Post a Political News Story

I kinda hope California becomes its own little nation if that happens, like in War Day.

Mountain Dew won't melt steel cans.

Katy wrote:

Mountain Dew won't melt steel cans.

I dunno. Have you seen what they put in that stuff?

NSMike wrote:

If you are not the homeowner, or the property owner, you have no reason to have your hands on that sign.

So, for example, children crossing through the yard, or pets or other animals, meter-readers and others with service access rights... It's not okay to put them in danger too.

None of those people mentioned should be messing with the sign.

Robear wrote:
NSMike wrote:

If you are not the homeowner, or the property owner, you have no reason to have your hands on that sign.

So, for example, children crossing through the yard, or pets or other animals, meter-readers and others with service access rights... It's not okay to put them in danger too.

I already outlined the dangers of booby trapping in the rest of my post. What do you want from me?

Also the sign pictured in that article is in the middle of a bush that is chest high on an adult. Kids, animals, meter readers (really? These haven't been a thing since like, 1990 when they started installing radio transmitters), etc. would have to be deliberately reaching for the sign, and even then, I'm not sure an average kid could do so without a boost.

Additionally, all of these are the exact same risks posed by PERFECTLY LEGAL electric fences. Granted, human contact with them is less likely, since they're required to be marked, but unless animals can read signs now, and I wasn't informed of this remarkable development, the risk to them is exactly the same. Also, I just came from a weekend in D.C. where, among other things, I visited the National Zoo. Know what surrounds a ton of animal paddocks? Electric fences. Zookeepers don't seem to think they pose that much of a risk to animals.

Do electric fences require some notification (ie signage) indicating danger, electric, etc?

If so then I would think electrifying a sign would require the same.

I'm also amazed anyone's homeowner's insurance would tolerate either, even with proper notification signs.

Since most electric fences are used on farmland or grazing fields, I would imagine they have different insurance than homeowner's, but that's just a guess.

obirano wrote:

None of those people mentioned should be messing with the sign.

And if one of them just wanders by and touches it either accidentally or with no malice intended, not knowing any better... f*ck them! He's got a sign to protect!

And I believe you understand libertarianism!

Demosthenes wrote:
obirano wrote:

None of those people mentioned should be messing with the sign.

And if one of them just wanders by and touches it either accidentally or with no malice intended, not knowing any better... f*ck them! He's got a sign to protect!

OK, vilify someone and put words in their mouth if you like, but don't continue to pretend that you're making a good point while doing it. Obi already acknowledged that he gave the issue a rethink. I, myself, already pointed out the many issues with this thing. Nobody here wants people to get greatly harmed, and nobody is placing a sign above a human life.

This is concern trolling and it's really exhausting to see it on these boards. Obi is pointing out that anyone after the sign who doesn't own it, doesn't really have a right to do anything with it. That's all. I happen to know Obi and hung out with him a little more than a week ago in person. He's one of the nicest people on these boards whom I've met in person. I don't know you, and if this is how you're going to react to your fellow human beings, I'm pretty sure I don't want to.

NSMike wrote:

nobody is placing a human life above a sign

Now I don't even need to put words in your mouth!

I only have herbal tea left at work. My brain is misfiring.

NSMike wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
obirano wrote:

None of those people mentioned should be messing with the sign.

And if one of them just wanders by and touches it either accidentally or with no malice intended, not knowing any better... f*ck them! He's got a sign to protect!

OK, vilify someone and put words in their mouth if you like, but don't continue to pretend that you're making a good point while doing it. Obi already acknowledged that he gave the issue a rethink. I, myself, already pointed out the many issues with this thing. Nobody here wants people to get greatly harmed, and nobody is placing a sign above a human life.

This is concern trolling and it's really exhausting to see it on these boards. Obi is pointing out that anyone after the sign who doesn't own it, doesn't really have a right to do anything with it. That's all. I happen to know Obi and hung out with him a little more than a week ago in person. He's one of the nicest people on these boards whom I've met in person. I don't know you, and if this is how you're going to react to your fellow human beings, I'm pretty sure I don't want to.

Which I agreed with? My concern comes from the point that plenty of potential innocents could be hurt by it, and even someone with malicious intent doesn't deserve death because this dude has a hardon for causing pain to people for a $10 sign.

Several of us have pointed out that innocents could be hurt and the response was:

None of those people mentioned should be messing with the sign.

Like, he may not be valuing the sign over a human life, but... that is some callous disregard for public safety in the interest of "MUST PROTECT MY PROPERTY!!!!1!" and us just... being ok with that.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but this dude is indicative of the ridiculousness of this country at this point. Perfectly willing to hurt and possibly kill people (and so excited about doing it more) over worthless property... and I just cannot be ok with that anymore. I'm sick of people acting like their stuff is somehow worth hurting people for. I'm sick of folks saying "f*ck public safety, I want this and if you don't like it, just stay away and hope you don't get hurt by it accidentally if you happen to be in proximity to my toy without knowledge of what's going on."

To meet sales goals, employees at Wells Fargo opened fraudulent accounts and credit cards under the names of existing customers, often triggering fees and penalties that should never have been imposed. Wells Fargo is now paying a $185 million penalty and refunding those illegal fees. The article doesn't mention anyone being arrested or charged for their illegal activities.

The bank had consistently said such practices were not widespread and that workers who cheat to meet sales goals are disciplined or fired. The CFPB said 5,300 workers have been fired for improper sales practices since 2011.
Quintin_Stone wrote:
The bank had consistently said such practices were not widespread and that workers who cheat to meet sales goals are disciplined or fired. The CFPB said 5,300 workers have been fired for improper sales practices since 2011.

If you have to fire a thousand people a year for "improper behavior", the problem isn't your sales people, it's your sh*tty, sh*tty, management of those sales people that incentivizes, encourages and/or allows that improper behavior.

Yeah, 5,300 people in a company did not independently come up with that each on their own.

that is some callous disregard for public safety in the interest of "MUST PROTECT MY PROPERTY!!!!1!" and us just... being ok with that.

No it's not, it's a simple statement of fact. You're adding the protection of property in there. Nobody should mess with that sign. Nobody should key your car. Nobody should tag a bridge.

See how all of those statements don't include a callous disregard for public safety?

NSMike wrote:
that is some callous disregard for public safety in the interest of "MUST PROTECT MY PROPERTY!!!!1!" and us just... being ok with that.

No it's not, it's a simple statement of fact. You're adding the protection of property in there. Nobody should mess with that sign. Nobody should key your car. Nobody should tag a bridge.

See how all of those statements don't include a callous disregard for public safety?

I guess, it's just once you add a violent countermeasure, I'm not OK with that. No one should mess with the sign, that's true... but it's a sign in a yard in a neighborhood, the possibility of accidental exposure (similar to a car in a parking lot or parked on the street in a neighborhood) causing damage to someone... that's where you lose me. If a countermeasure of some kind can't tell the difference between someone keying your car or just brushing against it before they get jolted, that's not OK to me.

I'm struggling to see where anyone said they remain OK with that. As I said, Obi reconsidered. It's a page back, but it's there. All that we've been talking about since is legality. You came back and stirred the pot again, and continue to display an astounding lack of comprehension about that.

You can continue to pretend that someone is standing by violence as a response to theft, but no one is. I'm done with this.

In which case, I apparently missed the segment on changing the deterrent to something non-violent. So, properly chastened there and my apologies.

Then again, maybe it's just because I can't 100% divorce my brain from the fact that it's a Trump sign and a woman taking it down given his stupidity regarding gender (along with various other forms of) equality over the last few years. Supremely curious to know what this guy would do if his neighbor put up a bigass Hillary sign. But, it reminds me of folks tearing down Confederate flags. A symbol of hatred being removed or destroyed isn't something I can be worked up about... especially when we seemed to have reached a point where bigotry can't even be shamed anymore. -_-;;

I tend to think electrifying your trump sign is a pretty tame response to serial thieves. I'm curious as to what alternatives the property owner should have tried. It's not like he ran 40,000 volts through the thing, and if you're in the business of stealing signs with a heart condition where even a slight shock is life threatening...I'm not sure it's the sign owner's responsibility to protect you from your own idiocy.

I don't think thieves deserve to die, but if we are being honest, these aren't People stealing bread to feed their family. They're actively suppressing speech in addition to trespassing and theft. You don't think a little zap is force of equal measure?

I think the problem is, as I read it, you were mad at the guy(fair enough) but raged at Obi by proxy(bad form, old chap). Sign guy is a dick. Don't be one too, even if your intentions are good.

Seth wrote:

I tend to think electrifying your trump sign is a pretty tame response to serial thieves. I'm curious as to what alternatives the property owner should have tried. It's not like he ran 40,000 volts through the thing, and if you're in the business of stealing signs with a heart condition where even a slight shock is life threatening...I'm not sure it's the sign owner's responsibility to protect you from your own idiocy.

I don't think thieves deserve to die, but if we are being honest, these aren't People stealing bread to feed their family. They're actively suppressing speech in addition to trespassing and theft. You don't think a little zap is force of equal measure?

That's immaterial when such booby traps are illegal. As alluded to a couple pages back, a harmless but annoying spray could be a decent deterrent. That's clearly legal, as department stores and banks already use dye packs in such a way as an anti-theft measure.

Inside 9/11: The Day that Never Ends

Quite a good piece with lots of video.

An electrified sign just shows a lack of imagination. Fill a super soaker with pee, then lie in wait for the thieves.

I wasn't thinking of it from a legal perspective. Good point, Mike.

And on levels of annoyance, a long lasting dye that ruins clothing and generally marks the perpetrator for a few days ranks far, far higher than a little zap from an electric fence. Having grown up in farm country with a lot of experience with electric fences (including one cantankerous farmer who intentionally turned up the juice when he saw 7 year old me around high enough to send me staggering back 5 feet), I'd still rather deal with a zap like that than explaining to everyone why my face was dark blue.

Wells Fargo Just Made The Case For Elizabeth Warren’s Bank Agency

Wells Fargo just proved, again, that no scam is beneath America’s financial institutions. And no institution is above being watched by a federal agency.

On Thursday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ― the watchdog group proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D. Mass.) in the aftermath of the financial crisis ― announced that Wells Fargo would pony up a total of $185 million for perpetrating a huge scam on its customers.

Over at least the past five years, Wells Fargo employees created more than 1.5 million sham checking accounts and applied for 565,000 credit cards, using customer names and money. Customers were charged unnecessary fees, saw their credit scores fall or were simply confused when debit and credit cards they never asked for showed up in the mail.

“Was the Great Financial Crisis so long ago that all chasteness and propriety are already out the window? This scam has been apparently going on for five years,” writes Josh Brown, a financial blogger. “These people are fearless.”

Do more heads need to roll at Wells Fargo?

Wells Fargo is paying $185 million in fines after the Los Angeles City Attorney and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that Wells Fargo employees had secretly set up new fake bank and credit card accounts in order to meet sales targets.
In some cases, Wells Fargo customers were hit with overdraft fees and other charges because their money had been unknowingly moved from their regular account to a fake one.