Posts by vividraven26

Look, those KD threats might sound scary, but honestly, that whole scheme just isn't worth the headache. Even if you end up facing some kind of probation in court, the legal fees and court costs alone are going to dwarf whatever amount they’re trying to squeeze out of you on that bill.

You should just head over there and tell that thief straight to his face exactly what you think of him, and if he wants to try and prove anything after that, let him try.

First off, just so we’re clear, I don’t belong to any political party, non-profit, or whatever club you think I’m part of.

Look, if you're going to claim public transit is free along with all those other services you keep listing, why don't you actually show me the specific regulation that says so? Just toss the proof on the table.

But since you seem so lost, here’s what the actual rules say:
"Passengers are required to hold a valid fare during their trip"

"The transport of passengers via public transit (hereafter referred to as public transit) is provided
via buses, streetcars, cable cars, and gondolas on designated routes according to a pre-established
schedule, set prices, and general terms of service."

"Users who qualify for free transit—meaning the City picks up the tab for them—are determined by the Social Welfare Decision."

So, if you want to find where it says you don't have to pay, you'll have to look harder than that.

You always feel so comfortable twisting any regulation to fit your own little narrative, and then when we try to point out why you're dead wrong, you just act like we're the problem.

It’s honestly kind of funny how you won't even bother bringing a single real argument to the table to challenge a specific section of the law, probably because you only ever skim one solitary clause and completely ignore the rest of the statute or the related legislation entirely, leaving you sitting there totally convinced you've actually won the argument.

John Clark6 said:If you’re sitting there wondering, "What on earth am I actually paying this municipal fee for?"—well, let me break it down for you! I suppose if we look at the essentials, things like public street lighting and our winter services (you know, those crews out there battling the snowstorms)—those are the big ones that really eat into the budget, whether they're filed properly or not. In an average American city, just those two things can swallow up nearly half of the total annual revenue collected from municipal fees. And honestly? That’s not even touching the rest of the expenses!

It’s like they take five or six different laws, toss them all into a blender, and just pour out whatever convenient mess suits their needs at the moment, right?

The whole point of this thread seems to be, "I want all the perks of living in a civilized society, but I don't want to pay a single cent for any of it."

But honestly, you really ought to go read Article 19 of the Municipal Services Act before you start complaining.😵

Make sure you grab two copies and don't forget to have them hit both with a receiving stamp.

Honestly, they could have just headed over to the Opportunity Institute instead and avoided all these fines altogether.

Look, if what you got was just a notice, then there’s really nothing to protest; you can only push back if a citation was actually issued under the Misdemeanor Act.

But he didn't even specify who’s responsible here. Those tickets always find their way back to you eventually.

"If you sold your vehicle before June 11, 2015, you’re legally required to deregister it, unless the bill of sale explicitly states the buyer is taking over the deregistration duties.

Now, if you sold the car after June 11, 2015, the responsibility falls squarely on the buyer to handle the deregistration."
https://www.usa.gov/registration-info

Honestly, you could just admit to the violation in your appeal and ask them to follow Article 24a of the Misdemeanor Act, since you genuinely thought the fine print meant the new owner would take care of the paperwork as laid out in Article 40, Paragraph 2 of the Regulations.
http://www.dmv.gov/regulations

David Baker2 said:So?
What are you waiting for?
Why aren't you already down at the border doing it right now?

Oh, wait, I forgot—you'd much rather sit back and pretend to be busy while someone else does all the heavy lifting. ☕

Honestly, why don't you just round up 10,000 guys and march them straight to the fence in Texas so you can sit back and eat popcorn? Like, is someone else gonna do the actual work while you just snack on your popcorn by yourself?

Because Viktor Orbán will just settle them down immediately, just like he always does. That guy's a genius, really.

David Baker2 said:As things stand, they’re trying to push everything through Canada.

Honestly, if I were Smith, about ten days before an election, I’d be very busy making sure my wife, kids, and entire family were safely tucked away somewhere in Canada, while meanwhile, I’d be rounding up all the single guys to hit a headcount of 10,000 down in a place like Omaha, then overnight, I'd just dump the whole lot right onto the Canadian border fence.

Then, I’d just sit back, grab a big bucket of popcorn, wait twenty-four hours, and cruise straight into winning the election.

I truly believe the Republican Party would pull something like that off without blinking an eye—because, hey, it’s all for the good of America, right? ☕

Man, I hauled my ass all the way down to the local polling station in a massive pickup truck and just sat there through the whole damn thing until the election was finally wrapped up.

braggart I can't even begin to process what was said there... seriously, where do we even start with this kind of nonsense? It’s like someone just decided to throw a bunch of half-baked ideas at the wall to see what sticks, right? Honestly, I feel like I'm losing my mind just trying to make sense of the logic—or lack thereof—being tossed around here. Does anyone actually believe this stuff? Is there even a shred of common sense left in the room? It’s just one thing after another with people thinking they can just say whatever pops into their heads without any regard for how ridiculous it sounds to everyone else. I mean, really, are we supposed to just sit here and nod along while the whole argument falls apart in real-time? It's exhausting, truly.
You know, there’s that old bit of wisdom people always toss around—you know the one—that it’s way better to overstate how tough your opponent is than to go underestimating them. Seriously, why do people even bother being cocky? It’s like they’re just begging for a reality check. If you think you've got things totally in the bag and then get blindsided because you didn't respect the competition, what does that actually say about you? Better to play it safe and assume they're coming for your neck, right?

Honestly, there’s an even better way to do it—just blast the damn thing with a high-pressure hose from a tanker truck instead of wasting time with one of those little hand sprayers. Why bother with the small stuff when you could just go big?

I mean, if we’re calling this theft, then I guess it stays on the books until the owner finally steps up and says, "Hey, actually, nobody's stealing anything." Only then does the whole case get tossed out.

She didn't even bother reporting it stolen (if it actually was), so once it turns up, the whole thing is just over, right? I mean, maybe 🤔

Joseph Wright4 said:Not really. At least not regarding the cultural differences we're talking about here. And you're oversimplifying a very complex issue—not because of political correctness, but because it actually is complex. A lot of what's happening in the USA is driven by social and economic factors. It'd be interesting to look at crime rates among the upper-middle class for both Black and white people. I bet the difference compared to your stats would be huge... but that's a different conversation. What I mean is, neither the Black nor the white community thinks hitting women is okay, or that men are inherently more valuable than women, or that boys and girls shouldn't be segregated, or that women need male escorts to go out... those are actual cultural differences. That's a completely different set of values.

And people like that really only belong back where they came from.

Sophia Moore52 said:If the USA is supposed to be the most multicultural place on Earth, why does everyone still live in their own bubbles? We've still got segregated neighborhoods and tea towns everywhere...

Man, I don't care who's living in what bubble as long as they're all in the same damn city and state, right?

Raymond Peterson81 said:Reading Joseph Wright4's description, I got the impression that his take on multiculturalism involves a certain kind of relativism—though he frames it under the banner of accepting diversity. To me, though, this just feels like yet another instance of left-wing cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense to advocate for tolerance while simultaneously conditioning that tolerance on a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

What kind of tolerance is this, really? What exactly is being promoted here—just letting things run wild if I understood him correctly? It sounds like selective moralizing being rebranded as cosmopolitanism, broad-mindedness, or pluralism—all tucked away behind long-winded sentences and demagoguery. Essentially, the rules aren't applied equally to everyone. For some groups, traditions are just mundane things that can change on a whim, but for others, those same customs are treated as sacred obligations that we must respect if we have any shred of decency or culture left in us.

That isn't rational.

Let’s drift back to that hypothetical village scenario for a moment. Australia House 5, the Japanese people. In rural Japan, there's a custom where doors aren't locked because merchants leave fish for their neighbors in the morning; if they find a door locked (since they wouldn't want to leave the fish out on the porch), they interpret it as a message saying, "you aren't welcome," which they view as an insult.

Do they have the right to demand that all doors be kept unlocked in the name of multiculturalism, simply because they feel oppressed or discriminated against otherwise?

They don't even have the right to ask, let alone demand. Honestly, if they want things that way, they should just move back to Japan where they won't feel so "oppressed."

Raymond Peterson81 said:Multiculturalism is such a heated topic lately—honestly, anyone who considers themselves civilized (and isn't just picking their nose) and isn't a hardcore American nationalist tends to back the idea of multiculturalism (s). Forgive me if I sound full of typical prejudices, but it seems to me that the push for multiculturalism mostly comes from leftists, liberals, and that crowd. It’s hard to find a conservative who actually advocates for it, though I suppose there might be one or two here and there. So... can someone actually explain to me what a multicultural society is supposed to mean?

I’ll throw out a simple, abstract example here—don't take it too literally unless you're looking to troll the thread or turn this into some ridiculous joke that would make the whole discussion pointless.

Let’s imagine a little multicultural village consisting of five houses.

House 1 — a couple from Scandinavia
House 2 — a couple from Maghreb House 3
House 3 — a couple from Argentina House 4
House 4 — a couple from Australia House 5
House 5 — a couple from Japan

So, what exactly is the goal of a multicultural society? Is the idea to keep each house exactly as it was originally, preserving the specific customs those couples hold dear while working to bridge differences through tolerance... or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?

If the people from these five houses all mix together, then it isn't a multicultural society anymore. How can it be called multicultural if everything gets blended? After a few generations, you'll just have a massive mix of everything—it doesn't matter what you call it, but it won't be "multi," it'll just be "uni."

Because if that's the case, then if I move into a city and there isn't a park nearby, I should be allowed to just start a bonfire on the lawn in front of your building, roast a whole lamb or maybe even a pig, set up some tables, and throw a massive party whenever I feel like it, and you'd just have to deal with it because that's how we do things back in my hometown, right?

Raymond Peterson81 said:Multiculturalism is such a heated topic lately—honestly, anyone who considers themselves civilized (and isn't just picking their nose) and isn't a hardcore American nationalist tends to back the idea of multiculturalism (s). Forgive me if I sound full of typical prejudices, but it seems to me that the push for multiculturalism mostly comes from leftists, liberals, and that crowd. It’s hard to find a conservative who actually advocates for it, though I suppose there might be one or two here and there. So... can someone actually explain to me what a multicultural society is supposed to mean?

I’ll throw out a simple, abstract example here—don't take it too literally unless you're looking to troll the thread or turn this into some ridiculous joke that would make the whole discussion pointless.

Let’s imagine a little multicultural village consisting of five houses.

House 1 — a couple from Scandinavia
House 2 — a couple from Maghreb House 3
House 3 — a couple from Argentina House 4
House 4 — a couple from Australia House 5
House 5 — a couple from Japan

So, what exactly is the goal of a multicultural society? Is the idea to keep each house exactly as it was originally, preserving the specific customs those couples hold dear while working to bridge differences through tolerance... or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?

If the people from these five houses all mix together, then it isn't a multicultural society anymore. How can it be called multicultural if everything gets blended? After a few generations, you'll just have a massive mix of everything—it doesn't matter what you call it, but it won't be "multi," it'll just be "uni."

Yeah, sure, we're all on the same planet, but that doesn't mean anything. We aren't the same, we haven't been the same, and we never will be.

Kevin Garcia14 said:Thanks for the input and the help. But there's a massive issue here. My property is supposed to be 33 feet wide, but she basically just grabbed 10 feet of it to build a driveway. Now my actual lot is only about 23 feet wide. I mean, seriously... how am I even supposed to build a house and have a driveway on a 23-foot lot? xD🙂

You could sue to get the land back so you can sell it later, but honestly, that's gonna take forever.

Even if she signs off saying it's yours, you're still gonna be stuck paying property taxes on those extra 10 feet unless you get a judge to fix it properly.

Since we're talking about specific legal stuff...

Honestly, the least painful way to handle this is just having your sister pay up what she owes. Otherwise? I’m talking a full-blown lawsuit.

ambermason82 said:vividraven26, you're quoting some local public order ordinance instead of the actual misdemeanor law against public order I posted above.

The beach I'm talking about is in Malibu, and their official public order ordinance DOESN'T have a clause against nudity on beaches—you can check it yourself. They only have rules for business premises. :-)

See, there it is, they've got it right there. And since you've got the article from the misdemeanor law, you can pretty much see how the fine is calculated.

ambermason82 said:They went and amended the public order ordinance about a month ago just to add this:
"In addition to the designated areas, swimming and sunbathing on all public beaches—whether developed or undeveloped—is prohibited without wearing a bottom half of a swimsuit."

Total Middle Ages vibes. Love that for us.

Now I’m wondering, since the wording is such a mess, if I could win in court by just carrying my trunks in my hand instead of actually wearing them. :-)

Nobody is hugging anyone, man, just go to a clothing-optional beach and enjoy yourself.http://www.adriagate.com/America-hr...plaze-America

The wording is perfectly clear.

Section 6.
Look, you can't just be wandering around without a swimsuit unless you're actually on one of those designated clothing-optional beaches. It’s pretty straightforward, right?

And don't even think about walking into shops, restaurants, or any other businesses while you're still in your swimwear—unless, of course, the place is specifically set up to serve people coming straight from the water.

Section 27.
Just so we're clear, the local police department in Malibu and the municipal enforcement officers for the City of Malibu are the ones tasked with making sure everyone actually follows this public order ordinance.

Look, you don't just get to skip out on the fine, because once they trigger those mandatory collections, you're looking at jail time—and trust me, the folks in there aren't exactly going to be thrilled if you try to pull that whole nudist routine on them.

So you’re actually feeling nostalgic for America? Give me a break. Just forget about those old Democratic Party types because they don't even exist anymore, let alone have any chance of teaming up with anyone.
If this whole region was stuck under some one-party system everywhere, maybe they'd show up in the European Parliament more often, but even then, they'd just be there as guests rather than actual representatives, mostly because they refuse to ever join forces with anyone else.

And what, we're just supposed to pretend there weren't wars?

So, look, the cops don't just go out there filing reports on their own accord like some kind of automated machine, you know? It’s not like that. They actually wait until the victim makes the call and officially suggests they file it first.