Current Events > Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Mal_Fet 02/13/18 11:33:22 PM #203:	Can someone spraypaint the judge's car and get away with it then because it's "art"? --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896045015] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Can someone spraypaint the judge's car and get away with it then because it's "art"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordMarshal 02/13/18 11:34:07 PM #204:	So laws under dictators are fine because "thats the law"? --- There can be only one. <cite>LordMarshal posted [p:896045052] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>So laws under dictators are fine because "thats the law"?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/13/18 11:34:23 PM #205:	Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896045066] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HydroCannabinol 02/13/18 11:35:00 PM #206:	Im gonna go to the white house and spray paint a communist flag because itz ART and then SUE the government when they clean it --- Steam ID: Mind_Explosion I thought I chose very easy, not brand new to the game. - CheesyPhil on SC2 <cite>HydroCannabinol posted [p:896045098] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Im gonna go to the white house and spray paint a communist flag because itz ART and then SUE the government when they clean it</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:35:50 PM #207:	A_Good_Boy posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896045137] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mal_Fet 02/13/18 11:36:31 PM #208:	A_Good_Boy posted... That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. I like how you're ok with this becasuse "the law is the law" in a case where a man has to pay millions to clean his property, but you get up in arms over enforcing immigration law as it is written. --- Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell <cite>Mal_Fet posted [p:896045170] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> I like how you're ok with this becasuse "the law is the law" in a case where a man has to pay millions to clean his property, but you get up in arms over enforcing immigration law as it is written.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:37:25 PM #209:	Mal_Fet posted... Can someone spraypaint the judge's car and get away with it then because it's "art"? Oh look, Mal is commenting on things where doesnt know all of the details and that he doesnt understand fully. Must be a day ending in -y. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896045214] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone spraypaint the judge's car and get away with it then because it's "art"?</quote> Oh look, Mal is commenting on things where doesnt know all of the details and that he doesnt understand fully. Must be a day ending in -y.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/13/18 11:38:32 PM #210:	Mal_Fet posted... A_Good_Boy posted... That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. I like how you're ok with this becasuse "the law is the law" in a case where a man has to pay millions to clean his property, but you get up in arms over enforcing immigration law as it is written. You've seen me cheering on legal judgements, yeah? Hmm --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896045274] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> I like how you're ok with this becasuse "the law is the law" in a case where a man has to pay millions to clean his property, but you get up in arms over enforcing immigration law as it is written.</quote> You've seen me cheering on legal judgements, yeah? Hmm </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KillCommunism 02/13/18 11:39:16 PM #211:	That shit quite literally is NOT art. The only thing that comes close to resembling art in that entire thing is the Biggie painting. The rest of it looks just like the standard graffiti you see everywhere. And no matter how good I think the Biggie pic is, it doesn't belong there. I wonder how the people defending this would feel if some Right Wingers decided to draw a bunch of pics of Donald Trump on some wall using the same defense these guys did? Would you defend them too? <cite>KillCommunism posted [p:896045305] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>That shit quite literally is NOT art. The only thing that comes close to resembling art in that entire thing is the Biggie painting. The rest of it looks just like the standard graffiti you see everywhere. And no matter how good I think the Biggie pic is, it doesn't belong there. I wonder how the people defending this would feel if some Right Wingers decided to draw a bunch of pics of Donald Trump on some wall using the same defense these guys did? Would you defend them too?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:39:20 PM #212:	Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed. Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896045312] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed.</quote> Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St0rmFury 02/13/18 11:39:40 PM #213:	HydroCannabinol posted... Im gonna go to the white house and spray paint a communist flag because itz ART and then SUE the government when they clean it You need to get Trump's permission first though. --- "Average Joe" is a trolling term since it's completely an opinion. "Overachieving" is also an opinion. - SBAllen (Hellhole: 52458377) <cite>St0rmFury posted [p:896045328] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>HydroCannabinol posted...</cite> <quote>Im gonna go to the white house and spray paint a communist flag because itz ART and then SUE the government when they clean it</quote> You need to get Trump's permission first though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:39:51 PM #214:	KillCommunism posted... That shit quite literally is NOT art. The only thing that comes close to resembling art in that entire thing is the Biggie painting. The rest of it looks just like the standard graffiti you see everywhere. And no matter how good I think the Biggie pic is, it doesn't belong there. I wonder how the people defending this would feel if some Right Wingers decided to draw a bunch of pics of Donald Trump on some wall using the same defense these guys did? Would you defend them too? He allowed them to paint on the walls. Your argument is invalid. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896045338] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>KillCommunism posted...</cite> <quote>That shit quite literally is NOT art. The only thing that comes close to resembling art in that entire thing is the Biggie painting. The rest of it looks just like the standard graffiti you see everywhere. And no matter how good I think the Biggie pic is, it doesn't belong there. I wonder how the people defending this would feel if some Right Wingers decided to draw a bunch of pics of Donald Trump on some wall using the same defense these guys did? Would you defend them too?</quote> He allowed them to paint on the walls. Your argument is invalid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:40:47 PM #215:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed. Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive. Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896045376] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed.</quote> Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive.</quote> Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/13/18 11:42:50 PM #216:	Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed. Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive. Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property. Maybe he shouldnt have been impatient. Maybe he should have followed the law. The fact of the matter isnt that he destroyed the artwork. The fact is that he destroyed it without following the law. If he would have waited, the artists wouldnt have won. End. Of. Story. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896045487] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed.</quote> Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive.</quote> Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property.</quote> Maybe he shouldnt have been impatient. Maybe he should have followed the law. The fact of the matter isnt that he destroyed the artwork. The fact is that he destroyed it without following the law. If he would have waited, the artists wouldnt have won. End. Of. Story.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
babyeatermax 02/13/18 11:43:37 PM #217:	That graffiti is dope. Lovin that Biggie Smalls mural --- This guy Not changing this sig until Vegas gets an NBA team <cite>babyeatermax posted [p:896045529] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>That graffiti is dope. Lovin that Biggie Smalls mural</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
0AbsoluteZero0 02/13/18 11:46:48 PM #218:	Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... DarkChozoGhost posted... He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01 Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas." Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that. And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property. He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation. --- -The Admirable <cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted [p:896045699] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkChozoGhost posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01</quote> Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas."</quote> Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property.</quote> He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:54:22 PM #219:	0AbsoluteZero0 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... DarkChozoGhost posted... He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01 Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas." Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that. And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property. He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation. I don't think that the owner should have to wait for the period at all. Such a law might have been necessary for documentation in the past, but it's entirely unnecessary today. That piece of art was documented the moment it was finished, likely by multiple people. There are probably multiple photos of the process as well. Hell, one of the documented images of this piece of art is in this very topic. The only purpose the law can serve anymore is to exploit those who don't follow it. What's ridiculous is you thinking this law is somehow necessary to protect works of art. In present times, it does nothing to protect art, and the only benefit it offers artists is an extra paycheck if someone fails to follow it. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896046084] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkChozoGhost posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01</quote> Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas."</quote> Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property.</quote> He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation.</quote> I don't think that the owner should have to wait for the period at all. Such a law might have been necessary for documentation in the past, but it's entirely unnecessary today. That piece of art was documented the moment it was finished, likely by multiple people. There are probably multiple photos of the process as well. Hell, one of the documented images of this piece of art is in this very topic. The only purpose the law can serve anymore is to exploit those who don't follow it. What's ridiculous is you thinking this law is somehow necessary to protect works of art. In present times, it does nothing to protect art, and the only benefit it offers artists is an extra paycheck if someone fails to follow it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
L0Z 02/13/18 11:55:28 PM #220:	see what he should do now is follow the judge home and grab him, tie him up and spray paint into his mouth to make him suffer <cite>L0Z posted [p:896046126] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>see what he should do now is follow the judge home and grab him, tie him up and spray paint into his mouth to make him suffer</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/13/18 11:57:26 PM #221:	sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... Dragonblade01 posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself. And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame. That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed. Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive. Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property. Maybe he shouldnt have been impatient. Maybe he should have followed the law. The fact of the matter isnt that he destroyed the artwork. The fact is that he destroyed it without following the law. If he would have waited, the artists wouldnt have won. End. Of. Story. It's the end of the story regarding the strict letter of the law. But I have not once said that this decision will be overturned by a higher court. I have always been discussing what the law "should be," not what it "is." Of course, you aren't interested in having that conversation, because you already agree with the letter of the law. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:896046215] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could have done that already, all he had to do was a few days. He already managed like 3 decades, dude played himself.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that the owner of said property doesn't need to adhere to some arbitrary time frame.</quote> That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> Sure, he should have followed the law. But the law should also be changed.</quote> Why? Artists deserve rights when it comes to their artwork when theyre alive.</quote> Because property owners deserve rights when it comes to the images on their private property.</quote> Maybe he shouldnt have been impatient. Maybe he should have followed the law. The fact of the matter isnt that he destroyed the artwork. The fact is that he destroyed it without following the law. If he would have waited, the artists wouldnt have won. End. Of. Story.</quote> It's the end of the story regarding the strict letter of the law. But I have not once said that this decision will be overturned by a higher court. I have always been discussing what the law "should be," not what it "is." Of course, you aren't interested in having that conversation, because you already agree with the letter of the law.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/14/18 12:00:06 AM #222:	Dragonblade01 posted... It's the end of the story regarding the strict letter of the law. But I have not once said that this decision will be overturned by a higher court. I have always been discussing what the law "should be," not what it "is." Of course, you aren't interested in having that conversation, because you already agree with the letter of the law. I mean, it was only 90 days. He could have easily have just waited considering he allowed his building to be in that state for nearly 30 years. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896046345] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>It's the end of the story regarding the strict letter of the law. But I have not once said that this decision will be overturned by a higher court. I have always been discussing what the law "should be," not what it "is." Of course, you aren't interested in having that conversation, because you already agree with the letter of the law.</quote> I mean, it was only 90 days. He could have easily have just waited considering he allowed his building to be in that state for nearly 30 years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
0AbsoluteZero0 02/14/18 12:02:35 AM #223:	Dragonblade01 posted... 0AbsoluteZero0 posted... Dragonblade01 posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... Dragonblade01 posted... DarkChozoGhost posted... He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01 Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas." Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that. And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property. He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation. I don't think that the owner should have to wait for the period at all. Such a law might have been necessary for documentation in the past, but it's entirely unnecessary today. That piece of art was documented the moment it was finished, likely by multiple people. There are probably multiple photos of the process as well. Hell, one of the documented images of this piece of art is in this very topic. The only purpose the law can serve anymore is to exploit those who don't follow it. What's ridiculous is you thinking this law is somehow necessary to protect works of art. In present times, it does nothing to protect art, and the only benefit it offers artists is an extra paycheck if someone fails to follow it. Well Im sorry, but the law clearly doesnt agree with you. Owners do not have completely unrestricted rights over their property. The government can seize your land under eminent domain. If an endangered bird builds a nest on your roof, you cant legally just destroy the nest. And if you allow an artist to create a work on your property, you have to give them sufficient notice before removing it. Just accept the L and move on. --- -The Admirable <cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted [p:896046471] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkChozoGhost posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't paint over the graffiti (once again, artwork that was made with his explicit permission) because he was impatient, he painted over for the sole purpose of destroying their artwork. He had no intentions of repainting the building for development. His intent, and pending permits were for the demolition of the building. Painting over just the art had nothing to do with advancing the project. Alexanaxela Error1355 ChaoticKnuckles @Dragonblade01</quote> Though I concede that I misread the article and that this was something the owner allowed, I still believe that the owner should have more authority over their property than the artist should have over their "canvas."</quote> Not when theyre still alive and you told them to put artwork there and you fail to understand the law. You cant destroy artwork like that.</quote> And I think the law should be changed so that an owner can freely remove art that is physically on their property.</quote> He absolutely was going to be legally allowed to paint over the graffiti, he simply had to wait for a short period. I assume this is built into the law to allow artists time to document or preserve their work. Its entirely reasonable, and its ridiculous that youre acting like the building owner is having his rights trampled in this situation.</quote> I don't think that the owner should have to wait for the period at all. Such a law might have been necessary for documentation in the past, but it's entirely unnecessary today. That piece of art was documented the moment it was finished, likely by multiple people. There are probably multiple photos of the process as well. Hell, one of the documented images of this piece of art is in this very topic. The only purpose the law can serve anymore is to exploit those who don't follow it. What's ridiculous is you thinking this law is somehow necessary to protect works of art. In present times, it does nothing to protect art, and the only benefit it offers artists is an extra paycheck if someone fails to follow it.</quote> Well Im sorry, but the law clearly doesnt agree with you. Owners do not have completely unrestricted rights over their property. The government can seize your land under eminent domain. If an endangered bird builds a nest on your roof, you cant legally just destroy the nest. And if you allow an artist to create a work on your property, you have to give them sufficient notice before removing it. Just accept the L and move on.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/14/18 12:04:07 AM #224:	A_Good_Boy posted... I mean, it was only 90 days. Only? Are you actually serious? --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896046540] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>I mean, it was only 90 days.</quote> Only? Are you actually serious?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 12:06:24 AM #225:	Dragonblade01 posted... It's the end of the story regarding the strict letter of the law. But I have not once said that this decision will be overturned by a higher court. I have always been discussing what the law "should be," not what it "is." Of course, you aren't interested in having that conversation, because you already agree with the letter of the law. Just because you disagree that artists deserve to have protection over their works of art doesn't mean that it's wrong. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896046643] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dragonblade01 posted...</cite> <quote>It's the end of the story regarding the strict letter of the law. But I have not once said that this decision will be overturned by a higher court. I have always been discussing what the law "should be," not what it "is." Of course, you aren't interested in having that conversation, because you already agree with the letter of the law.</quote> Just because you disagree that artists deserve to have protection over their works of art doesn't mean that it's wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/14/18 12:09:01 AM #226:	dave_is_slick posted... A_Good_Boy posted... I mean, it was only 90 days. Only? Are you actually serious? He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896046754] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> I mean, it was only 90 days.</quote> Only? Are you actually serious?</quote> He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hockeybub89 02/14/18 12:12:23 AM #227:	The Admiral posted... Also, this isn't art. It's art. Just art that the owner should be allowed to paint over since the art was painted without his consent. --- http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/NIR_Hockey.png http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ <cite>hockeybub89 posted [p:896046900] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Also, this isn't art. </quote> It's art. Just art that the owner should be allowed to paint over since the art was painted without his consent.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shanefu22 02/14/18 12:12:47 AM #228:	50Blessings posted... This is why Trump won. Truth. --- Bench- 550 Squat-665 Dead- 825 <cite>shanefu22 posted [p:896046921] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>50Blessings posted...</cite> <quote>This is why Trump won.</quote> Truth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/14/18 12:13:17 AM #229:	A_Good_Boy posted... He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable? Drop the hyperbole and I'll answer. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896046943] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable?</quote> Drop the hyperbole and I'll answer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
St0rmFury 02/14/18 12:16:38 AM #230:	hockeybub89 posted... It's art. Just art that the owner should be allowed to paint over since the art was painted without his consent. Um... he consented to it. --- "Average Joe" is a trolling term since it's completely an opinion. "Overachieving" is also an opinion. - SBAllen (Hellhole: 52458377) <cite>St0rmFury posted [p:896047100] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote>It's art. Just art that the owner should be allowed to paint over since the art was painted without his consent.</quote> Um... he consented to it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 12:19:34 AM #231:	@hockeybub89 posted... The Admiral posted... Also, this isn't art. It's art. Just art that the owner should be allowed to paint over since the art was painted without his consent. HE ALLOWED THEM TO PAINT ON HIS BUILDING --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896047241] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>@hockeybub89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Also, this isn't art. </quote> It's art. Just art that the owner should be allowed to paint over since the art was painted without his consent.</quote> HE ALLOWED THEM TO PAINT ON HIS BUILDING</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheGrindery 02/14/18 12:21:15 AM #232:	And I'm supposed to believe in a just and loving God. <cite>TheGrindery posted [p:896047324] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>And I'm supposed to believe in a just and loving God.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 02/14/18 12:21:35 AM #233:	dave_is_slick posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable? Drop the hyperbole and I'll answer. You're right my bad. The building was used as a mural space sometime in the 90s and had been used as one until 2013. So at the most he had managed to go 8395 days before getting the permit but couldn't keep his shit together for another 90. OK, now answer. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.4 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:896047338] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable?</quote> Drop the hyperbole and I'll answer.</quote> You're right my bad. The building was used as a mural space sometime in the 90s and had been used as one until 2013. So at the most he had managed to go 8395 days before getting the permit but couldn't keep his shit together for another 90. OK, now answer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/14/18 12:24:02 AM #234:	A_Good_Boy posted... dave_is_slick posted... A_Good_Boy posted... He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable? Drop the hyperbole and I'll answer. You're right my bad. The building was used as a mural space sometime in the 90s and had been used as one until 2013. So at the most he had managed to go 8395 days before getting the permit but couldn't keep his shit together for another 90. OK, now answer. Yes. In this day and age with the tech we have, 90 days absolutely is unreasonable. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896047449] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> He could make it 10950 days but 90 is too unreasonable?</quote> Drop the hyperbole and I'll answer.</quote> You're right my bad. The building was used as a mural space sometime in the 90s and had been used as one until 2013. So at the most he had managed to go 8395 days before getting the permit but couldn't keep his shit together for another 90. OK, now answer.</quote> Yes. In this day and age with the tech we have, 90 days absolutely is unreasonable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/14/18 12:24:41 AM #235:	sktgamer_13dude posted... HE ALLOWED THEM TO PAINT ON HIS BUILDING And then changed his mind. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896047478] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>HE ALLOWED THEM TO PAINT ON HIS BUILDING</quote> And then changed his mind.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 12:25:14 AM #236:	dave_is_slick posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... HE ALLOWED THEM TO PAINT ON HIS BUILDING And then changed his mind. And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896047499] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>HE ALLOWED THEM TO PAINT ON HIS BUILDING</quote> And then changed his mind.</quote> And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheGrindery 02/14/18 12:27:20 AM #237:	Apparently the only thing you have that you get to change your mind about is your body. <cite>TheGrindery posted [p:896047586] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Apparently the only thing you have that you get to change your mind about is your body.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
0AbsoluteZero0 02/14/18 12:34:04 AM #238:	TheGrindery posted... Apparently the only thing you have that you get to change your mind about is your body. Yeah, because having to wait 90 days to allow an artist time to document or otherwise preserve their work is totally comparable to having no rights over your own property. Fucking get real. --- -The Admirable <cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted [p:896047847] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheGrindery posted...</cite> <quote>Apparently the only thing you have that you get to change your mind about is your body.</quote> Yeah, because having to wait 90 days to allow an artist time to document or otherwise preserve their work is totally comparable to having no rights over your own property. Fucking get real.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
dave_is_slick 02/14/18 12:36:55 AM #239:	sktgamer_13dude posted... And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that. So don't fucking preach about "change the law" when NOT following a stupid law is more often than not the first step. Get the fuck over yourself. --- The most relaxing version of Aquatic Ambiance I've ever heard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl61y1XM7sM <cite>dave_is_slick posted [p:896047969] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that.</quote> So don't fucking preach about "change the law" when NOT following a stupid law is more often than not the first step. Get the fuck over yourself.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 02/14/18 12:39:34 AM #240:	dave_is_slick posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that. So don't fucking preach about "change the law" when NOT following a stupid law is more often than not the first step. Get the fuck over yourself. Its not a stupid law. Its helping protect artist rights with their artwork. The guy could have painted over it if he followed the steps. He didnt. He painted over dozens of pieces of art that he legally couldnt do. He learned a valuable lesson; patience. Stay salty though. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:896048081] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that.</quote> So don't fucking preach about "change the law" when NOT following a stupid law is more often than not the first step. Get the fuck over yourself.</quote> Its not a stupid law. Its helping protect artist rights with their artwork. The guy could have painted over it if he followed the steps. He didnt. He painted over dozens of pieces of art that he legally couldnt do. He learned a valuable lesson; patience. Stay salty though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
EnragedSlith 02/14/18 12:41:13 AM #241:	The QUESTION is whether he owned the art because he owned the medium on which it was expressed. The ruling was that he did not. I do agree that its a little iffy, because I can sympathize with both groups. This sounds like it goes further, though. --- ultimate milf hunter https://i.imgur.com/lCEdce6.gifv https://i.imgur.com/2N1Ezia.gifv https://i.imgur.com/ukJ6sPJ.jpg https://youtu.be/IDYaHvDiTr4 <cite>EnragedSlith posted [p:896048155] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>The QUESTION is whether he owned the art because he owned the medium on which it was expressed. The ruling was that he did not. I do agree that its a little iffy, because I can sympathize with both groups. This sounds like it goes further, though.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/14/18 1:11:19 AM #242:	dave_is_slick posted... sktgamer_13dude posted... And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that. So don't fucking preach about "change the law" when NOT following a stupid law is more often than not the first step. Get the fuck over yourself. Requiring permits for certain modifications to property isn't necessarily stupid, though. I do agree the amount was steep. The judge awarded the maximum $150,000 to each of the artists, though the judge said the defendant's poor behavior in court affected the outcome. --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:896049299] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>dave_is_slick posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>And then he didn't follow the law. Simple as that.</quote> So don't fucking preach about "change the law" when NOT following a stupid law is more often than not the first step. Get the fuck over yourself.</quote> Requiring permits for certain modifications to property isn't necessarily stupid, though. I do agree the amount was steep. The judge awarded the maximum $150,000 to each of the artists, though the judge said the defendant's poor behavior in court affected the outcome.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 02/14/18 1:39:31 AM #243:	@Mal_Fet posted... A_Good_Boy posted... That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could. I like how you're ok with this becasuse "the law is the law" in a case where a man has to pay millions to clean his property, but you get up in arms over enforcing immigration law as it is written. He's not paying that to "clean his property." Painting over the art had nothing to do with his plans for the property, as it was scheduled to be demolished. Again he painted over it for the sole purpose* of destroying the art.* To reiterate, he was not being charged for making changes to his property. The building was scheduled to be demolished in 10 months. He had an internationally famous collection of artwork destroyed secretly during the night, and it had nothing to do with his future plans for the property. The judge would have ruled in his favor. The only reason the judge rule in the artists' favor is because Wolkoff secretly destroyed the artwork with clear malicious intent. If it were not for Wolkoff's clear malicious intent, he would not have had to pay money to the artists for destroying their internationally known, community revitalizing artwork that they had made on his property with his permission. --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:896050272] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>@Mal_Fet posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>That owner probably should have adhered to proper legal channels to challenge the law instead of breaking it. He had plenty of time prior to that 90 day time frame to figure something out, shame he had to resort to the worst option that he could.</quote> I like how you're ok with this becasuse "the law is the law" in a case where a man has to pay millions to clean his property, but you get up in arms over enforcing immigration law as it is written.</quote> He's not paying that to "clean his property." Painting over the art had nothing to do with his plans for the property, as it was scheduled to be demolished. Again he painted over it for the sole purpose of destroying the art. To reiterate, he was not being charged for making changes to his property. The building was scheduled to be demolished in 10 months. He had an internationally famous collection of artwork destroyed secretly during the night, and it had nothing to do with his future plans for the property. The judge would have ruled in his favor. The only reason the judge rule in the artists' favor is because Wolkoff secretly destroyed the artwork with clear malicious intent. If it were not for Wolkoff's clear malicious intent, he would not have had to pay money to the artists for destroying their internationally known, community revitalizing artwork that they had made on his property with his permission.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
0AbsoluteZero0 02/14/18 1:43:54 AM #244:	Facts? Hah, dont tell Mal_Fet your facts. He scoffs at any information that doesnt go along with his agenda. --- -The Admirable <cite>0AbsoluteZero0 posted [p:896050417] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Facts? Hah, dont tell Mal_Fet your facts. He scoffs at any information that doesnt go along with his agenda.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ColdOne666 02/14/18 2:02:12 AM #245:	Loliberals --- FFX is the best game of all time. The only good Nintendo franchises are Pokemon and Fire Emblem. Comics are for kids. https://i.imgur.com/LJ3WSyB.gif Reylo Ship <cite>ColdOne666 posted [p:896051007] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Loliberals</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LinksLiege 02/14/18 2:07:28 AM #246:	DarkChozoGhost posted... This is not as simple as that article is trying to make it seem. This area has been a landmark for a long time. I'm not saying the ruling was necessarily correct, but there was clearly a lot more behind this than some guy removing vandalism and getting sued over it. It's deeper than that. Here's an article I found about the property and the owner. https://licpost.com/jerry-wolkoff-to-add-affordable-housing-art-studios-to-5-pointz-plan No point in trying to inject nuance into this. The buttrage has reached nuclear levels and all there is to do is sit back and laugh. --- This is LinksLiege's signature. It is fantastic. <cite>LinksLiege posted [p:896051159] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkChozoGhost posted...</cite> <quote>This is not as simple as that article is trying to make it seem. This area has been a landmark for a long time. I'm not saying the ruling was necessarily correct, but there was clearly a lot more behind this than some guy removing vandalism and getting sued over it. It's deeper than that. Here's an article I found about the property and the owner. https://licpost.com/jerry-wolkoff-to-add-affordable-housing-art-studios-to-5-pointz-plan</quote> No point in trying to inject nuance into this. The buttrage has reached nuclear levels and all there is to do is sit back and laugh.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Re-iNcarnated 02/14/18 2:35:13 AM #247:	Brooklyn Another place to avoid. <cite>Re-iNcarnated posted [p:896051981] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><quote>Brooklyn </quote> Another place to avoid.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Re-iNcarnated 02/14/18 2:37:20 AM #248:	50Blessings posted... This is why Trump won. This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol <cite>Re-iNcarnated posted [p:896052045] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>50Blessings posted...</cite> <quote>This is why Trump won.</quote> This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/14/18 2:37:40 AM #249:	Insanity. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:896052055] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Insanity.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Paragon21XX 02/14/18 2:55:44 AM #250:	Lots of "da law iz da law" posts in this topic. Sounds like they came straight out of Judge Dredd. Re-iNcarnated posted... 50Blessings posted... This is why Trump won. This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol Rome was not built in a day, and neither are bad policies and laws undone as soon as they are identified. --- Hmm... <cite>Paragon21XX posted [p:896052476] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote>Lots of "da law iz da law" posts in this topic. Sounds like they came straight out of Judge Dredd. <cite>Re-iNcarnated posted...</cite> <quote><cite>50Blessings posted...</cite> <quote>This is why Trump won.</quote> This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol</quote> Rome was not built in a day, and neither are bad policies and laws undone as soon as they are identified.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Re-iNcarnated 02/14/18 3:22:16 AM #251:	Paragon21XX posted... Re-iNcarnated posted... 50Blessings posted... This is why Trump won. This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol Rome was not built in a day, and neither are bad policies and laws undone as soon as they are identified. And we shall live in a time where the law is unbiased, completely justified and rulings are 100 percent accurate. Definitely not a time where corporations and administration act in favor of their profit. I'll wake you up when you are ready. Until then. This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol <cite>Re-iNcarnated posted [p:896053175] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Re-iNcarnated posted...</cite> <quote><cite>50Blessings posted...</cite> <quote>This is why Trump won.</quote> This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol</quote> Rome was not built in a day, and neither are bad policies and laws undone as soon as they are identified.</quote> And we shall live in a time where the law is unbiased, completely justified and rulings are 100 percent accurate. Definitely not a time where corporations and administration act in favor of their profit. I'll wake you up when you are ready. Until then. This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 02/14/18 3:26:54 AM #252:	Paragon21XX posted... Lots of "da law iz da law" posts in this topic. Sounds like they came straight out of Judge Dredd. Re-iNcarnated posted... 50Blessings posted... This is why Trump won. This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol Rome was not built in a day, and neither are bad policies and laws undone as soon as they are identified. It's actually a good law, and it was used appropriately in this particular case. And the lawsuit started before Trump's presidency. It just ended now --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:896053283] in Man cleans... [t:76316327]...</cite> <quote><cite>Paragon21XX posted...</cite> <quote>Lots of "da law iz da law" posts in this topic. Sounds like they came straight out of Judge Dredd. <cite>Re-iNcarnated posted...</cite> <quote><cite>50Blessings posted...</cite> <quote>This is why Trump won.</quote> This is happening in TRUMPS presidency lol</quote> Rome was not built in a day, and neither are bad policies and laws undone as soon as they are identified.</quote> It's actually a good law, and it was used appropriately in this particular case. And the lawsuit started before Trump's presidency. It just ended now</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Current Events > Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Man cleans graffiti from his building; ordered to pay "artists" $6.7M