. a land of 5 acre which was valued at $500000 and they give he $166000.. According to the so called law there should be a sound barrier , so they punished me by putting a half arsh 9 feet tall over the bridge.. the noise should be 65 decibel according to the law so I presented them documents of 72 decibel .

 

[leopold]

Find what does "eminent domain" does if the government wants to use it . and rip off the old lady and sent her to a nursing home. a land of 5 acre which was valued at $500000 and they give he $166000..

i'm not going to argue this point because there are too many unknowns, but yes, eminent domain does give the government the right to take your land for a fair price.

According to the so called law there should be a sound barrier , so they punished me by putting a half arsh 9 feet tall over the bridge.. the noise should be 65 decibel according to the law so I presented them documents of 72 decibel .

my guess is the wall is a bad design.
walls 9 feet high make good sound reflectors and under the right conditions can actually amplify sound.
also, there are certain noises that you will just have to live with.
deep rumblings from loaded semis for example.

edit:
at what frequency does the state get 65 decibels and at what frequency did you get 72 decibels?
nevermind, the question is irrelevant.