Rand0m her0

mmh Ben Folds. Talented, but I cannot with the guys voice. Dunno why. It's been a week, so new song. Actually planned on some screaming females anyways so the fact they've released something new in the last couple days is good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ0n5G5jCo I don't know if it's my favorite thing they've done that'd be this , but marissa paternoster does pectualar things with that guitar of hers. Not cutting loose nearly as much as they did in the past which makes me kinda sad. Does have the advantage of being rather more listenable than some of their past stuff though.... the cover/colab of Because the Night with Garbage that sold me on the band however, and I bascily didn't stop listening to it on repeat for a good month. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOmKGjy-Ct0 because anyone who can stand up next to Shirley Manson like that is impressive as shit and quite frankly that solo might just qualify as pornographic in parts of the world.

I mean it's a game series where this nonsense can happen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37uptXNb7g realism aint the strongest part of this series.

Cool. Evidently the family disagrees with you on it being necessary. The fact that the ability to grant an eviction notice is exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court rather than lower courts implies the state of new york disagrees with you. Given that the article makes it extremely clear that it was the son, and not the parents forcing the legal process, that also implies you're making assumptions. Evicting someone can be a complicated legal process. If the person refuses to leave, there is quite often little you can do until you get a court order for that eviction to be enforced. "Throwing someone out", is rarely simply if the thrown out party isn't willing to stfu and leave. here, let's not speculate and break out the google foo. https://www.google.ca/search?ei=4B8GW9qjNcfXjwTLrrOQBA&q=ejection+action+adult+child+new+york Oh look, if the adult child pays rent or has been expected to (bascily if there is an enforceable lease), then they count as a tenant and it requires all the proceedings and expectations of that. If they do not pay rent, then it requires an ejection action, which is a relatively through legal process, apparently more complicated than evicting a tenant. Just about every page on the opposite side of that link recommends you retain a lawyer for it,it requires an explicit court order from the New York Supreme Court and can apparently it can take several months and be pretty expensive. So turns out that the process is rather more complicated than you're blithely assuming, as legal processes quite often are. Congrats, you've managed to be both wrong and a needless prick about it. Where are your wheaties. Editing rather than double posting: If we go hunting, I expect the law to have been written to cover any ejection of a family member. There have been quite a few cases of abusers and other such bottom feeders using the threat of homelessness to control their victims. It'll be there to help prevent things like someone throwing their spouse out of the house because the title isn't in their name, or pulling shit with their parents/grandparents or just being like "btw , you're 21, and now you're homeless!" without giving them notice or the ability to prepare. I've seen the last of those happen personally, friend of mine got chucked out on her birthday by her shithole of a stepfather. I don't care to research enough to know laws here stack up vs new york state, but suffice to say neither the police nor the courts were amused at him for doing it with no notice in the middle of a northern winter. Good laws occasionally protect assholes who know how to abuse the system. At least up to the point a judge gets their metaphorical mitts on them and systemically dismantle their bullshit, exactly as happened here.

Because apparently the laws require that to evict a family member. Presumably the original process had the sort of potential for bullshit they wanted more experienced overview. Also the "supreme" court in this case is still just a court of first instance. it just has universal jurisdiction in the state. It's the Taco Supreme of supreme courts. Silly naming scheme. Here it would have been "peace court" with a split towards more heavy (read $$) going to "Court of First Instance". And for all the people here stating they would kick his sorry ass on the curb, would you also jut cut him off financially? Sounds easier to just stop feeding him imo. Yea, apparently it's historical nonsense. leads to fun every so often when some twit of a judge does something ruling that cats are actually vegetables or whatever and everyone goes "OMG WHY DID THE SUPREME COURT DO THIS!". It *was* the superior court once upon a time, by which I mean dating back to a couple decades after the British showed up offshore of New Netherlands and went "We think we'll rename this place *ours*": Apparently they lumped the kings bench and court of common pleas into one thing because reasons. Couple hundred years later, the now state of New York decided it needed a court of last resort to replace the court of chancery. At which point they promptly created the court of appeals and didn't care to rename the supreme court. For added confusion, the judges for that court get to use the title justice, which pretty much everywhere else is reserved for the court of last resort. Naturally the judges who sit on the court of appeals (ie, the actual highest court) do not get to use that title.

Rand0m Her0, no he does not qualify as a tenant as he lacks the two things that would: 1: Rental Agreement/Lease 2: paying rent As such, he would be legally considered a house guest (or legally an Invitee). Since his parents have demanded he leave, he would now legally be considered a trespasser or squatter. Hence no obligation to go to court, as they are well within their legal rights as property owners to push an unwanted guest out the front door. In retrospect, I imagine they want to get the Office of the High Sheriff (or whatever its called in New York State), to be involved in the eviction process to ensure it goes smoothly. Either way, this situation is ludicrous as a 30 year old should have their act together so that they can pay rent and help out with household expenses. As to your second point: No shit Sherlock. Thanks for pointing it out, I was completely oblivious to it. Any other observations you'd care to make? Like night is dark? Ice cream is cold? If you jump in a pond, you'll get wet? My household expenses at the time, if I recall correctly were as follows: 1: Rent: $275.00 2: Telephone: $40.00 3: Groceries: average of $110.00 Leaving me with a grand total of $75.00 for extraneous expenses. Plug that into an inflation calculator and see what you get. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/ Also, that $500.00, yeah that was less than minimum wage, which was $4.75 an hour at the time. MsShawdi: My cousin is pretty much the same way. Wanted to be a guitar technician, get hired by a major musician right out of school, and was going to be a millionaire before he was 25. Surprise, surprise, that didn't work out. Quit that, got a job in a warehouse and lasted less than a day. Now he sits at home, playing video games, stuffing his face and refuses to work. No they explicitly required the courts to evict him. Since you've decided you want to be a bit of a prick, might I recommend actually reading the article. As in the one you posted? Where do you keep your wheaties? Cause if you're gonna flip off like that again, I wanna make sure I've actually pissed in them first yanno?

Because apparently the laws require that to evict a family member. Presumably the original process had the sort of potential for bullshit they wanted more experienced overview. Also the "supreme" court in this case is still just a court of first instance. it just has universal jurisdiction in the state. It's the Taco Supreme of supreme courts. It likely goes something like city courts which handle arraignments, misdemeanors and small claims stuff, a county court that handles most felonies and civil cases up to a couple dozen grand, and then the "supreme" court which has general jurisdiction. Quick google says the new york supreme court has exclusive jurisdiction on stuff related to divorce, marriage etc, so i'm guessing the "need this court to evict a family member" falls along those lines. One to many jackasses trying to evict their spouse or whatever.

>To be honest, I don't know why the parents are even bothering with the courts. At 18, your parents are no longer legally or financially responsible for their child(ren). because it's been long enough he probably qualifies as a tenant. >I had fuck all money ($500.00 a month), for all of my expenses. I lived in a creepy, smelly basement bedsitter...but it was mine. I had the freedom to do what I wanted. Cause wage stagnation and property value inflation is real. Minimum wage in a lot of places will get you enough money to split an apartment between three people assuming you don't each much outside of rice and lentils. plus zero hour contracts means you have no guarantee on if you can actually make rent on any given month. One power tripping manager deciding not to schedule you for two weeks....

Let me guess, you don't actually know how social security, or any pension fund actually works? You think your Roth IRA or whatever is any safer than social security? That will collapse at the same time. If the USA can't cover the securities it's issued and has to hack at social security, it's both gonna tank the economy and force the value of those securities way below par.

I wouldn't take that much time to write that much, double chance I'll take the time to read all that. I did read the last part though I have never relied on Social Security. I don't trust the government. We shall see if I even bother with it... I don't plan to ever "retire". My parents are long dead. My "retirement" is already secure. My adult children are the ones that I'm concerned with. One of my daughters makes more money than I ever did, no worries there... and yes, she's the Trump supporting Republican one. To bad, you rely on it anyways. So does your daughter. See most of the US debt is owned by US hands. Infact about a third of it is owned by the federal government itself. If the US choses to cut social security, it's going to completely body the US economy. Unless you plan on dying in the next decade, your retirement will not be secure and neither will your kids. Naturally this exposes another line of bullshit by the republican party. The current debt that they're taking onm has nothing at all to do with paying for infrastructure the US government took in a trillion dollars last year than it did in 2008 (and yes that's the before the recession figure). Congress could pass the same budget they did in W's last year or obamas first and have a half trillion dollar surplus. Except those years includes massive counter spending to stop the recession from death spiraling the economy. Even with the increase in mandatroy spending over the last decade, they could fund most of a trillion dollar infrastructure program. They're taking on debt because the republicans haven't been the party of fiscal responsibility since Reagan who took on so much debt that despite 40 years of inflation, something like 10% of the US debt still dates to the Bush Senior and Reagan eras. Because to quote Dick Cheney " Reagan proved deficits don't matter". The only thing the US public will get from the current deficit is robbed.

Nooooope. Not letting that fox news bullshit stand. Alright, tl;dr version of how the US budget works: While the executive office oversees the distribution and use of the federal budget, for all practical purposes it has no real power in setting that budget. Theoretically the way the budget *should* work is that the Executive prepares that years federal budget and then submits it to congress, who pass a bill approving , and then the president signs it into law. In practice however congress has a line item veto and the ability to edit as they see fit. They're not required to pass the budget submitted to them, they're not required to pass a budget anywheres near close to the budget submitted to them. And so every single year, what actually happens is that the house and the senate both write the own budgets containing whatever the fuck they want pass them back between the two houses and hammer out the budget congress wants regardless of whatever the hell the executive office submits. At that point they pass a bill approving their budget and the only thing the president can do is either sign it or veto it. And because congress isn't dumb, they make sure the budget gets passed quite late in order to give the president a choice of "sign it or the federal government has no budget for this year". And so it bascily always gets signed. As soon as it's signed into law, the president is now *required* to spend that money as laid out in the budget. If the US doesn't have enough tax income to cover the expenses that congress has decided on, the president is literally required to tell the treasury to issue securities to cover that deficit. This is where the debt ceiling comes into play: In bascily every other country the government approving a budget with a deficit implicitly carries approval of taking on the debt needed. In the US...not so much. Which means we then get another round of the US president handing congress the treasuries proposal for issuing those securities in order to pay for the budget that congress has demand, and then congress spends a while going "*GASP* why is this irresponsible president wanting to put us in such debt!" and round and round. Debt under obama was a result of the Great Recession (and counter spending to minimizing the effects of a recession has been proven to be the best method time and again), the uptick in spending on Iraq and the effect of bush's tax cuts reducing the shit out of the federal government's tax income.The biggest increase of the federal budget under obama, had nothing to do with Obama at all. The 2009 FY budget was set by the bush admin, and literally half of the 2009 deficit was a result of the US taking in half a trillion less in tax revenue than expected. Most of the debt increase in the USA has occurred under republican controlled congresses, with the largest percentage of (thus far) it dating to the reagan and bush years. The current republican party, by doubling down on reagan era voodoo economics will see it increase similarly. The cost of these policies will be the destruction of social security or the dramatic increase in taxes. Your parents will have their retirements wiped out, and you yourself may be not able to retire period.

I believe you are totally correct. I think they will take his confession and throw him in prison for the rest of his life. Specifically what he'll get is life with the [airquotes]possibility[/airquotes] of parole in 15 years (Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama ruled life without parole for juveniles in violation of the 8th. Turns out the supreme court thought using three strikes or accessory to laws to sentence a 15 year old to life was bullshit, go figure). Of course people serving a life sentence tend to get paroled at about the same rate as someone wins the lottery. So after 15 years, the parole board will take a good honest and through look at his case and then tell him to go sit in his box for another 5 years.

Careful, that might just lead to a situation where TW totals up the votes and somehow finds that not only is the vote unanimous, but somehow the vote totals twice then number of players. Or night will conclude and the town will be informed that you died from two seafood allergies to the back of the head.

It's never going to happen period. Leaving aside all the usual issues with the death penalty, there's literally no possible way for the ruling to be challenged absent changing the constitution to abolish the 8th amendment. Any time the state sought to assemble a death-qualified jury, it would be denied. If it was somehow allowed, it would immediately be thrown out as a mistrial. No appeals court would allow it. I strongly doubt the supreme court would even elect to hear the case, let alone hand down anything like writ of certiorari needed to hurry it through. The supreme court has slapped down every single thing that has gotten even close to touching the Roper v. Simmons decision. As well, most of the disent was on orginalist grounds, and an appeal on those grounds would be entirely insufficient for the supreme court to reverse such strong precedent. As well, the primary argument in the Roper decision remains, and is stronger if the same logical process is applied today; since 2009 three countries have carried out the execution of a juvenile offender: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan.

You've not hurt my feelings, you've managed to provoke the kind of sputtering, incoherent disbelief in someones utter ignorance that tends to be reserved for flat earthers and whenever alex jones opens his mouth. You clearly no nothing what so ever about how education works, how the American school system works, what the purpose of it is, why it works, why public education is a thing. You're proposing to take the literal cornerstone of western civilization, one of the main instutions that made america what it is, hog tie it, and then shoot it in the back of the head. Also you do realize that what your proposing is inevitably a highly restrictive police state yes? Harden schools..and now buses being loaded after school might be a target. Put a 50 foot defensive perimeter around the school...and now buses follow set routes home so you need armed escorts and caravans. Schools hardened? maybe. maybe not, but there's a bunch of people in the park two feet from me, so now you need to harden parks. And malls. And church's. And pools. And libraries, and community centers. And restaurants. And clubs. You literally cannot harden against this kind of attack unless you want the sort of system of checkpoints and random searches that would make isreal go holy shit and china's government cream their collective pants. If ignorance was a volcano, your post would be the formation of the Siberian traps. It's absolute and utter nonsense.

Oh good god, you know literally nothing about the subject of education at all. Like the sheer and utter lack of thought you've put into this topic is staggering. Do you have a moral or religious objection to doing any research at all before forming an opinion on something?

New motion: Let the sig stay but launch Brewers out of the solar system

well that's one of...idk 3-5 players. Also yea, books are..not a big deal. A lot of shit that's needed is in the SRD anyways which is open source anyways, and I'd have zero issues with sharing whatever is needed out of shit like the players handbook. Might limit some of the more hilarious shit out of the splatbooks, but it's been more than a decade since i last played, let alone ran a game so uh kinda don't want to deal with that nonsense anyways. And the nice thing about play by post is if someone needs time to to check a rule or something, who gives a shit. Figure we'll probably end up with something like fighter wizard rogue cleric or whatever out of the corebooks anyways since i expect most players will be in your position Mandarijn

And NK is threatening to pull out of talks. Big surprise. Two major notes: one it's halarious they're using trump pulling out of the Iran deal and the current attacks on Libya as an excuse and two my god Bolton you incompetent little chicken hawk, did you learn nothing over the last decade.

I voted yes but that's only because you didn't give an "Aggressive Chemotherapy" or a "Launch it into the Sun" option

The only reason it means war is if trump is willing to embroil the USA in yet another pointless fucking war that will cost trillions of dollars and kick off a monumental humanitarian crisis, fucking the shit out of the US's allies and probably destroying US interests in the region in the process. Also China almost certainly would get involved. There is zero chance they'd accept US military actions that close to their border, and they'd need to intervene if only to control the humanitarian crisis a US invasion would cause from fucking them. Specious wishing on your part in an attempt to justify your own biases. If NK is willing to trade concessions, it'll be because they've managed to wreck their current testing facility or some other thing that makes the program pointless from there end. For that matter, it could easily single a up in finesse and tech level: you'll note that the US doesn't test nuclear weapons on a regular basis anymore because simulations provide sufficient information.

Well that's a hilarious lack of response. Like what, ya'll faird someone will think you're a nerd. Bad news dorks, you've spent how much time playing a text based nation sim?

I've actually got a lot of shit to post here, but i'm limiting myself to one a week or so. If you like that version, this is the original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NXxQbtjChQ It's a lot faster and the chorus theme is a bit hookier. I don't like it as much as Girlpools cover, but it's still good. Also bonus round entirely because this one is new new to me as of 20 minutes ago and ahhhhhhh. I'll probably post some more of Meg Myers stuff in the future because holy shit is she awesome and this is breaking that one a week rule, but fuck it she released a new single recently and now I have something to listen to on repeat until i hate both it and myself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jFCfprPGMI

Mmmh, welder posting metal bands. Someone, help me to the fainting couch, I'm in shock And now for something completely different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfO_xb9124U I..honestly know jack shit about this band, but i've not been able to stop listening to this song for a while now. Like when I try to go to youtube, chrome thinks what i really want is that video and gives it to me as my first autocomplete. It's quiet and bitter and melancholy and just damn perfect. it also earns itself a stop on the list of covers I like better than the original. Also live version because why not be a copycat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35QHFEn5fk

There... had to fix that for you. I already told you that you won't get sympathy from me for terrorists and traitors... you have to stand on that soapbox all by yourself. Totally frivolous! We are done here After convicting them of such and the benefit of due process. Because they had respect for limited government and the rule of law.

I am trying to structure this in a way that doesn't make me sound heartless, as that isn't my intention. Severely limiting the amount of humanitarian aid/food to NK might actually be a positive outcome for western nations. While somewhat of a remote possibility, if millions starve, eventually the North Korean people could revolt against their government. It is incredibly difficult to give an accurate assessment since NK experienced massive famine in the 90s and as far as we publicly know, no coups or attempted revolts took place. But this option would let the people of North Korea solve their own problem of overthrowing their government. After all, the most positive outcome to the North Korea situation is if the people themselves stood up and said, "we are taking control of our own future from now on". I think everyone can agree that is the best case scenario as its letting them fix their own country. Literally nothing north korea does is worth trading millions of lives for. As well, NK is perfectly capable of sustaining itself even in that event. they would almost certainly starve the their citizens,. however as long as they keep the army fed, and they can manage that on the back of slave labor if they need too, the government will maintain control. In the worst case scenario it pushes NK into taking military action against the south in an attempt to prop themselves up because the government has nothing else to lose, at which point, well see all those guns pointed at the South. Cutting off that aid would do almost nothing to remove the NK govement from power and only force it into worse abuses. I don't have time to distil the entire topic, but suffice to say there's a reason that some 50ish years of successive administrations have been willing to ship food and etc there, and it's not because every single one of them was a bunch of idiots. Because as the US has insisted on proving again and again at the cost of trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives over the last 20 years, you can't actually solve an issue like hamas by bombing them. They're a symptom of systemic issues related to the palestine authority limited ability to provide for its people coupled with the tensions re: Israel which they can exploit to gain support. Large scale military action would only serve to destabilize the region further. As well given that a lot of the tension there is a result of perceived imperialism,. having outside forces intervene would only further serve to delegitimize the non crazy government. There's a reason why Israel has refrained from taking that large scale action. Right now, hamas is about as close to a nuisance as pseudo terrorists groups get. Large scale action would prompt worse issues and require major expenditures of blood and money, this would be stupid when dealing with an organization that is currently losing support anyways. >A lot of people, including myself are skeptical of the power the Palestine Authority has at keeping funds out of the hands of HAMAS. And as mentioned, the Palestine Authority doesn't need to do this. That aid does not amount to a blank check and a pinky promise. The money is not release to the Palestine Authority control, there is a giant mess of safeguards, etc. The US state department has a lot of experience handling exactly that kind of issue and a very good track record. When you hear about aid money being misused, it's almost always something via private donors or charity drives or etc. And again, there's a reason why the Trump admin went ahead and released it. The whole flareup about it was pure and utter manufactured outrage bait because "OBAMA SNEAKILY BETRAYS AMERICA!" is exactly the kind of headline Breitbart etc makes their money on.