Five minutes of hate news

[DarthOne]

Yeah, those countries also suck, and should uncommnify themselves. Meanwhile, in America, we have the castle doctrine in all 50 states.

And that's a stupidly small term for rape as well.

Anarcho-tyrrany! It’s a wonderful phrase!

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Frankly, and this is going to be an ugly but true statement: if they were gullible enough to believe this as adults, I have no sympathy for them at all.

For the kids? Again:

Privatizing education fixes much of the problem.


Look, I'm an ardent believer in the actual great replacement theory, as applied to America: anti-natalists getting replaced by Latin immigrants (legal and illegal), frequently fleeing communism. I see this as a massive win. I actively want more Venezuelan immigration, in fact. Instant asylum for those fleeing communism is the best policy.

And the dems mostly did it to themselves lol.

Something related to this discussion.

These people are god damned insufferable.

 

[colorles]

Robber who broke into hair salon is beaten by its black-belt owner and kept as a sex slave for three days... fed only Viagra

In a tale reminiscent of Pulp Fiction, Viktor Jasinski, 32, told police that 28-year-old Olga Zajak, pictured, overpowered him, dragged him into a back room, and molested him for three days.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Here it is.

• She Powerpuff GIrl'd the intruder with one kick
• Chained him up to a radiator
• Fed him only Viagra and fucked him like a rabbit for three days, but she defended herself saying it was "only a few times"
• She gave him 1,000 rubles and some new clothes after she released him, believing he'd "learned his lesson"
• He went straight to the coppers
• She's indignant that she was arrested, calling him "ungrateful" because he got free shit out of it

I swear this is something out of the fucking Onion.

Whether this story is true or not...it is an accurate illustration of the insane horniness of women when they can just "let loose" out of public view. On a somewhat related note there is a sizable "market" of women as young as their late 20's but mostly in their thirties and forties that have decent paying careers, but do not marry or "settle" for men. but, if you are a very good looking and athletic man, they will literally pay you - through money, gifts, ect - to have sex with them whenever they get horny. or just straight up live with them, don't even have to have a job the woman will work for you. this is what happens when women increasingly have more money than men, and value looks and sexual appeal in men more than anything else

Not that men don't get horny and rapey if allowed to just "let loose" as well though. examples being all throughout history in war.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

Something related to this discussion.

These people are god damned insufferable.

Their lifestyle requires external validation.

That's somewhat reasonable, in this case. Because pretty sure they constantly hear 'when you gonna have/adopt some kids?' (There are plenty of other lifestyles requiring external validation that are not reasonable, are actively self-destructive, and causes people to actively sabotage people who aren't living a hollow life full of nothing.)

But they need to be smug about it. They armor themselves in contempt. Shield themselves with disgust. And arm themselves with hate. And then proceed to deny that particular bit of reality and try to show how superior their lives are.

By being smug assholes.

 

[Abhorsen]

Again, I wouldn't worry about people like this. If they aren't teachers, they are self solving problems.

 

[Karmic Acumen]

Alex Jones is back on Twitter.

 

[DarthOne]

Whether this story is true or not...it is an accurate illustration of the insane horniness of women when they can just "let loose" out of public view. On a somewhat related note there is a sizable "market" of women as young as their late 20's but mostly in their thirties and forties that have decent paying careers, but do not marry or "settle" for men. but, if you are a very good looking and athletic man, they will literally pay you - through money, gifts, ect - to have sex with them whenever they get horny. or just straight up live with them, don't even have to have a job the woman will work for you. this is what happens when women increasingly have more money than men, and value looks and sexual appeal in men more than anything else

Not that men don't get horny and rapey if allowed to just "let loose" as well though. examples being all throughout history in war.

Disgusting.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Apparently Catholics are domestic terrorists.

 

[Cherico]

Apparently Catholics are domestic terrorists.

you know we can solve all of this by disolving the FBI.

 

[DarthOne]

you know we can solve all of this by disolving the FBI.

And the CIA and ATF while we are at it.

 

[ATP]

Apparently Catholics are domestic terrorists.

Which mean,that catholics in USA are still normal,if deep state hate them.Good,i feared,that homosexual mafia take over them long ago.

And the CIA and ATF while we are at it.

Amen.

 

[DarthOne]

Squatter Granted Ownership of Old Man's House, Sells It for More Than Half a Million While the Elder Lives on Paltry Pension

Squatter Granted Ownership of Old Man's House, Sells It for Half a Million

"Squatter’s rights” is a major problem for property owners, especially when they can gain possession over the owners' objections.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The idea that a total stranger could sell a house you own without your permission, pocket all the proceeds, and then blame you for making his life a "nightmare" sounds like the plot of a movie.

But that is exactly what happened to a U.K. resident named Colin Curtis, according to Metro UK.

The property originally belonged to Doris Curtis, who died in the 1980s and left her house to her son, Colin. Mr. Curtis moved out in 1996 to live in another inherited property but continued paying the tax on the Newbury Park house in East London.

In 1997, a man named Keith Best noticed that the house was vacant and started renovating it. Best said he spent about $188,000 renovating the empty three-bedroom semi-detached house, eventually moving his family into the house in 2012.

Best then filed an adverse possession claim to become the registered owner, according to The Daily Mail.

The adverse possession law enables a trespasser occupying a property openly for an extended period, often 10 to 20 years, to then legally gain possession and title ownership.

Colin Curtis launched legal challenges but he lacked sufficient legal grounds as the registered executor because his mother had not made a will.

As Best demonstrated visible control of the house since 1997 without permission, arguing this met the legal time period threshold, a High Court judge overturned an initial ownership rejection and ruled in Best's favor.

After 12 years of battling in court, Curtis passed away in 2018 while living on about $321 a week from his state pension and tax credits.

Best then sold the inherited family house for nearly $665,000.

Still, Best claims that he's the victim because of the bad publicity, telling the Daily Mail, "Under the law I had a right to make this house mine so if anybody has a problem with that, they should be angry at the law, not me. I've done everything by the book. Nobody was cheated and I legally got what was mine."



If you think this kind of thing could never happen in the U.S., think again.

In March, Fox News published an article about U.S. homeowners finding themselves embroiled in lengthy and expensive legal fights to remove squatters from their properties.

The article spotlighted the case of Delaware resident Burton Banks, who tried to sell vacant land inherited from his late father only to discover that his neighbor, Melissa Schrock, had erected a goat pen on the $125,000 property and claimed two-thirds of an acre as her own via adverse possession.

Despite paying taxes on the land, Banks lost in court as Schrock insisted the area had "always" been her backyard because she openly encroached on it for the 20 years as required by law.

Even with no evidence backing her claim of using the land for two decades, the judge ruled in Schrock's favor, depriving Banks of rightful ownership due to her mere assertion.

In August, the New York Post covered a story of a suburban Atlanta man who was arrested for calling 911 when he went to visit his property and found "weapons, a prostitute, a bunch of dogs in the back, my fence broken down."



In California, a COVID-19-related eviction moratorium made it impossible for landlords to evict their tenants even if they owe more than $100,000 in rent, according to Fox News.

Much like the tragic case in the U.K., authorities in many states on our side of the pond may side with scheming squatters over inheritors or owners of empty homes.

It feels like we're living in the Wild West where squatter takes all.

With more laws protecting criminals rather than homeowners, it's important to be vigilant and protect your own property because if you lose it, most likely, you're on your own.

 

[Abhorsen]

Honestly, I don't have an issue with adverse possession. It requires open and blatant control and changing of the property for at least a decade, usually longer, and that control being unchallenged. It's really important to stop people from finding really old land deeds and claiming they own everything that was built on them, and actually allows more certainty in who owns a property.

It also aligns pretty well with the classic lockean concept of the creation of property, where you mix your work/labor into an effectively abandoned property, and it becomes your own.


The real issue of squatters rights is when they are very short term, and there the US is very different than the UK. In the US, if you have a squatter, in most US jurisdictions it's pretty easy to kick them out. Not in the UK, and that's an issue.

 

[Marduk]

Honestly, I don't have an issue with adverse possession. It requires open and blatant control and changing of the property for at least a decade, usually longer, and that control being unchallenged. It's really important to stop people from finding really old land deeds and claiming they own everything that was built on them, and actually allows more certainty in who owns a property.

It also aligns pretty well with the classic lockean concept of the creation of property, where you mix your work/labor into an effectively abandoned property, and it becomes your own.


The real issue of squatters rights is when they are very short term, and there the US is very different than the UK. In the US, if you have a squatter, in most US jurisdictions it's pretty easy to kick them out. Not in the UK, and that's an issue.

It was back before the age of electronic communications, databases and so on.
The state knows who pays the taxes and other bills on a property or not.
In either case, that fact gives a fair indication of who should take the property, and it probably should not be some random asshole.
It's not the colonial age where there are huge areas of unclaimed land.
Hell, if squatters were claiming some unused land with unknown ownership status in bumfuck nowhere that would at least be more in line with the spirit of the law.
But here we are talking about malicious people grabbing highly valued real estate in middle of established settlements, usually not even the cheapest and shittiest ones, and hoping the owner won't pay attention, the longer, the better, because he thinks the deeds, paying taxes and police will ensure his continued ownership like it does in civilized places even if he's away.

This is in line with some dark age shit when some dude with a bunch of thugs moves into an abandoned keep in the borderlands and declares himself a lord of the land, because why the hell not. But at least then if the former owner came back he could contest the matter with catapults and shit. Don't we have civilization now to prevent everyone from having to keep a crew of troops in every castle at all times?

 

[Abhorsen]

This is in line with some dark age shit when some dude with a bunch of thugs moves into an abandoned keep in the borderlands and declares himself a lord of the land, because why the hell not. But at least then if the former owner came back he could contest the matter with catapults and shit. Don't we have civilization now to prevent everyone from having to keep a crew of troops in every castle at all times?

No, it isn't. This is a false analogy, because you added thugs. There are no thugs here. There are no threats. The person who owned the land, somehow, either didn't care or didn't notice despite obvious and blatant action that is required for an adverse possession.

It's effectively abandoned property (no I don't care about paying taxes, submission to theft doesn't reinforce ones property rights). It's also a necessary check against ending up in any number of bad situations.

If you have land that you literally do not care about for ten to twenty years: you don't do anything with it, you don't own it. Instead, the person who's been actively improving it has mixed it with enough of their labor that it becomes theirs.

Going to definitely unused land, and building a house there is absolutely appropriate. And if no one shows up for decades, that clearly was abandoned land.

 

[mrttao]

No, it isn't. This is a false analogy, because you added thugs. There are no thugs here. There are no threats. The person who owned the land, somehow, either didn't care or didn't notice despite obvious and blatant action that is required for an adverse possession.

It's effectively abandoned property (no I don't care about paying taxes, submission to theft doesn't reinforce ones property rights). It's also a necessary check against ending up in any number of bad situations.

If you have land that you literally do not care about for ten to twenty years: you don't do anything with it, you don't own it. Instead, the person who's been actively improving it has mixed it with enough of their labor that it becomes theirs.

Going to definitely unused land, and building a house there is absolutely appropriate. And if no one shows up for decades, that clearly was abandoned land.

The logic you gave is more fitting on bigger time scales.
Land can be an invest / saving method.
Just 10 years of so called "abandonment" is too short.

 

[Marduk]

No, it isn't. This is a false analogy, because you added thugs. There are no thugs here. There are no threats.

Thugs make no difference here. If the dude did it alone, alone with a gun, with a family, a clan, a "family" of Italian gentlemen, or whatever, makes no difference here, the thing being done is t he same, the amount of "boots on the ground" and their relationship with the leader is the only difference. There is always an implied direct or indirect threat of some type and scale with a property conflict.

The person who owned the land, somehow, either didn't care or didn't notice despite obvious and blatant action that is required for an adverse possession.

Yes. That's why this should be struck from law as exploitable relic of an age bygone.

It's effectively abandoned property (no I don't care about paying taxes, submission to theft doesn't reinforce ones property rights). It's also a necessary check against ending up in any number of bad situations.

Then you support anarcho-tyranny.
No land taxation without land claim recognition and legal protection.
If you want to be an anarchist, at least go all the way and prepare to live with the consequences.

If you have land that you literally do not care about for ten to twenty years: you don't do anything with it, you don't own it. Instead, the person who's been actively improving it has mixed it with enough of their labor that it becomes theirs.

Then you have no property rights. It's your land, you have the right to manage it as you please and it's no one's business if you decide to leave it fallow. Especially random dudes passing by trying to get free premium real estate by subterfuge under excuse of disagreeing with your property management decisions.

Going to definitely unused land, and building a house there is absolutely appropriate. And if no one shows up for decades, that clearly was abandoned land.

Then you have no civilization. Because that's where rules like this are meant to work. Frontier, uncivilized lands where most land in such state will be in fact of long abandoned or unclaimed, and of relatively little value usually.
In middle of first world country's towns or cities, not a fucking chance, this is a malicious exploit for free real estate and people who do this should be treated as criminals, no ifs and buts.
Failing that, the state should pay market rate compensation plus punitive fees for not protecting perfectly legal property claims of their taxpaying resident.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

MOD FIGHT!
MOD FIGHT EVERYBODY!
IT'S ON!

ITS FUCKING ON!

 

[DarthOne]

MOD FIGHT!
MOD FIGHT EVERYBODY!
IT'S ON!

ITS FUCKING ON!

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

 

[Abhorsen]

The logic you gave is more fitting on bigger time scales.
Land can be an invest / saving method.
Just 10 years of so called "abandonment" is too short.

Usually it's around 15 years. But note that's not just 15 years of living there, you also need to improve and maintain the property, etc.

Personally, I think 15 years is about fine, that's about a fifth of someone's average lifespan. You spend that long working at something, fine.

Thugs make no difference here. If the dude did it alone, alone with a gun, with a family, a clan, a "family" of Italian gentlemen, or whatever, makes no difference here, the thing being done is t he same, the amount of "boots on the ground" and their relationship with the leader is the only difference. There is always an implied direct or indirect threat of some type and scale with a property conflict.

Literally you just keep giving more examples with threats lol. The whole point of adverse possession is that it's not done by threat or force or deception.

Yes. That's why this should be struck from law as exploitable relic of an age bygone.

A doesn't follow from B. Man you remain bad at this argument thing.

Then you support anarcho-tyranny.
No land taxation without land claim recognition and legal protection.
If you want to be an anarchist, at least go all the way and prepare to live with the consequences.

No, I don't recognize the authority of the state to tax. So I don't care if you pay it or not, it's completely orthogonal to the question of who owns a property.

Though it does bring us to another moral reason for adverse possession: repossession after state theft. The state steals land all the time (eminent domain for but one example among many). After it steals the land, who owns it? The original land owner? Forever? No, at some point, while they retain a claim against the state for compensation, the land itself is not theirs any more, as others have mixed their labor with it so much.

Then you have no property rights. It's your land, you have the right to manage it as you please and it's no one's business if you decide to leave it fallow. Random dudes passing by trying to get free premium real estate by subterfuge in particular under excuse of disagreeing with my property management decisions.

Again, look at you, trying to slip in bad analogies! It's so cute, and wrong. "By subterfuge" immediately disclaims any adverse possession rights. Adverse possession needs to be open, blatant, and without violence or the threat of it.

Then you have no civilization. Because that's where rules like this are meant to work. Frontier, uncivilized lands where most land in such state will be in fact of long abandoned or unclaimed, and of relatively little value usually.
In middle of first world country's towns or cities, not a fucking chance, this is a malicious exploit for free real estate and people who do this should be treated as criminals, no ifs and buts.
Failing that, the state should pay market rate compensation plus punitive fees for not protecting perfectly legal property claims of their taxpaying resident.

If we didn't have abandoned land in the middle of cities, then there's be no issue with the rule, as no one would be able to blatantly occupy and improve land for well over a decade in the middle of a city.

Also, why should the population of a city pay compensation to a person who isn't bothered by someone openly squatting on what was his land? If he doesn't care about the land, why should anyone care about his compensation?