If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Utah lawmakers pass bill mandating that at least two members of the state's five member liquor commission be consumers of alcohol, which also means they can't be members of LDS. Religious intolerance?   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 177
    More: Interesting, Utah, religious intolerance, Alcohol law, tourism industry, commissioners  
•       •       •

3261 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Feb 2012 at 12:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



177 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-25 12:53:57 AM  

slc11082: Wrong, the indian wars had nothing to do with religion.


jesus farking christ.
 
2012-02-25 12:54:40 AM  

ArkAngel: Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers combined. To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.


Cosmetology isn't just a racket in Utah - this is a nationwide problem. Every state has ridiculous regulations, and every state has a useless bureaucracy dedicated to making sure they are followed.

Go government!
 
2012-02-25 12:59:13 AM  

what_now: Of course. But no more so than any other religion. You want to believe that your god knocked up a virgin and then tortured his child to death for your sake? cool. No less weird then believing some dude found some magic plates on the ground that said "I am your god now. Give me your womens".



True, but I find a large difference in the fact most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes. I don't take any religion particularly seriously, but particularly have to facepalm in the face of Mormonism and Scientology. They're kind of on a pillar above all the others because their history is known and people can't understand why their belief systems aren't... well... believable.
 
2012-02-25 01:00:16 AM  
Bleh. Proven guilty of confidence schemes. FTFM
 
2012-02-25 01:01:30 AM  

djkutch: They couldn't even muster Three-Fifths.


okay, if I weren't broke I'd give a month's TF for that one.
 
2012-02-25 01:04:04 AM  

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: gimmegimme: ArkAngel: gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: ArkAngel: Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

At my last haircut, my hairdresser spoke in overwhelming support of the need for professionalization of the state regulatory agency. This doesn't mean that you need career people (which would lead to the cartelization you mentioned), it means that the people in charge of regulations should know WTF they're talking about.

The problem is trying to find someone with both the knowledge and the time/desire. It leads to only established owners being there.

gimmegimme: ArkAngel: melopene: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission.

You don't want someone who's got some experience in utilities on your Public Service Commission?

Don't want someone with medical training on your state's Medical Board?

Don't want someone with knowledge of hairdressing/nail care and the related sanitation and safety issues to be in charge of your state Board of Cosmetology?

You wouldn't want someone who's never had a drink in their life to be in charge of your Alcoholic Beverage Control board either, then.

Actually, this is usually the case and that's the problem. It tends to produce cartels and overwhelming bureaucracy for new entrants

Are you saying that it's bad for hair stylists and those in relate professions to have to learn stuff about their profession?

Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, ...


I realize the the plural of anecdote is not "data", but concerning my friend and teaching - education majors generally have among the lowest SAT scores of those admitted to college. Warning - PDF (new window) And I do feel it's a bit disingenuous to compare a stylist to a doctor. A bad haircut doesn't generally throw up lawsuits or gravestones. But if you're feeling giddy, ask a state medical board (or even a regular doctor) about nurse practitioners. Or ask the state bar or a lawyer about paralegals working on their own or online legal form services.

melopene: ArkAngel: Let that be up to the consumer. If I did those sorts of things to my hair and/or face, I would probably want someone who was well trained. But that's me. If it would be cheaper to go somewhere else that does just a good of a job using life experience and common sense, then let someone choose that.

While I understand where you're coming from, that is a very naive point of view. Price is the driving factor for the vast majority of consumers, and safeguards are not generally considered until adverse effects occur. There are a number of markets that, while they don't fall under the classic microeconomic theories of 'market failures', do fall under the category of 'public value failures'. Cosmetology is one of them. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the work of Barry Bozeman.


People always have their own preferences. Mine generally fall somewhere between efficacy, safety, and price. It's why shopping trips sometimes take me going to three different grocery stores (one for bulk, one for regular, one for produce). Sure it costs extra gas money, but it's worth it in grocery savings and selection. I couldn't care much less about my hair, so I choose the cheapest option (so long as I can just walk in and get it done fast). Others (including my mother) care about what their hair looks like and spend an abundance. When I buy a vacuum from WalMart as opposed to Sears, it stands a greater likelihood of breaking down prematurely, but I buy it because I can't afford any from Sears.

As for price over safety, I would bring up the example of Volvo. Expensive cars, yes, but well known for their safety record. Or organic food - nutritionally identical, but lacking some of the scarier pesticides and higher priced because of it.

And while I may look up Bozeman if I remember him tomorrow, it is far to late tonight for me to try and dive into an economic treatise.
 
2012-02-25 01:04:55 AM  
Having an all-Mormon liquor control board would be like having Congressional hearings on a woman's right to access birth control with an all-male panel.
 
2012-02-25 01:05:04 AM  

Luneward: what_now: Of course. But no more so than any other religion. You want to believe that your god knocked up a virgin and then tortured his child to death for your sake? cool. No less weird then believing some dude found some magic plates on the ground that said "I am your god now. Give me your womens".



True, but I find a large difference in the fact most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes. I don't take any religion particularly seriously, but particularly have to facepalm in the face of Mormonism and Scientology. They're kind of on a pillar above all the others because their history is known and people can't understand why their belief systems aren't... well... believable.


True. However, if we assume that all religious leaders, gurus, and prophets are essentially con-men of one sort or another, the only difference is the period of time since establishment of the different faiths. This may or may not be a safe assumption, but I think it is the foundation upon which many people who see all religions as equally repugnant build their attitude.

I do agree that there is something more offensive on a visceral level about Joseph Smith, but on a rational level I'm not so sure.
 
2012-02-25 01:05:41 AM  

what_now: SquiggelyGrounders: Cant we agree that Mormonism is batshiat insane?

Of course. But no more so than any other religion. You want to believe that your god knocked up a virgin and then tortured his child to death for your sake? cool. No less weird then believing some dude found some magic plates on the ground that said "I am your god now. Give me your womens".

But don't elevate your recent history to farking crusades/Inquisition/holocaust levels.
That will just piss me off.


Now wait just a minute! How dare you be so dismissive of the plight of the Pastafarians!?!
 
2012-02-25 01:06:04 AM  

Luneward: most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes.


You don't know much about the Counsel of Nicaea, do you.
 
2012-02-25 01:13:05 AM  

what_now: Luneward: most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes.

You don't know much about the Counsel of Nicaea, do you.


Which is why I added onto my post. We can't really prove anything from back then. The records are too old and too overwritten by people who wanted to hide things. Yes, we know there was a lot of selective editing of biblical texts. Yes we know a lot of books were added, removed, and selectively modified. We really have no idea what they actually did have before they took the knife and paste to it, aside from the truth they probably removed anything that would be impossible to swallow for people they were trying to convict.

Yes, they were con men of sorts. We just can't prove it, or how they did it so they can't be subjected to the same level of batshiat crazy test we can apply to the Mormons. Doesn't make any of the other religions any more valid. Just harder to use anything resembling proof (Not that people that involved in their faith would listen to reason anyway, but not exactly the point I'm attempting to reach for here)
 
2012-02-25 01:16:54 AM  

Lsherm: ArkAngel: Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers combined. To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.

Cosmetology isn't just a racket in Utah - this is a nationwide problem. Every state has ridiculous regulations, and every state has a useless bureaucracy dedicated to making sure they are followed.

Go government!



Oh, for pete's sake...

www.nypost.com

img.dailymail.co.uk

4.bp.blogspot.com


People can get well and truly jacked up in a beauty salon... It's not too much to ask that practitioners are properly trained and certified.

Most people want policies that serve society... not your dogmatic desire to make society serve your ideology.

If you don't want to suffer the godawful tyranny of community and dreadful notions like "public interest," fine... go live in the farking woods.

Marxism of the Right (new window)
 
2012-02-25 01:17:27 AM  
Wait. This is a job that requires drinking as part of the job?

Why the fark isn't every single Utah farker applying??
 
2012-02-25 01:20:46 AM  

Nadie_AZ: Utah is going 1 step forward and 2 back. They do this and then they pass legislation stating the only sex ed taught in school is abstinence.


So, there should be a sex ed oversight board, of which at least some members must be sexually active?
 
2012-02-25 01:23:21 AM  
ArkAngel: You're making comparisons that are plainly apples to oranges, and making yourself out to be well-educated on a matter while only providing anecdotal evidence. You can't be bothered to read an abstract of Bozeman's seminal work on public values, which even the most conservative of economics schools require of students these days. Sigh.

Just let it go, seriously. We get it, you're a libertarian. If you ever DO get around to reading the work on public value failure, or even if you notice the post by technicolor-misfit, you'll either get it or you'll continue to bang your head against a wall.
 
2012-02-25 01:25:52 AM  

Luneward: Which is why I added onto my post. We can't really prove anything from back then. The records are too old and too overwritten by people who wanted to hide things. Yes, we know there was a lot of selective editing of biblical texts. Yes we know a lot of books were added, removed, and selectively modified. We really have no idea what they actually did have before they took the knife and paste to it, aside from the truth they probably removed anything that would be impossible to swallow for people they were trying to convict.

Yes, they were con men of sorts. We just can't prove it, or how they did it so they can't be subjected to the same level of batshiat crazy test we can apply to the Mormons. Doesn't make any of the other religions any more valid. Just harder to use anything resembling proof (Not thaeople that involved in their faith would listen to reason anyway, but not exactly the point I'm attempting to reach for here)


Well...ok. But just because the record keeping from 400 AD wasn't stellar doesn't meant that these people didn't say "Hey, this is a group of easily led peasants. Lets incorporate their pagan holidays of Saturnalia and Spring equinox into our religion and charge them 10% of all their earnings for life".

If I knew more about Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or Hindu, I'm pretty sure I could find parallels.
 
2012-02-25 01:27:34 AM  
I live in Memphis, the Pork BBQ capital of the world. We began as a wild west river city, known for our brothels and saloons. Now we have more churches per capita than any city in the country. And more liquor stores. You can't buy wine in a grocery store. The liquor stores can't sell cork screws, but you can buy lottery tickets anywhere. Church bingo is illegal.

This city will make you crazy.
 
2012-02-25 01:27:51 AM  

what_now: Luneward: most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes.

You don't know much about the Counsel of Nicaea, do you.


Neither do you. The Justinian Code had no provision for comvicting con men. Con men is a 19th century concept
 
2012-02-25 01:31:01 AM  

g4lt: what_now: Luneward: most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes.

You don't know much about the Counsel of Nicaea, do you.

Neither do you. The Justinian Code had no provision for comvicting con men. Con men is a 19th century concept


The question isn't whether they were convicted or not, and I don't believe anyone has implied that in this thread.
 
2012-02-25 01:33:44 AM  

melopene: Darth_Lukecash: Does a Psychiatrist have to be crazy to work in mental health?

They do have to be trained experts, but that said, many people who study psychology (apart from management and organizational studies) and psychiatry do so because they have some sort of issue they wish to better understand.

Would you prefer that the law required that they be distillers/brewers/vintners? I don't know of anyone who does those things who don't sample their own product. Not that I *technically* know, since brewing's still illegal in my state. Mumblegrumblebiatchpissmoan..


Is that just commercial brewing? Jimmy Carter made homebrewing and vinting legal for any US citizen back in 1976. Still no distilling, though.
 
2012-02-25 01:36:06 AM  

what_now: slc11082: Hey noobs i'm taking about only in the us. Mormons had the highest body count till 9/#1.

The Cherokees would complain about that if any of them were still alive.

Learn some farking US history, I guess.


You might want to as well, if you think that the Mountain Meadows Massacre had nothing to do with the indian wars...
 
2012-02-25 01:36:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Darth_Lukecash: I don't see how the ability to drink would have any bearing on heading up such a commission. It's be like saying you need at least five pedophiles on a child sex ring investigative committee. Or at least one Roman Catholic Priest.

It says "consumer", not "drinker." A consumer could be anyone. A chef consumes alcohol, even if he doesn't drink any of it.


Good point. There should be at least one working bartender on the board, in my opinion.
You know, a person who has practical field experience in serving alcohol, both straight and in mixers, its effects, the profit motives and bullshiat tricks of the trade, and the latest products on the market.
 
2012-02-25 01:37:37 AM  
And yes...I want people experienced with drinking or otherwise consuming alcohol to have a hand in regulating its sale and use. The regulatory agency is a farce otherwise, and amounts to little more than those evangelical Baptists who scream and cry "boycott!" over a movie, book or videogame they don't like because their pastor told them so, without ever experiencing them for themselves and having no intent to do so, except in their case, they have the power to actually prohibit others from doing so.
 
2012-02-25 01:44:47 AM  

culebra: g4lt: what_now: Luneward: most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes.

You don't know much about the Counsel of Nicaea, do you.

Neither do you. The Justinian Code had no provision for comvicting con men. Con men is a 19th century concept

The question isn't whether they were convicted or not, and I don't believe anyone has implied that in this thread.


It's still in the quoted text, read it for yourself.
 
2012-02-25 01:48:50 AM  

buckler: Is that just commercial brewing? Jimmy Carter made homebrewing and vinting legal for any US citizen back in 1976. Still no distilling, though.


Still technically illegal in Alabama. There's a couple of bills in the state legislature again this year, but I haven't heard much on it yet. At the very least, the state senate's already passed a bill allowing us bottle sizes above 16oz, and it's under consideration in the house.

Yeah, you heard that. We're the last state that doesn't allow bombers.
 
2012-02-25 01:53:10 AM  
i290.photobucket.com
 
2012-02-25 01:53:13 AM  
How is this even enforcable?

Bill Romney goes for the position
"Do you drink?"
"ummmm sure?...!"
"Ok you are on the board."
 
2012-02-25 01:53:42 AM  

g4lt: culebra: g4lt: what_now: Luneward: most of the other religions weren't created by men convicted of confidence schemes.

You don't know much about the Counsel of Nicaea, do you.

Neither do you. The Justinian Code had no provision for comvicting con men. Con men is a 19th century concept

The question isn't whether they were convicted or not, and I don't believe anyone has implied that in this thread.

It's still in the quoted text, read it for yourself.


You're likely reading too much into that statement.
 
2012-02-25 01:57:37 AM  

melopene: buckler: Is that just commercial brewing? Jimmy Carter made homebrewing and vinting legal for any US citizen back in 1976. Still no distilling, though.

Still technically illegal in Alabama. There's a couple of bills in the state legislature again this year, but I haven't heard much on it yet. At the very least, the state senate's already passed a bill allowing us bottle sizes above 16oz, and it's under consideration in the house.

Yeah, you heard that. We're the last state that doesn't allow bombers.



Speaking of Alabama, here is State Representative Alvin Holmes (D-umbass):

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-25 01:58:38 AM  

technicolor-misfit: Lsherm: ArkAngel: Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers combined. To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.

Cosmetology isn't just a racket in Utah - this is a nationwide problem. Every state has ridiculous regulations, and every state has a useless bureaucracy dedicated to making sure they are followed.

Go government!


Oh, for pete's sake...

[www.nypost.com image 300x200]

[img.dailymail.co.uk image 468x310]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x349]


People can get well and truly jacked up in a beauty salon... It's not too much to ask that practitioners are properly trained and certified.

Most people want policies that serve society... not your dogmatic desire to make society serve your ideology.

If you don't want to suffer the godawful tyranny of community and dreadful notions like "public interest," fine... go live in the farking woods.

Marxism of the Right (new window)


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you or someone you know is a beneficiary of the byzantine laws nationwide that govern "cosmetology."

Everything you posted is a farking chemical treatment gone wrong. Everything you posted also isn't a haircut gone wrong. You don't want to see the difference because you want to take advantage of the artificial system that prevents competition.

Haircuts aren't "cosmetology". You shouldn't have to spend 10 grand to get a license just to cut hair. You can take a class about making sure your tools are disinfected without having to take ten more about chemical treatments of hair, especially if you don't offer those services.

It's bullshiat. It's bullshiat nationwide, and it is killing the barbershop.

Oppresion of the left: requiring government approval to do ten unskilled jobs you don't offer just to work one skilled job you actually do. Then you actively prevent anyone else, especially the poor, from ever getting into the business by making sure the total cost of the "license" is so high that the poor can't afford it. It's a sham, an artificial labor market created solely to provide for a limited number of people who are wealthy enough to pay for a license but not rich enough to do something else.
 
2012-02-25 02:00:51 AM  

melopene: A libertarian idealogue in charge of such an agency would simply say, 'Who the hell cares? Let them do what they want! Let the market decide!' as women statewide ended up with horrific fungal infections.


As a libertarian I believe that you should be as you wish so long as you cause no harm to others life, liberty or property through fraud or force.

Fungal infections of your scenario includes harm to life (physical well being) through fraud (claiming to be sanitary). I'd hang the offender for that if it was proven to have been deliberate negligence. Merely destroy their life and career if it was through incompetence.
 
2012-02-25 02:05:50 AM  

Lsherm: You shouldn't have to spend 10 grand to get a license just to cut hair.


I shouldn't have to spend 200 grand to get a PhD and credentials to teach graduate coursework in public and nonprofit administration, but this is America and that's how it goes.

Smeggy Smurf: your scenario


You mean history? Government doesn't just invent reasons to intervene, it intervenes when shiat really goes wrong.

Sigh, I give up on people. I'm going to bed.
 
2012-02-25 02:08:21 AM  

The_Sponge: Speaking of Alabama, here is State Representative Alvin Holmes (D-umbass):

Link (new window)


Oh, FFS. I just...this guy...I...man.

"GERMANY!?"

Yeah, what would those Germans know about beer? Which local beer distributor bought this guy?
 
2012-02-25 02:13:12 AM  

slc11082: Read under the banner of heaven. Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.


Dear genius: "Our massacre" HAPPENED on 9/11. Apparently, you should have read the book a little closer. Link (new window)

Personally, I wish everyone who "hates" Mormons would find the balls to move. That's what I did, during my Angry College Student years. Moved to Santa Cruz until I finally grew up and realized that the one constant about anywhere you live is YOU, and if you think everyone around you is unpleasant, odds are that you need to look in the mirror to find the real source of the problem. Utah is an incredibly beautiful State, which is why it was featured in nearly every movie made during the 50's and 60's.
 
2012-02-25 02:23:36 AM  

Lsherm: technicolor-misfit: Lsherm: ArkAngel: Not really. But immovable bureaucracy is not necessary. Example: Jestina Clayton, an African immigrant in Utah, started a hair-braiding business in her home. A competitor complained to the state cosmetology board, which threatened her with $2,000 a day fines for practicing without a license. To get such a license, she would need to attend 2,000 hours of beauty classes - more schooling than the state required for armed security guards, mortgage loan originators, real estate sales agents, EMTs and lawyers combined. To top it off, none of these classes taught African braiding and she didn't do anything else.

Cosmetology isn't just a racket in Utah - this is a nationwide problem. Every state has ridiculous regulations, and every state has a useless bureaucracy dedicated to making sure they are followed.

Go government!


Oh, for pete's sake...

[www.nypost.com image 300x200]

[img.dailymail.co.uk image 468x310]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x349]


People can get well and truly jacked up in a beauty salon... It's not too much to ask that practitioners are properly trained and certified.

Most people want policies that serve society... not your dogmatic desire to make society serve your ideology.

If you don't want to suffer the godawful tyranny of community and dreadful notions like "public interest," fine... go live in the farking woods.

Marxism of the Right (new window)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you or someone you know is a beneficiary of the byzantine laws nationwide that govern "cosmetology."

Everything you posted is a farking chemical treatment gone wrong. Everything you posted also isn't a haircut gone wrong. You don't want to see the difference because you want to take advantage of the artificial system that prevents competition.

Haircuts aren't "cosmetology". You shouldn't have to spend 10 grand to get a license just to cut hair. You can take a class about making sure your tools are disinfected without ...



I think if you're going to work on hair, you should be trained and licensed work on hair safely... period...just as if you're going to do mechanical work on a car, you should be trained and licensed to work on cars safely. Because once X number of people can cut hair or do oil changes with no license, then Y% of them will start going... "Oh hell, I can do a dye job... I can read the instructions on a box as good as anybody else" or "I can do brake work. I do my brakes all the time."

Someone will say "do you do...?" and they'll smell money and a (in my opinion) large percentage of them will say "sure, come on in."

There are other jobs and businesses the poor can pursue with no license or training... and if they have to do those things to pay their way through cosmetology school, then that's what they have to do... no different than a pilot who has to pump AV Gas while he's getting his ratings or a lawyer has to tend to work his way through school.

But it is certainly rich to hear libertarians cry great big crocodile tears for the poor old poor because in this particular they happen make a good sympathetic "victim" of regulation.

"Regulation is the debbil!!! See how the cosmetology licensing machine crushes the poor underfoot!!!! Therefore, the Koch brothers should be allowed to do whatever they want!!!!"

"What about when their employees are harmed?"

"fark them... those are the breaks. They know the risks when they sign up. If they don't want to work dangerous industrial jobs then they should farking go to college!!!"
 
2012-02-25 02:25:43 AM  
er... "a lawyer who has to tend bar to work his way"
 
2012-02-25 02:26:02 AM  

melopene: I would call that a legitimate qualification for the position, elected, appointed, or otherwise. And I'm an almost-phd in public admin, so I'm not just saying that because I love beer.


Because drinking is legal while diddling children is not. Having people who are dead set against anyone drinking and who's goal is to bring back prohibition running the agency overseeing alcohol does not serve the public's best interest.
 
2012-02-25 02:26:49 AM  

OgreMagi: melopene: I would call that a legitimate qualification for the position, elected, appointed, or otherwise. And I'm an almost-phd in public admin, so I'm not just saying that because I love beer.

Because drinking is legal while diddling children is not. Having people who are dead set against anyone drinking and who's goal is to bring back prohibition running the agency overseeing alcohol does not serve the public's best interest.


Crap. I quoted the wrong person.
 
2012-02-25 02:28:40 AM  

Mavent: slc11082: Read under the banner of heaven. Until 9/11 their massacre was the biggest in the name of a religion.

Dear genius: "Our massacre" HAPPENED on 9/11. Apparently, you should have read the book a little closer. Link (new window)

Personally, I wish everyone who "hates" Mormons would find the balls to move. That's what I did, during my Angry College Student years. Moved to Santa Cruz until I finally grew up and realized that the one constant about anywhere you live is YOU, and if you think everyone around you is unpleasant, odds are that you need to look in the mirror to find the real source of the problem. Utah is an incredibly beautiful State, which is why it was featured in nearly every movie made during the 50's and 60's.


Yep.

Thats what african americans needed to do before the civil rights act, take a good hard look in the mirror.

Getting picked on in school? Mirror time.

A poor old lady whos neighborhood went to shiat and is overrun with gangs and prostitutes? Obviously she didnt spend enough time in front of a mirror.

Homosexual in the bible belt? There arent enough mirrors in the world.

/Or could it just be that some groups of people are just assholes?
 
2012-02-25 02:30:25 AM  

technicolor-misfit: just as if you're going to do mechanical work on a car, you should be trained and licensed to work on cars safely.


You do know there are no licensing requirements to work on cars, right? And the certs are pretty much useless in determining who can actually work on a car. (ASE = ask someone else)
 
2012-02-25 02:31:47 AM  
smart idea but unconstitutional
 
2012-02-25 02:37:37 AM  
Well, nobody mentioned this yet that I could see, but this bill is just being passed out of committee. Derp like this will never pass the full house.

Look at their reasoning fta: "Other committee members expressed doubts Friday about requiring that 40 percent of the commission be drinkers. That ratio isn't really in line with the state's consumption rate, said Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove."

No, you are right, it's not. However, the consumption rate of those the liquor commission serves is 100%. Logic...Utah derptards don't have it.
 
2012-02-25 02:40:58 AM  
fark that cult. It changed my sister into a weirdo fundy who had a holier than thou attitude about everything. The way she belittled my mother makes me want to just punch her in the face. Her personality now is like a combination of all the bad parts of my aunt's and my fathers personalities.
/She also needs to get her farking mail changed before I do it for her.
 
2012-02-25 02:42:32 AM  
As an ex Mormon who moved the fark out of this intellectually bankrupt state 20 years ago, I have really been happy to see the bright light of day disinfecting the fungal crud on the feet of the Mormon political machine these past few months. I'm visiting family in Pleasant Grove, UT right now and I can bear my testimony to the fact that Utahns are farking insane. There isn't a critical or even questioning voice in the local news media. Romney is the home team candidate. The Winter Olympics were a triumph of capitalism and leadership, free of controversy and corruption. 

There is no sense that there is anything odd about a religion that has its own state, and nobody mentions the de facto requirement that any successful political campaign has the backing of the Mormon church. In Utah it's as unlikely a non-Mormon will take office as it is in the rest of the country that an atheist will.

The Romney campaign seems to be shining a light on Mormonism in ways I never, as an excommunicated 17 year old, thought I'd see in my lifetime. You can't fight the church here and win. I'd hate to see this particular fungal crud spread to the national locker room.
 
2012-02-25 02:47:16 AM  
I can't see why they can't be all Mormons. Although, Mormons are teetotalers by religion, they do worship money far more, so virtually all of them would not have a problem dealing with this as any other real person.

Mormon equation of truth: Money > God

/why cater to people with imaginary friends?
 
2012-02-25 03:04:05 AM  
Where's the Hero™ tag? I don't even know you anymore, Fark.
 
2012-02-25 03:11:01 AM  
Having an all-Mormon liquor control board would be like having Congressional hearings on a woman's right to access birth control with an all-male panel.

Came to say this, but it bears repeating so:

Having an all-Mormon liquor control board would be like having Congressional hearings on a woman's right to access birth control with an all-male panel.
 
2012-02-25 03:16:48 AM  

NotARocketScientist: Having an all-Mormon liquor control board would be like having Congressional hearings on a woman's right to access birth control with an all-male panel.

Came to say this, but it bears repeating so:

Having an all-Mormon liquor control board would be like having Congressional hearings on a woman's right to access birth control with an all-male panel.


I don't think that that is what that panel was about
 
2012-02-25 03:27:45 AM  
Slackers:

images.wikia.com
 
2012-02-25 03:39:43 AM  
Wouldn't it have made more sense to have people who have experience in the sale and distribution of alcohol instead?

A few drinks doesn't mean you know anything about how to regulate it.
 
Displayed 50 of 177 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report