The Gaming Den

Oh man, the Mormons continue to impress.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Oh man, the Mormons continue to impress.

-Username17

The Mormons are fucking NUTS.

This may help illustrate a bit; an ex-LDS member read the Twilight books and is able to match up things in the books with Mormon beliefs. It helps to know the author's a Mormon in good standing.

http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html

Edit: I am not my best at 3:20 in the morning. This may be concluded by me forgetting the link I was fully intending to post.

That's why they own a large chunk of downtown, so they can limit dissent. I have more than a few friends who have been charged with criminal trespass on otherwise public looking streets in downtown Salt Lake City. (Several broad city streets pass straight through this multiblock area, with little warning you are leaving public property for the next block. If you get an exclusion, you must avoid being cause passing through these blocks on these city streets.)

Strangely, they only seem to arrest people who don't agree with them, or might show them in a negative light. These people don't actually need to be protesting or doing anything other than looking not-sufficiently-pious. Like hair color, cameras, holding hands with the wrong sex, t-shirts with logos...

-Crissa

5 senior citizens break into naval base and it's nuclear weapons area

Nice to see our homeland security measures working.

Wait, so if I went and bought up a huge chunk of used-to-be-public property I could just, without putting up warning signs, have people arrested for trespassing based on whether or not I like them personally?

Kick ass.

I would mandate that anyone not waltzing is trespassing. So you would seriously have to just waltz on in. One does not simply walk into Mordor SLC.

Depending on where you are, you must post signs for it to be trespassing.

Otherwise you invited them, by not having the signs.

Particularly if there is a public road. Why can you disallow access to a fucking public road? What the hell?

The Church cannot assume the role of government or law enforcement.

From the LDS website re: polygamy. LAWL.

cthulhu wrote:Particularly if there is a public road. Why can you disallow access to a fucking public road? What the hell?

The Church cannot assume the role of government or law enforcement.

From the LDS website re: polygamy. LAWL.

They don't advocate polygamy anymore.

I know, but they busted a guy for tresspassing.. i.e. assuming the role of law enforcement.

“I think some members of the legislature would view that taking place in our office as perhaps immoral, perhaps unnatural, and perhaps, if you will, liberal or ultra-liberal,” he said.

Allowing trans people to have jobs in government is ultra-liberal, you heard it here.

Fedor will win by a Russian polar bear hammer punch to the ear in the first round.

Apparently I haven't been watching enough MMA. seriously with an attack called Russian polar bear hammer punch it has to be entertaining.[/url]

cthulhu wrote:I know, but they busted a guy for tresspassing.. i.e. assuming the role of law enforcement.

You can bust anyone for anything; it's called a citizen's arrest.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction. Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

NOTE: I'm going to post this in the appropriate forum but can someone fix the god damned url tag code ... it's getting to the point where half of the internet can not be quoted. I would have linked the wiki definition but unfortunately it has a ' in the url and thus cannot be parsed. Even the auto parser stops at the ' so that's fucking useless.

In California, you must place signs 'right to pass...' however, they have to be doing something specifically wrong to eject them. Also, you're not allowed to touch them while detaining them, as if you detain them by touching them and they did not commit a felony you're in trouble for unlawful imprisonment or assault.

It's something that's part of my California retail training.

I really, really hate private roads. They allow rich people to block off access to parks and allow fueds between landowners to turn ugly.

-Crissa

Japan invaded by giant monsters.

Fox's news' habitual panic-mongering makes that truly great. I mean, other news sources omit the bit about the nuclear plants.

violence in the media wrote:Shooting in progress in downtown Orlando.

They got him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8345953.stm

The yakuza guy in Japan seems to have shot himself in the ear?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8345953.stm

Cannot find anything online, but just read in the US House, and signed from Barack Obama..."the war in Afghanistan does not end on the anniversary unless and executive order has been given, so it will continue for at least one year beyond Nov 14, 2009."

Be on the look out for information on that, as it seems he told the House that he is going to continue for another year, because he cannot make up his mind on it.

Glenn Beck loses domain name case over parody website ( http://www.GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYo ... In1990.com )

For Beck to have prevailed in the case, the WIPO arbitrator would have needed to rule in his favor on three points: the domain name was confusing with the mark "Glenn Beck", the registrant Eiland-Hall did not have rights to the domain name, and that the domain name was registered as an act of "bad faith". Frederick M. Abbott, the WIPO arbitrator, did rule that the domain name was confusing, but also ruled that Eiland-Hall had legitimate interest in the domain name of the website he created. "Respondent appears to the Panel to be engaged in a parody of the style or methodology that Respondent appears genuinely to believe is employed by Complainant in the provision of political commentary, and for that reason Respondent can be said to be making a political statement. This constitutes a legitimate non-commercial use of Complainant’s mark under the Policy," said the WIPO ruling.

Eiland-Hall criticized Beck's actions with regard to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, writing, "It also bears noting, in this matter and for the future, that you are entirely in control of whether or not you are the subject of this particular kind of criticism. I chose to criticize you using the well-tested method of satire because of its effectiveness. But, humor aside, your rhetorical style is no laughing matter. In this context of this WIPO case, you denigrated the letter of First Amendment law. In the context of your television show and your notoriety, you routinely and shamelessly denigrate the spirit of the First Amendment". He stated that he persevered in the case in order to uphold the value of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "I want to demonstrate to you that I had my lawyer fight this battle only to help preserve the First Amendment. Now that it is safe, at least from you (for the time being), I have no more use for the actual scrap of digital real estate you sought..."

More Mexi-Texans killing people. Random bar shooting.

UN says USA violates Universal Declaration of Human Rights which it signed in 1948 for failure to provide humane living conditions as stated under Article 25 Section 1

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, states that, among other matters, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family”, including housing.

Ms. Rolnik, who serves in an independent and unpaid capacity, will present her official report to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2010.

Take that you capitalist pig dogs at Goldman Sachs!

Wait, I am beginning to speak as if I might be Frank or influenced by his beliefs....

Seriously. Something needs to come of this SOONER than March, because congress will have to take a year to sort it out, and then it will be 6 years before anything goes into effect to help anyone other than more banks being bailed out!

Admittedly, the banks going under would've been terribad. That would've made healthy industries fail, not just falter.

Not that the banks are doing their part to invest in the actual economy right now, they're mostly using fed monies to play in back room poker and keeping their winnings. Not happy days for us, but it's better than the alternative.

Still, makes you wonder how we're ever going to get laws that actually work in this system.

We're currently trying to buy a home, right? Well, FHA (the type of loan we have) requires: The property must not have been sold (closed) within 90 days; the property must pass an Appraisal and a safety inspection by an untrained appraiser (they're trained in appraising, not safety). This appraisal then sits with the property for six months.

So since properties are snagged from foreclosure and then fixed and resold or just resold, we aren't allowed to bid n any of those. And the ones who someone bid upon them with an FHA loan and failed to go through... An appraisal is on file with that lender; the seller doesn't have it and we can't get it. So how are we to know what is in it so we can bid on the property? We can't! Ha!

-Crissa

Yeah, like all the insurance "industries" this flip a home stuff as well as the housing industry needs to go away. They provide nothing for people.

The Fed needs to control housing to make sure everyone has one as per the UN Human Rights thing.

Some things you just shouldn't make money off of, like making people homeless, or failing to give them medicine, but these are the biggest industries in this country: drugs and loans.

You cannot even grab an ax an build your own house because having to buy the land, or needing some permits that mean a house meets someone else's standards so when you pass away then someone else can buy it...WTF?

I await when they tell me which TP I have to buy to wipe with...it is coming!

No common sense in the US of freakin' A.

People come before money. Check ANY religion, or just check your own humanity.

Crissa wrote:Admittedly, the banks going under would've been terribad. That would've made healthy industries fail, not just falter.

Not that the banks are doing their part to invest in the actual economy right now, they're mostly using fed monies to play in back room poker and keeping their winnings. Not happy days for us, but it's better than the alternative.

This is one of the few times I agree with you, Crissa. I'm actually a bit surprised that you'd take this stance.

Crissa wrote:We're currently trying to buy a home, right? Well, FHA (the type of loan we have) requires: The property must not have been sold (closed) within 90 days; the property must pass an Appraisal and a safety inspection by an untrained appraiser (they're trained in appraising, not safety). This appraisal then sits with the property for six months.

So since properties are snagged from foreclosure and then fixed and resold or just resold, we aren't allowed to bid n any of those. And the ones who someone bid upon them with an FHA loan and failed to go through... An appraisal is on file with that lender; the seller doesn't have it and we can't get it. So how are we to know what is in it so we can bid on the property? We can't! Ha!

I think you can get an independent estimator if you really want it, but I believe the system is designed so that FHA loans aren't bidding against each other.


...


Contractors are lying snakes at the best of times. At their worst, well...

http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2009/ ... _to_toxins

Crissa wrote:Admittedly, the banks going under would've been terribad. That would've made healthy industries fail, not just falter.

How so? As I understand it, this is what happened (I am leaving out all the juicy Goldman-Sachs stuff):
1 - The housing bubble pops.
2 - Some insurances find out they are in trouble.
3 - Insurances declare bankruptcy.
4 - Some banks are in trouble.
5 - Other banks won't trade with those banks; also many banks aren't sure whether they will be next.
6 - Government steps in, declares an emergency and hands out money and guarantees to banks, in order to get them to start lending again.
7 - Said banks do not, in fact, start lending again, instead using the federal guarantees to get rid of toxic assets, investing their virtual money into virtual fed coffers at a profit, which then promptly gets lent to banks again.
8 - Banks pay back their loan, so they can pay out multi-billion dollar bonuses again.
9 - Everyone declares victory.

Now look at this alternative timeline:

1 - The housing bubble pops.
2 - Some insurances find out they are in trouble.
3 - Insurances declare bankruptcy.
4 - Some banks are in trouble.
5 - Other banks won't trade with those banks; also many banks aren't sure whether they will be next.
6 - Government declares they will be lending money.
7 - A couple of banks crash and burn.
8 - Much panic ensues. However anyone who needed to borrow money can still do so - from surviving banks (and credit unions) in the case of small amounts or from the government in the case of large corporations (including banks).
9 - A while later, with the market settled, the government ceases lending money. Current loans get sold to banks, possibly at a loss.

In that scenario you probably trade a little panic and some lost money for a couple billion dollars and a sanitized market, where those banks who fucked up actually die off. Of course that is still no excuse for rampant bubble-building and the frankly insane banking system, but it should be cheaper than what was actually done, not to mention it actually keeps the free market the US is so proud of. What happened instead was corporate welfare and an enticement for the entire financial industry to crash the system yet again.

Murtak wrote: 7 - A couple of banks crash and burn.
8 - Much panic ensues. However anyone who needed to borrow money can still do so - from surviving banks (and credit unions) in the case of small amounts or from the government in the case of large corporations (including banks).

Murtak, this is precisely why people leave steps 7 and 8 of the PROFIT!!! scheme completely blank; it's so they don't recommend destructively stupid shit.

Are you seriously telling us that a bank panic would've been healthy for the economy? Haven't you seen It's a Wonderful Life?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Are you seriously telling us that a bank panic would've been healthy for the economy? Haven't you seen It's a Wonderful Life?

Well when the banks don't have OUR money to invest in poor securities, then they might learn how money works, and when they don't have it and fear for their jobs, they will understand how their customers, and people who have loans with them feel when debt collectors come knocking on their doors.