Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I'm pretty sure that in most communities, code requires that residential properties be reasonably well tended.

Meter-high weeds in the front lawn are actionable. They are a blight and bring down surrounding property values (like, really, as opposed to purely specious concerns like a basketball hoop or curbed car).

Weeds are also a health and safety hazard because they attract insects, vermin and allergy agents.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

And high weeds are where the raptors like to get ya!

No, seriously... who the fuck are you?!

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

As usual, your thinking is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. The very problem stimulating this abuse of 'squatters rights' was caused by partnering business and government. It sounds like you'd be a big fan of the Kagan Prinicple.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

If you are referring to the contemporary situation you are wrong for the reason we've already explored: attributing the bad loans to government compulsion, does not explain why those bad loans were speculated on as derivatives (a field that is totally unregulated). Bad loans were...bad, but it was derivatives which greatly enlarged the scope of the crisis to endanger the entire financial system. And you can't blame the govt for that.

It is more logical to argue the speculation was driven by the same force driving the loans in the first place: greed coupled with stupidity.

You also ignore that this country as we know it owes its existence to partnership of business and government. Hoover Dam? Brooklyn Bridge? The Homestead Acts? The Louisiana Purchase? The Apollo program? Do you think the government owns the shipyards or firms that build Navy vessels?

On the flip side, do you think commercial operations of any kind would be workable without government regulation created via some sort of dialogue with business? Or would you prefer we have...no partnership!...and Congress passes whatever regulation they please...or that business just dictate to Congress what they would like and let DDT stay legal?



I read the article and thought it was a shill for wealthy corporations that want to manipulate the masses via unlimited donations.

Then I went back up looking for the citations and read:



lol. Just saying I reached that conclusion before I saw that.

You're being manipulated. What this really is, is wealthy corporations that aren't content with already riding high when the country as a whole is suffering, and want more of what isn't working.

There is no "Kagan Principle" nor does the article establish a basis for the outlining of such a principle. Instead they take:



to mean exactly what it does, which is "Get big money out of the system" and restate it as "KAGAN GOES GESTAPO!" to manipulate small and stupid people like you into believing what big business wants.

This one simple fact you must understand: Regulation exists for a reason. That reason is, experience proved it necessary. A free-for-all society is neither free nor fair nor viable.

All laws are, in some way, a restriction on freedom. The question is whether the freedoms restricted are vital to our self-fulfillment and pursuit of a good life.

Now, do you really think unlimited donations to politicians is important to living a good life this land?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

As usual, you apply your (allegedly) keen and penetrating intellect and find yourself irreversibly in error.

You're suggesting a partnership of government and business, and not just one, but two such examples of this sort of partnership were present and implicitly complicit in the housing meltdown: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Your suggestion is akin to suggesting that the best way to deal with cutting yourself with a knife is to get a sharper knife. Even if there were no intimidation or other forms of compulsion involved with forcing banks into these risky set-ups, there are still Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are exactly the sort of half-wittery you're suggesting.

Regulation is not a 'partnership,' you git.

You read the article, and, not surprisingly, missed the fucking point. Simply stated (in the article you allegedly read, no less), the Kagan Principle says that the more stubbornly corrupt the government is, the more justified it is in curtailing fundamental liberties. Admitting that a government is corrupt then agreeing that it should be given broad power to regulate speech based on the fact that it's corrupt, as if such powers wouldn't be abused by a corrupt government and would only be applied to end corruption, is idiocy along the same lines of what you're suggesting.

Not surprisingly, when you're done with missing the point and failing at reading comprehension, you do the whole "LOLFOXNEWS" bit. Of course, anyone looking outside the BBC is being 'manipulated,' but if someone hacked the BBC tomorrow and posted/aired stories about how we're being invaded by aliens, you'd be hiding in a cellar somewhere. Never mind that the whole "corporations are buying candidates" thing is complete rubbish, since most companies give money to both sides just to hedge their bets, Dr. Kaczynski thinks we should stop people from engaging in the process through activism and funding, and just let the government handle all that...because Lord knows there's never any wrong-doing or corruption in government. "We can't let business be involved, it makes everything corrupt!" "Well, who should be funding these campaigns?" "THE GOVERNMENT!" Bravo, brilliant, ripping good stuff, maybe we should put pedophiles in charge of day cares to cut down on child pornography while we're at it.

All regulation may exist for a reason, but it's rarely because "experience proved it necessary," and generally more because of public outrage leading politicians to pass some completely asinine bit of bullshit to score points for an election. The examples are legion, but let's just take one type of idiocy to highlight the point. Any law named after a dead child is probably both a piss-poor idea and has been passed by sweeping majorities on both side of the aisle. As an example, this NJ driving law. Unintended consequence: teen drivers, once identified as such, could become the target of predators. Now many states are suggesting "Caylee's Law(l)," where a parent must report a child missing in a specified amount of time or be subject to criminal penalty, this article outlines the problems with this (moronically) suggested legislation, and lists a few other examples of laws named for victims.

Laws aren't supposed to restrict freedoms, which is why we have Constitutional guarantees of those freedoms, and why politicians are always attempting to manipulate morons like you into letting them do it anyway in the name of such things as "victims," "the children," or as you so wonderfully exemplify, "getting big money out of the system." Congratulations on being the very gullible idiot you accuse everyone else of being.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

There is no such principle. It's something the media invented. Then again, some of us believe that because someone wrote something on the internet, it's automatically true.

Kagan did not advocate curtailing civil liberties. She advocated reforming the system.

You don't like the idea of the government funding elections, but that's exactly what they do in Europe and most other civilized countries and it works pretty well.

You also overlook that whether government or private industry funds elections, the expense ultimately rests with you as a taxpayer and consumer. Whether the money is exacted through taxation or fees is arbitrary.

1. Are you seriously going to argue that Kagan would be more anti-civil liberties than Ashcroft?
2. What civil liberties do you believe she is calling to be curtailed?
3. Where do you think funds for campaigns should come from?



Yes it is. Most business regulation is crafted under consultation with private industry (for better or worse) and ultimately makes for a more competitive economy.

It is because of regulation that our banking system is better than it was during the Great Depression (when there was no law requiring reserve ratios - you know what that is right?) or the Wild West (when banks could literally print money).

It is because of regulation that our food is safer than it was in the days of Upton Sinclair, and labor is treated better than in the days of John Steinbeck.

It is because of regulation that our air is cleaner than it was before the Clean Air Act, and our water is more drinkable than it would be if lye dumping wasn't outlawed.

This doesn't just protect the common good, it makes for better products that sell better. Arguing that the free market will magically work things out is as irrational as arguing that communist ideology and utopian ideals will solve all problems. That is the nature of the partnership: call it "tough love".

What you, like most Americans, fail to realize that the middle-class "American Dream" lifestyle was ultimately enabled by the government laying down regulation. Regulation meant a better life for the common man, which helped industry when it created a society of consumers with money to spend, rather than living hand-to-mouth as they were in earlier times (and still would be if that wasn't illegal).

Regarding partnership: drug, auto and communication companies - every industry - has armies of consultants in DC that work with the government to craft regulation. In fact between the regulatory agencies and the companies they regulate there's something of a revolving door. Flawed and corruption-prone, but it is truly better than nothing.



Course they are.

You forfeit the freedom to kill.
You forfeit the freedom to swindle.
You forfeit the freedom to slander others' reputations on false pretenses.
You forfeit the freedom to despoil common resources.
You forfeit the freedom to run around naked.
You forfeit the freedom to engage in squatting.
You forfeit the freedom to commit treason.

Show me the law that does not, in some way, restrict freedom.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

In short, Jubber, you need to stop getting your world view from Google and...Fox News.

Not so much because of bias as the fact that you don't know jack about the world outside America today: you don't know anything about how this country was run 50 or 100 years ago or how other countries are dealing with the same problems.

You can't analyze issues in an informed way if you have no frame of reference. Then again, that's what's wrong with America today, isn't it? The echo chamber. And so we have a country heading downhill, coincidentally home to a hundred million citizens all convinced they and all the people who agree with their worldview are 100% right.

If the generally held consensus is:
1. Not working
2. At odds with what is believed by more successful cultures

is it logical to conclude that consensus is correct, or incorrect?

My advice isn't to read the BBC (although you probably should), it's to go read some good history books, written 20-80 years ago and not the 600-page garbage bestsellers $29.99 at Wal-Mart.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

When I need someone to tell me what I do or do not know or how to think, I'll seek advice from someone other than a socially-retarded megalomaniac who, based on recent evidence, can't even fucking decipher the meaning of words and phrases written in his native tongue. The idea that someone who thinks, among other things, that Nixon was impeached and that Rupert Murdoch is sending ninjas after people would be pontificating about basic knowledge of recent history and one's ability to think rationally is laughable...yet you're doing it.

You compare lobbies buying political favors to cooperative efforts, routinely tell people what they do/do not know or have/have not done without any firsthand knowledge of those people or their lives, suggest that despite my having been outside this country on more than a few occasions--some of those to some of the shittier parts of the globe--that I have 'no idea' what is going on outside our borders...made all the more hilarious by your assertion in another thread about Swedish homogeneity despite their immigrant communities and the issues those raise, argue that restricting political activity isn't curtailing liberties, make a habit of ignoring when your idiocy is proven wrong, and constantly attempt to turn things off on a (usually unrelated) tangent when it's made obvious that you're wrong and/or someone points out the flaws in your "thought process," which is basically what your last two back-to-back TL;DRs were.

In response to any and all of your idiotic 'questions,' none of which really pertain to the matter at hand and are nothing more than you attempting to stretch this conversation out far enough for you to be right about one thing so that you can say, "see I'm right," never mind your having been backwards and wrong the entire time leading up to your blind squirrel finding a nut moment, all I have to say is this:

See my signature.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Half of those aren't "Freedoms" if by doing so you injure other people. It's not forfeiting any "right" to murder, or steal. It's to keep people free from being murdered or free from having their shit stolen.

Not that you'd be stupid enough to advocate those as freedoms aestu. we all know you're just being contradictory because it's all you know.

"ur wrong ur dum"

You didn't answer my questions, though.



It's not so black and white. There are many ways to harm others that do not involve violence yet are harmful enough that they cannot be allowed in society.

Ok, you can't break into someone's home and walk off with a TV. What about scamming people? What about Ponzi schemes? What about rackets, or false advertising? Where do you draw that line?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Apples and Oranges.

Someone kicking down your door and stealing your property isn't quite the same as you willingly buying into a ponzi scheme, a scam or falling for false advertising. Unlike having your property stolen, a person has to make a conscious decision (in almost all cases) to continue engaging the scammers or advertisers. The scammers and advertisers don't make their money until the person willfully exchanges money or services for an expected good, service or return.

Is a choice free if it is made on the basis of lies?

Do you believe all acts short of violence should be legal - various forms of scamming and socially/economically disruptive behavior?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

1) Yes. You're still choosing, regardless of the foundation. Buyer beware, of sorts...

2) Not all acts, but I think we should protect people from harm done to their person or property and stop at that. If you want to spend $10 thinking you'll make a $10,000 return (which is possible, although unlikely), or if you want to buy some bridge in Manhattan for $20, then that's not my problem.

What about theft of service? Or election fraud? Or withholding pay? Or identity theft? Or character assassination? Or pump-and-dump?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.