NationStates Jolt Archive

Which nation or government is the most ridiculas regarding administration and law?

I'd have to say Saudi Arabia because they ban random stuff under pain of death, like the bannment of anything with two crossing lines on it for example.

Which nation or government is the most ridiculas regarding administration and law?

I'd have to say Saudi Arabia because they ban random stuff under pain of death, like the bannment of anything with two crossing lines on it for example.

I fear I must...

http://www.ownedirl.com/grammar_time.gif

Most ridiculous contemporary or historical government?

I'd have to say Saudi Arabia because they ban random stuff under pain of death, like the bannment of anything with two crossing lines on it for example.

Forgive me for not taking your word on this.

I'd like some links to said Saudi Arabian laws. Thanks.

Oh, and when you CAN'T find them, I'd like you to report yourself to the office for total thread failure.

The nation of South Lizasauria, for the lack of spelling skills and for making useless threads. :p

Forgive me for not taking your word on this.

I'd like some links to said Saudi Arabian laws. Thanks.

It's Saudi-fucking-Arabia. I wouldn't be surprised.

I read that the Iranians just updated their death penalty to include pornographers. :p Not that that's "rediculas" if you're a hardcore Islamist, but to us in the West it looks a bit silly, if I can speak for all billion of us. :p

I read that the Iranians just updated their death penalty to include pornographers. :p Not that that's "rediculas" if you're a hardcore Islamist, but to us in the West it looks a bit silly, if I can speak for all billion of us. :p

Man, those guys had a revolution against freedom, so nothing would surprise me... Except this and the fact they didn't face the death penalty already. :p

Which nation or government is the most ridiculas regarding administration and law?

I'd have to say Saudi Arabia because they ban random stuff under pain of death, like the bannment of anything with two crossing lines on it for example.

I don't think the most ridiculous nation exists yet. But it will one day. :cool:

It's Saudi-fucking-Arabia. I wouldn't be surprised.

It's also South-fucking-Lizasauria, and he tends to make things up.

It's also South-fucking-Lizasauria, and he tends to make things up.

Yeah, true.

Italy is pure comedy.

What the hell is up with Palestine? Are they even a real country?!

What the hell is up with Palestine? Are they even a real country?!

Not technically. They're territories, I believe. :)

It's also South-fucking-Lizasauria, and he tends to make things up.
There is always the off chance of him getting something right for once though. :p

I read that the Iranians just updated their death penalty to include pornographers. :p Not that that's "rediculas" if you're a hardcore Islamist, but to us in the West it looks a bit silly, if I can speak for all billion of us. :p

The FBI apparently has an "Adult Obscenity Task Force (http://www.sltrib.com/justice/ci_6146981)" to protect people in the USA from porn they wanted to buy... because apparently porn is illegal there.

There is always the off chance of him getting something right for once though. :p

Hey, I'm always willing to see that happen. Hence my request for sources. Which, as always, he will either ignore, or throw something up he hasn't read that actually proves him wrong.

If he actually DOES back himself up, I'll be very happy for him. And shocked.

The FBI apparently has an "Adult Obscenity Task Force (http://www.sltrib.com/justice/ci_6146981)" to protect people in the USA from porn they wanted to buy... because apparently porn is illegal there.

I love this:
"None of the three films has a plot line," an FBI investigator wrote in a statement detailing the charge. "The films consist entirely of scenes of hard-core sexual acts being performed."

Um...yeah? Please...like any of us follow the 'plot' anyway.

I love this:
Um...yeah? Please...like any of us follow the 'plot' anyway.

Plus, DVDs and the Internet killed the porn star "actor".

The FBI apparently has an "Adult Obscenity Task Force (http://www.sltrib.com/justice/ci_6146981)" to protect people in the USA from porn they wanted to buy... because apparently porn is illegal there.

Utah and Iran are probably kindred spirits. :p The problem with our obscenity laws is that they rely on "community standards," meaning media is obscene if locals believe it is. I think your average Utah Mormon is probably scandalized by Donald Duck not wearing pants, so porn is probably out of the question in that state. :p I know it to be true at least that in many Utah towns, you can't find a movie theater that will show an "R-rated" movie. It gets nutty out in the desert.

I dunno, go for a job in Provo Utah, and put in your resume 'Atheist'.

Utah and Iran are probably kindred spirits. :p The problem with our obscenity laws is that they rely on "community standards," meaning media is obscene if locals believe it is. I think your average Utah Mormon is probably scandalized by Donald Duck not wearing pants, so porn is probably out of the question in that state. :p I know it to be true at least that in many Utah towns, you can't find a movie theater that will show an "R-rated" movie. It gets nutty out in the desert.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/index.html

"The Task Force's trial prosecutors and law enforcement agents partner with the Nation's 93 United States Attorneys to initiate and conduct investigations and prosecutions under federal statutes prohibiting obscenity crimes involving the transportation of obscene matter via the mails, common carriers, interactive computer services, or other means or facilities of interstate or foreign commerce."

"Land of the free" and "first amendment", indeed.

If he actually DOES back himself up, I'll be very happy for him. And shocked.
He did try once. It ended up being anecdotal evidence regarding his classmates, or something to that effect.

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/index.html

"The Task Force's trial prosecutors and law enforcement agents partner with the Nation's 93 United States Attorneys to initiate and conduct investigations and prosecutions under federal statutes prohibiting obscenity crimes involving the transportation of obscene matter via the mails, common carriers, interactive computer services, or other means or facilities of interstate or foreign commerce."

"Land of the free" and "first amendment", yeah, right.

U.S. Attorneys have a lot of discretionary power - what's legal in one state isn't legal in another in many cases at the federal level. It can be quite lopsided in cases like this, where "standards" in backwaters like Utah contradict more mainstream tastes in Ohio. One of my professors who I still keep in contact with just took a job as a U.S. Attorney in San Diego - whole other world, compared to his last job as U.S. Attorney back east in a few ways.

Utah and Iran are probably kindred spirits. :p The problem with our obscenity laws is that they rely on "community standards," meaning media is obscene if locals believe it is. I think your average Utah Mormon is probably scandalized by Donald Duck not wearing pants, so porn is probably out of the question in that state. :p I know it to be true at least that in many Utah towns, you can't find a movie theater that will show an "R-rated" movie. It gets nutty out in the desert.

Drinking in Utah is also something that doesn't really occur all that often. It seriously sucks in Utah.

In fact, their big attraction,the Great Salt Lake, is stinky and covered and flying, biting insects.

Why would anyone go to Utah, except to marry, like, nine different women.

U.S. Attorneys have a lot of discretionary power - what's legal in one state isn't legal in another in many cases at the federal level. It can be quite lopsided in cases like this, where "standards" in backwaters like Utah contradict more mainstream tastes in Ohio. One of my professors who I still keep in contact with just took a job as a U.S. Attorney in San Diego - whole other world, compared to his last job as U.S. Attorney back east in a few ways.

What are you saying, that the federal statutes that ban porn "trafficking" - not child porn, adult porn with consenting individuals where both buyer and seller are also adults and consent to the transaction - somehow are negated by your little paragraph there? In the future, when you make little remarks about what to 'us in the West' 'looks a bit silly', try to be a bit less self-righteous, especially if you come from a country like the USA which ain't so free at all...

I love this:


Um...yeah? Please...like any of us follow the 'plot' anyway.

What, other than men coming 'to clean the pool'.

U.S. Attorneys have a lot of discretionary power - what's legal in one state isn't legal in another in many cases at the federal level.

Um, wha? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.

Drinking in Utah is also something that doesn't really occur all that often. It seriously sucks in Utah.

In fact, their big attraction,the Great Salt Lake, is stinky and covered and flying, biting insects.

Why would anyone go to Utah, except to marry, like, nine different women.

There's plenty of vice to be found in Utah. :p The Mormons just seem to be clannish to the point where they basically take over certain towns and stifle dissent, so they can prohibit and forbid and censor to their collective heart's content. There's still a good number of "regular" people there, though - you only need watch Highway-15 at the border to see them flock to the casinos and out of Utah every weekend to know that a lot of them are perfectly okay with "sin." :p

USA

They may not always be the most harsh but some of the fucking weirdest laws on the planet.

Example

The Arkansas legislature passed a law that states that the Arkansas River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little Rock.

Or

In Miami, it's illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

Um, wha? I'm not sure that sentence even makes sense.

You've heard of the different federal districts, I'm sure - 9th Circuit, 7th Circuit - California and thereabouts, Chicago and thereabouts, respectively. U.S. Attorneys enforce different standards depending on which districts they serve in, and even among different regions within those districts - hence, different standards. ;)

What are you saying, that the federal statutes that ban porn "trafficking" - not child porn, adult porn with consenting individuals where both buyer and seller are also adults and consent to the transaction - somehow are negated by your little paragraph there? In the future, when you make little remarks about what to 'us in the West' 'looks a bit silly', try to be a bit less self-righteous, especially if you come from a country like the USA which ain't so free at all...

I'm not trying to justify the fact that what a Californian might understand to be his "rights" might not really be his rights in Utah. It's not a good thing, by and large - the fact that we don't always live up to our ideals doesn't invalidate our ideals, it's a matter of vigilance and insistence on progress - it would be nice if we could walk around with one of those pocket-sized Cato Institute DOI/Constitutions in our hand all day and never encounter problems, but it doesn't always play out that way.

You've heard of the different federal districts, I'm sure - 9th Circuit, 7th Circuit - California and thereabouts, Chicago and thereabouts, respectively. U.S. Attorneys enforce different standards depending on which districts they serve in, and even among different regions within those districts - hence, different standards. ;)

This is true.

This is not, however, what you said. You didn't say different standards, you said:

what's legal in one state isn't legal in another in many cases at the federal level.

Which is very wrong in twofold:

1) as you note now, US attorney's serve in districts, not states. Districts need not conform to specific state boundaries. When you are talking about matters of federal law, you discuss districts, not states. Discussion of intrastate law is erronius and irrelevant when discussing federal statute

2) The fact that US attorneys have discretionary power in interpreting the law and deciding to prosecute federal offenses does not change what is legal, or illegal. What is illegal under federal law is illegal everywhere in the country (a few, very few exceptions which need not be gotten into here). To say that something can be legal, under federal law when you're standing in New York but that very same action is illegal under federal law when you are standing in New Jersey is fundamentally in opposition to how federal law works. yes, USAOs have discretion in deciding to prosecute, but that doesn't magically transform an illegal act into a legal one just because a USAO declined to prosecute due to regional cultural norms.

And by the way, federal districts and federal circuits are not the same thing, and can not be used interchangably.

I fear I must...

http://www.ownedirl.com/grammar_time.gif

Heh heh... parachute pants...

I'm not trying to justify the fact that what a Californian might understand to be his "rights" might not really be his rights in Utah.
well yes, that's the 10th amendment.

Unless your'e talking about rights articulated under the constitution, then by and large, they are the same.

the fact that we don't always live up to our ideals doesn't invalidate our ideals

There is quite a bit of dissonance between what some of you would like to claim these "ideals" to be, and what they in reality are, and they ain't exactly "land of the free, home of the brave, beacon on a hill, equal before the law". So, don't speak for "us in the West" any more.

1) as you note now, US attorney's serve in districts, not states. Districts need not conform to specific state boundaries. When you are talking about matters of federal law, you discuss districts, not states. Discussion of intrastate law is erronius and irrelevant when discussing federal statute.

I was imprecise in saying "state," that's a fact, and federal law is federal law of course. If a Federal law isn't *ever* enforced in Florida, while frequently being enforced in Chicago, it has the practical effect of not "existing" in Florida in a loose sense, but not in the legal sense, no question.

2) The fact that US attorneys have discretionary power in interpreting the law and deciding to prosecute federal offenses does not change what is legal, or illegal. What is illegal under federal law is illegal everywhere in the country (a few, very few exceptions which need not be gotten into here). To say that something can be legal, under federal law when you're standing in New York but that very same action is illegal under federal law when you are standing in New Jersey is fundamentally in opposition to how federal law works. yes, USAOs have discretion in deciding to prosecute, but that doesn't magically transform an illegal act into a legal one just because a USAO declined to prosecute due to regional cultural norms.

That's true. Depending on which judge you draw, and which U.S. Attorney is assigned your case, you might as well be in Timbuktu in some cases, but the law as it's written is the same - I shouldn't have phrased it like I was doing.

And by the way, federal districts and federal circuits are not the same thing, and can not be used interchangably.

Understood. :)

I mean, if you're saying that while federal law is, on paper, the same, cultural norms in various regions might lead to certain laws being enforced differenlty, or rarely, depending on where you are in the nation then...

well, sure, ok. I guess that's true everywhere though.

And just 'cause I'm a nitpicky bastard, I should point out that there is only ONE United States Attorney per district, and as such US attorneys are not "assigned" to a case.

In fact, US attorneys RARELY try a case directly themselves. Everything below US attorneys are AUSAs, Assistant United States Attorneys. They are the ones that actually typically try cases. There are only like...93 US attorneys in the country, one per federal district.

There is quite a bit of dissonance between what some of you would like to claim these "ideals" to be, and what they in reality are, and they ain't exactly "land of the free, home of the brave, beacon on a hill, equal before the law". So, don't speak for "us in the West" any more.

I apologize if I came across as polemical - that wasn't my intent. I do believe us to be, loosely speaking, part of "the West" in the general sense. Our differences are many and variegated, and we're all progressing at different rates. I do, however, see us here as proceeding from a "Western" tradition, however loosely defined, setbacks notwithstanding.

And just 'cause I'm a nitpicky bastard, I should point out that there is only ONE United States Attorney per district, and as such US attorneys are not "assigned" to a case.

In fact, US attorneys RARELY try a case directly themselves. Everything below US attorneys are AUSAs, Assistant United States Attorneys. They are the ones that actually typically try cases. There are only like...93 US attorneys in the country, one per federal district.

That's true, again - my former professor certainly isn't the 'big cheese' at his office, so he's almost certainly one of the latter category, an "AUSA." :) Which is probably a good thing, considering the tenuous job security of some of his superiors nowadays. :p

The nation of South Lizasauria, for the lack of spelling skills and for making useless threads. :p

Not ALL of them are useless, stop rubbing in fallacies baptist.

It's also South-fucking-Lizasauria, and he tends to make things up.

Forgive me for not taking your word on this.

I'd like some links to said Saudi Arabian laws. Thanks.

Oh, and when you CAN'T find them, I'd like you to report yourself to the office for total thread failure.



As usual you have to turn every thread I post on into redundant trolling...

And that thread with Saudi Arabia banning things that cross was posted here by somone other than me. Is your memory THAT bad?

As usual you have to turn every thread I post on into redundant trolling...

The truth isn't trolling - she is correct in asking you to back up your claims, and you are known for not doing that or just making stuff up.

The truth isn't trolling - she is correct in asking you to back up your claims, and you are known for not doing that or just making stuff up.

Well what the hell was all the profanity and labelling me the most ridiculas person/nation in the world then if it isn't trolling?

Well what the hell was all the profanity and labelling me the most ridiculas person/nation in the world then if it isn't trolling?

The swearing was because that post was directly parodying another post with similar structure.

The swearing was because that post was directly parodying another post with similar structure.

Yeah, With another poster's name intertwined with the profanity.

Well what the hell was all the profanity and labelling me the most ridiculas person/nation in the world then if it isn't trolling?

Huh,... weren't you the first one to label Saudi Arabia as the most ridiculous nation in the world?

And that claim is highly POV'd,...

Huh,... weren't you the first one to label Saudi Arabia as the most ridiculous nation in the world?

And that claim is highly POV'd,...

Saudi Arabia is not a poster on NS. You can't troll that which isn't a player or else all Phelps, Scientology and GOP bashers would be gone by now.

Saudi Arabia is not a poster on NS. You can't troll that which isn't a player or else all Phelps, Scientology and GOP bashers would be gone by now.

Do you know what the definition of trolling is?

Saudi Arabia is not a poster on NS. You can't troll that which isn't a player or else all Phelps, Scientology and GOP bashers would be gone by now.

Ah, I see... but I guess ad hominem fallacies were never used here. :)

Do you know what the definition of trolling is?

Trying to get a rise out of someone or a group of people on purpose.

Trying to get a rise out of someone or a group of people on purpose.

Soooo... why does the subject of trolling need to post on NS, again?

Trying to get a rise out of someone or a group of people on purpose.

I think it's flaming when it's aimed at you, personally. Trolling would be more like posting an intentionally inflammatory topic or trying to change the subject toward one. Not sure if that's entirely accurate, but it may be.

Honestly? Its more of a question of what government and/or nation ISN'T ridiculous, really. America is hypocritical, Britain is a nanny state, China is... China, etc.

You look into nations, you'll find things that aren't exactly admirable. This is a matter of logic, considering who created said nations.

But the most ridiculous? Well I'd give that title to the USA, where only there can you sue anyone for anything and probably win, among other things that have probably been stated ad nausiem.

I am yet to see a SL thread that wasn't made of epic fail. I'm not blaming him personally... Maybe it is a vast conspiracy.

I am yet to see a SL thread that wasn't made of epic fail. I'm not blaming him personally... Maybe it is a vast conspiracy.

what exactly makes this thread fail?

what exactly makes this thread fail?

You asked...

Inarticulate title
Spelling mistake in title
Little explanation or expansion on the topic you wish to discuss such as criteria or aspects
Post littered with spelling and grammar mistakes
Your answer to your own question is poorly written and
when asked to cite a specific source for your wild claim you refuse to.


Grade: fail.

i'd be tempted to say all of them. sure the saudi's are rediculous. the americans are rediculous. who, where, isn't? in some manor? that wouldn't seem TOWERINGLY rediculous to someone from somewhere else?

or even from the same place? i think a lot of americans, myself included, find america rediculous. probably more then a few saudi's, russians, lichtenstieners, ad infinitum, find their own lands rediculous, along with everyone else's.

having only lived in one (in THIS mundane life on THIS earth), the infamous u.s., i don't really feel well qualified to judge others.

=^^=
.../\...

Saudi Arabia is not a poster on NS. You can't troll that which isn't a player or else all Phelps, Scientology and GOP bashers would be gone by now.

Oh, who says there isn't? *goes off and makes a random puppet* :D

It's Saudi-fucking-Arabia. I wouldn't be surprised.

Saudi Arabia is not a poster on NS. You can't troll that which isn't a player or else all Phelps, Scientology and GOP bashers would be gone by now.

It is now.

Saudi Arabia is not a poster on NS. You can't troll that which isn't a player or else all Phelps, Scientology and GOP bashers would be gone by now.

No you can troll using it as the subject, you can not flame a country or a non posting entity

I am not saying that is what you are doing by any means but it is possible

You asked...

Inarticulate title
Spelling mistake in title
Little explanation or expansion on the topic you wish to discuss such as criteria or aspects
Post littered with spelling and grammar mistakes
Your answer to your own question is poorly written and
when asked to cite a specific source for your wild claim you refuse to.


Grade: fail.

/thread

Turkmenistan, because of this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov) .

South Lizasauria (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=south_lizasauria)....I mean they're a PSYCHOTIC DICTATORSHIP!!

EDIT: Damn, People thought of it before me.....:(

Turkmenistan, because of this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov) .

You know he's dead, right?

You know he's dead, right?

Yes I do.
His reign in life was still insane, despite him being dead and all.

I know him being dead is an improvement, but I still kind of miss having him and his insane schemes on the news.

Turkmenistan, because of this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov) .

http://www.lakeshoredrivein.com/images/shrek3.jpg

BTW, why is it that even after seeing the correct spelling, some people cannot spell 'ridiculous'?

My personal answer would be the US, not only do they call themselves "land of the free *giggle* home of the brave (oh come on)".. but while they do that, they have several laws which prohibit "this" and "that" in the different states (like the examples from Utah or whatever) not only that, they don't even have a "LAW" for the whole of the US, its all divided up into these states.. I mean.. WTF! (pardon my french) why not make national laws instead, throw out the whole "state" level so minorities in very religious states are not compromising their freedom by just living there... also laws against religion being any sort of argument for any action which involves the freedom of others would be good... that judicial system is a complete joke (look at the Paris Hilton case for example.. if it was a young black man, he would've gotten hanged or something :P )

You asked...

Inarticulate title
Spelling mistake in title
Little explanation or expansion on the topic you wish to discuss such as criteria or aspects
Post littered with spelling and grammar mistakes
Your answer to your own question is poorly written and
when asked to cite a specific source for your wild claim you refuse to.


Grade: fail.

Actually, I grade it F-. Each of those points, as well as things like the minimuum requirements for logical argument, has been repeated to SL ad nausium. SL still can't seem to cogitate what's wrong. That's beyond fail. :(