Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
okay...and still Monty Python-esque.gbhammer said:I suppose it is not too much of a stretch to equate today’s regulatory mandates to the Spanish Inquisition.
A bit of a stretch, and a bit much on the political bend for this forum (IMO)...especially given that several of the Monarch's, from both non-tea drinking parties, have had a hand in the mandate of this thread in which we are discussing. maybe we could steer the conversation back towards the OP, or create an OT.gbhammer said:They most definitely have the very same goals:Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' (White House / DOJ) decision to fund the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos (Republicans / conservatives), profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics (the wealthy), reducing social tensions (creating class warfare)and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column (Tea Party).
Remember, the ADA, was Bush, NOT Obamagbhammer said:I suppose it is not too much of a stretch to equate today’s regulatory mandates especially from the current administration, to the Spanish Inquisition. They most definitely have the very same goals:Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs' (White House / DOJ)decision to fund the Inquisition such as increasing political authority, weakening opposition, suppressing conversos (Republicans / conservatives), profiting from confiscation of the property of convicted heretics (the wealthy), reducing social tensions (creating class warfare)and protecting the kingdom from the danger of a fifth column (Tea Party).
Your absolutely correct plenty of regs pushed by all, and the ADA in and of itself is no bad thing. That was not the point I was trying to bludgeon.mark handler said:Remember, the ADA, was Bush, NOT ObamaGeorge H W Bush Signed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Bill in 1990
I think it's worth mentioning that the Federal rule making process for the revised guidelines occurred entirely under Bush the Worse.mark handler said:Remember, the ADA, was Bush, NOT Obama George H W Bush Signed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Bill in 1990
Sounds like a typical application of governmental laws, do is I say, not as I do! It's interesting to note that other sections of the ADA are equally enforced and the DOJ has actually filed suits against some cities for noncompliance.mark handler said:Pools may close instead of installing pricey chairliftGovernment-run pools affected
Metropolitan Nashville already has installed the required lifts at its pools, but not at Wave Country, where they’re not required, said Tommy Lynch, director of the city’s Parks and Recreation Department.
Unlike privately owned pools such as those at hotels and the YMCA, there are no penalties to force government bodies to install the lifts, Lynch said. In the private sector, fines can run into the thousands of dollars for noncompliance.