Ceka Cianci

Alazarin Mondrian wrote: I don't find women with weapons the least bit sexy. Then again, I'm not into weapons. I've never owned a gun in RL, never wanted to and don't like the company of gun fetishists. If I had my way I'd put all the gun owners on an island and leave them there until they killed each other. then knives and bats and box cutters and anything else laying around will become the weapon of choice..then there will be nobody around to protect you from those killers.. because those people will all be happy living on this tropical paradise talking about their guns without interuptions.. pretty soon there would be anti box cutter laws and anti knife laws and anti bat laws anti crowbar laws ect..just all kinds of things being taken away from you that people use to kill other people.. i can't help but think..if there was a security guard with a gun in the cockpits of the planes back in 9/11 that we would be talking about the heros that stopped some terrorists armed with box cutters..instead of heros that had died trying to save people in crumbling buildings because pilots were overtaken by terrorists armed with box cutters... i own guns for a few reasons..mountain lions..black bears...rattlers and freaks with knives that think they can do anything they want to people and get away with it.. my fetish is not being a victim..because law doesn't take over until after a crime was commited.. i would much rather have the chance to call them saying..i just shot an intruder rather than them saying..she was too young to die..

i would still wnt the 64x64x64 prims if they did away with mesh idea..

Storm Clarence wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: we are allowed to wear them anywhere in town but banks and the courthouse and police station and  store..things like that.. It's amusing for me to think 'guns' are allowed in bars, clubs, pool rooms, and anyplace else where a 'gun' fight is more likely to break out; but don't you ever dare to think of bringing them into Kmart (where they probably sell weapons.) ya there is a bigger list of places..but most of those have it on their entrance door rather than it being town ordinance..we don't have a bar in this town..it's outside of town..it doesn't allow them either.. places the law doesn't want them mostly is places that usually get robbed that hold a lot of money.. Walmart has it on their door no guns allowed with a picture of a gun and that red circle with the slash through it.. businesses can allow them or not it's up to them..

i think it has the same thing to do with women that drive trucks and big machines instead of cars.. why they like it i don't know..maybe we don't look as fragile to them or something..most guys are used to me wearing them now.. i wear one in my shoulder harnass and one that clips to my belt so they can be seen..when we get on the horses we all have rifles plus pistols because of mountain lions that are in the area..snakes also..we only shoot the rattlers and water moccasins or any other poison ones.. i don't go anywhere without my guns.. i don't bring them in work with me but other than that..i have them on just about any other time.like my jewelry.. if i have to go in the bank for any reason i lock them in my lock box in my jeep.. we are allowed to wear them anywhere in town but banks and the courthouse and police station and  store..things like that.. we get a lot of people that move from up north to down here..it seems to be a conversation starter for sure..hehehe in rl i don't know if it is a sexy thing more than it is curious thing.. i think some men just like women that are maybe like they are in crontrol or independant..maybe? hehehe it's hard to say really.. 

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Pressured? No, they were rewarded. Basically the bank made the loans and sold them onto Wall Street. S&R's role was to give a nonsense credit rating to the resulting securities so that these junk bonds could be misrepresented as high value, low risk investments and on sold at inflated prices to your typical mom and pop investor through the kinds of low risk/managed risk investment funds that middle Americans' retirement savings tend to be invested in. By giving junk bonds the same security rating as US treasury bonds, companies like S&R enabled brokers to sell junk bonds they picked up at rock bottom prices from banks, to investment funds whose rules limit or prohibit exposure to the level of risk the bonds entailed, and at highly inflated prices. see thats what i had gotten from that article..only the article makes it sound like it was something forced on them when really it was something banks probably really wanted and finally got it back then? i remember a lot of the fall out and remember having to get ready for it before it happened.. i have just been sceptical when people start acting like it was the current administration at the time it blew up that caused it..something like 2008 had to be built up to.. each president from the point that it started up until the fall out had to see what was coming.. i mean we were seeing it.. i live in the bottom part of tennessee..conspiracy theory hell bible belt the world is ending every day of the year.. it can be very hard to get good information around here..you think the internet is bad? LOL just add voice and a lot of volume and crazy looks and thats my town hehehehe i have to carry a block of salt with me at all times just to lick to keep stuff straight hehehe

Venus Petrov wrote: Dr. Conerly is a conservative economist. The problem with the housing boom and bust is that so many home buyers bought a home primarily as an investment and not primarily as a place to live. As an 'investment', they siphoned equity loans to pay for all sorts of things during the good times, many things they would have been better off planning and saving for (i.e., the old fashioned way). So, people who 'invested' way over their abilities to repay the loans have suffered. I do not like to see others in dire straits. As individuals we all need to learn to take responsibility for our decisions. This is a very tough lesson for some now. Hopefully, they will learn from it. ya i wasn't aware of his background.if he was liberal or conservative or any of that..i'm sure everyone is something ...if he wrote it with lies then thats what i was wanting to know..how much trth was in it or not.. i just saw a few things in the article that seemed familiar..and what you say makes a lot of sense because i remember people always talking about buying homes for like 5 years and then selling for a prohet.. then a lot of those people ended up moving into the market getting stock brokers..doing well..my father is a home builder..so he built a lot of homes that people would brag about selling them off as well in a short period.. he raised me to pay for what i want and that if i can't pay for things right then to never gamble with money i don't have ..wait until i had it.. my first house was paid for direct to the owner..deed changed hands..my jeep was paid up front as well..title changing hands it would have been really hard to have all kinds of payments when all that stuff hit.. i think there is only two good ways of getting the american dream that everyone wants so much.. save and get it piece by piece or get a loan on a long time mortgage and hope we live the 30 years to enjoy it.. i think a lot of people only acted like they had it for show while up to their necks in debt that was beyond their means to pay.. there were and still are so many traps to avoid..thinking credit is another currency that we only have to pay the minimum on is one of those traps that i have seen so many get trapped on.. there is no reason to have thousands on a credit card..it's just want that a lot were calling need.. they should all be treated like an american express..pay for it next month or you are cut off until you do..then if you failed to pay it a mark was put against the credit rating of the card holder.. my father was fortunate in those times to be a builder as well and all the other trades he knows..he took a lot of that moneyand saved and saved then bought all our land and everything on the farm..even the log cabins that he built..by the time it was 2004 he was at the point that he coudl live on the farm and provide for all our family without ever having to leave if it came to it ..even if his business colapsed.. no loans for anything..just hard work and a lot of saving smart..

just go to about land and then sound and change the url or just take the url out of the link box..

from my understanding..a lot of where we are at right now started in the clinton administration..he was the one that signed off on nafta.. the housing boom was nothing more than houses being bought up..there wouldn't have been such a boom if lenders were not giving out loans to low income families..were they pressured into giving out loans to low income families? thats my big question.. so low income families are getting loans and jobs are leaving the country..housing boom and income leaving the country..i mean the next guy in line should have caught that i would think..someone should have seen it comng..or was it too late for the next guy to slow down or stop the wheels that were in motion?? in my eyes Bush instead of riding that train should have found a way in his two terms to put the breaks on ..the way i see it..we were heading for some kind of train/housing crash nomatter who would have taken up office next..add in those banks gambling with mortgages..bleh.. i don't back any party myself..i'm more interested in time lines than what party is to blame.the truth as to why we are where we are .the way i see it ..both are to blame and some people should be in prson right now instead of getting bonuses or keeping their jobs.. i looked up the quote about "everyone should own a home"..because i thought it was bill clinton that said it..he may have at one point..i don't remember really lol..then i found this article which was interesting to read.. i'm curious how much truth is in this article..because if it is true that pressure was put on banks to give low income families or people that were high risk loans..atleast there can be some sort of closure on where a lot of the stuff is born that hits the fan later.. By William B. Conerly, Ph.D. Did lack of regulation create the subprime mortgage crisis? I am asked this all the time. The short answer: Of course not. Nowhere close. Not a chance. Here is the long answer. What regulations have we had? The mortgage originator (your local bank or mortgage broker) was under regulations not to discriminate and to inform you of your interest rate. Those papers you signed without reading? Many of them were “Truth in Lending” disclosures designed to protect you from getting into something you didn’t understand. However, if you didn’t read them, maybe they didn’t protect you. But you were not the one lending money to a borrower incapable or unwilling to pay the money back. That was your banker. He was not regulated because he didn’t have any risk. He immediately turned around and sold your loan, along with a thousand other loans, to a Wall Street investment bank, which formed the many mortgages into a mortgage backed security or a “collateralized debt obligation.” There were no regulations protecting Wall Street investment bankers from lending deadbeats money. The idea is that they are smart enough, sophisticated enough, to take care of themselves. (That turned out to be a bad idea, but it was the idea behind the lack of regulation.) How did these rich, sophisticated investors make such a huge mistake? First they experimented. They tried small variations from the old traditional loans. Variations like adjustable rate mortgages. Low-down-payment mortgages. No documentation mortgages. These experiments worked well. Surprisingly well. Why? Because it was a rising real estate market. Borrowers who were unable to make their payments simply sold their homes at a profit. No big deal, and no default or foreclosure on the mortgage. The crucial mistake that Wall Street made was extrapolating from the good times to the bad times. They assumed that these subprime mortgages would be good all the time because they had been good in the rising house market. Would more regulation have helped? Maybe we could have protected Wall Street investment bankers from themselves. Maybe with good regulations they would not have to give up their summer homes in the Hamptons. Maybe. In reality, regulatory policy has worked in the opposite direction. The government wanted more risky loans made, not fewer. For example, the Community Reinvestment Act pressured banks to make loans in poor neighborhoods. Banks (and I was a banker under the CRA) figured that making some bad loans was just another tax, a cost of doing business as a regulated company. In 1995, the Clinton administration revised the CRA to increase pressure on banks to make more loans to risky borrowers. In 1997, the first pool of subprime mortgages was securitized (by Bear Stearns!). The law regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was rewritten to reduce their capital requirements, meaning they would become riskier. Some critics were concerned about the risk, but here is what Congressman Barney Frank had to say at the time: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” (New York Times, September 11, 2003) At the height of the real estate boom, the United States set record home ownership rates. Politicians, including President Bush, bragged about their success at getting Americans into their own homes. As recently as August 2007, the President bragged that he was helping Americans get homes with lower down payments and higher loan limits. He also signed a law making it easier for homeowners to walk away from their mortgage obligations. Would more regulation have reduced the number of bad loans made? Most likely, more regulation would have increased the problem.

Void Singer wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: did i ever mention the 5 lane highway that the federal government is building on both main entrances to our town that has onyl 25,000 people living in it? all fed funded ..all the people on that road forced to move at the rate the fed decided to pay for their land..houses that had been there for 70 years.. [...] It might horrify you to know that while the federal government is funding it, it's actually state and county DOT that's responsible for deciding where and what to build.... federal funding for road projects is like allowance given to children... and the children believe that if they don't spend on SOMETHING, they won't get any more to spend later (and they're half right sadly) oh ya ..the town is loving it..the only reason they are getting them is because there is an interstate so many miles away from the town.. the commerce commity which is pretty much the ones that call the shots for the whole town it seems..they are eating it up.. they want all kinds of things built to attract corps..we now have two industrial parks ..the only thing missing is the industry..and the houses that used to be on the roads .. the home owners outside of town are the ones taking the hit for all these things that are so great for the town.. oh and our landfill that was sposed to be closed down to only our county..it's still taking trash from all around..we catch sewage trucks going in and out of there at ngiht all the time.. it was voted out..but yet they still let them in.. small town government is just as terrible as the nations.. the world is messed up lol

i can't remember if it was my eye of horus or if it was my exousia.. it was one of those tools..one of the tools in one of those i mean..

did i ever mention the 5 lane highway that the federal government is building on both main entrances to our town that has onyl 25,000 people living in it? all fed funded ..all the people on that road forced to move at the rate the fed decided to pay for their land..houses that had been there for 70 years.. oh and i almost forgot the telephone polls they put in before the road work started..yup they put them in the wrong place..so the really nice rich government is repaying them tpo pull out the ones that were in the wrong spot and paying them to put brand new polls in the right spots.. we have a super walmart..do you think maybe thats why we are getting this 5 lanes into our town? because it's so super? the town is nothing but road construction that we never needed.. about the only real use we will get out of a 5 lane highway is that we won't have to ride behind tractors pulling hay back to the barns in hay season lol meanwhile the 5 schools this highway goes past..they are in the red..i just don't understand the logic sometimes i guess..

one of my tools says it can blast you a billion meters up..thier words on my notecard "yes thats right we said a billion meters" in the air.. i know i have been up so high that all these objects started to flood into my inventory..i'm not even sure what that was about..but i couldn't delete them fast enough..the higher i went the more that flooded it.. i tried to tp but couldn't even go home.. i also blasted a friend..she went so high up that it turned her avatar into a little sparkle..i could port her down..she was so freaked out that i wrecked her avatar..i have to say i was hopin gwhen she relogged that her avatar was there also..i thought .wow i sure hope i didn't wreck her.. she came back fine and a lot relieved LOL

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Everyone keeps comparing the stock market drop earlier this week to the drop on October 15, 2008 and using that date as some benchmark of the worse drop in recent history. That is more than just a little misleading..........it's "talking points" issued by politicos to tell you just how bad things are. Comparing raw numbers says nothing about reality. You have to use percentages to get a remotely accurate picture. The worse single day stock market drop in recent history was October 19, 1987. That was the year Bush 1 reneged on the famous "read my lips, no new taxes" promise. It, too, was in response to the lack of spending cuts and deficit spending.........just like today's problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_daily_changes_in_the_Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average October 29, 1029 was the start of the Great Depression..........it was a 12.82% drop. October 15, 2008 was a 7.87% drop. And October 19, 1987 was a 22.61% drop. So, are we in for some bad days ahead? I say yes..........and it won't turn around again until this government gets its collective head out of its rectum. Spending cuts by the government, lowering the tax burden across the board, halving the Capital Gains tax, and rewarding success instead of taxing it. That's the only proven way out of a recession (which, in this case, is more accurately defined and a depression). Government spending has failed every time in the past.........it won't succeed this time either. Regime change is in order............next year we, as voters, have the opportunity to complete what we started last year. There are many politicians in both the states and federal government who need to go find another job...........one I don't have to pay them for with my taxes. i wasn't comparing them to each other in that sense..i was just saying it was the last time it happened..it may have not been for the same reasons..but it's the last time it happened.. thats all..thats why i said i hope it's just a burp..

i guess i am just getting fed up with any of it..what little news i do force myself to see nowdays just turns my stomach.. because we lay down and take it.. i'm so tired of corporations and the congress that backs them up and bails them out and plays pawns on their chessboard.. reagan bush clinton bush jr obama.. not a one is any better than the next..they are all poiticians and woudl cut mine or your throats to stay where they are at..just as easily as ordering a pizza.. i am sick of parties and the bull that comes with them.. i'm tired of 3.80 for a gallon of gas and 6.00 for a gallon of Orange juice and not seeing a company able to give a pay increase because they are just shy of making the corp cut to get their backing from their invested congressmen who own stocks in the corps... i guess this last thing with them having to try to come up with a solution was the straw that finally broke my camels back.. they'll get their cut out of me that i am sposed to pay..but not one cent more.. i'm gonna vote by how they handled themselves from this one situation on out..anything they did in the past..it won't be good enough..it's gonna be the "what have you done for me lately" stance..their past is wiped of any good.. because they are politicians..i think i'm just gonna treat them for what they are..out with the old liar in with some new fresh ones..just B'cause..maybe i'll just start voting the independant party..because i'm tired of going for the lessor of two evils.. i don't care what impact it has anymore on the outcome..because it won't matter anyways..both sides are after the same kind of thing..us in the poor house either broke or needing them..they can piss off..i'll eat leaves before i need them that much.. i am so ready to just jump on my horse and head into the mountains and never come down..i am getting so tired of congress and the government treating us like we are stupid..

Elle Benusconi wrote: I have to agree with the premise that this won't really effect SL all that much. It should remain an affordable form of entertainment unless the government decides to taxes to the internet and on-line entertainment activities further. What surprises me is that with US GDP for the first two quarters averaging less than 1%, unemployment still above 9% and the ratio of debt to GDP at around 100%, anyone would be surprised at the downgrade. I'm also surprised that S & P was the only one to do a downgrade. I hope this means that no one will lend the US anymore money. Maybe that will finally mean that the government will be forced to cut spending and, get rid of some of the new regulations put in place by the Obama administration that is stifling economic growth. As far as China goes, they should be careful what they say. One sure way to raise revenue would be to add a 75% tariff to everything imported into the US form China. The trade balance between the US and China is so heavily skewed it wouldn't effect the US anywhere near as negatively as it would China. Even with the downgrade, I doubt it will really hurt the sale of US T-Bills. They are still more stable than anything else available. thats what i am hoping for as well with the credit rating drop..it forces them to cut instead of borrow.. one thing i noticed through this whole thing and it seems that the world looking in noticed as well is this..both parties took up to the last two hours before they had finally agree'd.. so bent on their political stance instead of realizing ..hey everyone is watching and guess what you live here too..get the trivial crap out of the way..your country needs you.. they showed the world how rusted our wheels are in the clutch.. that lost a lot of faith in lenders..it's for the best if it gets spending down to need rather than want.. this thread was a little about sl..a lot about how embarrassing it feels that the biased showed up so much in a major alarming decision.. so what is going to happen anyways?? a lot of what a lot of us were saying they needed to do instead of this debit ceiling increase..real cuts.. cut out spending from areas that we really do not need..put money back into the hands of the people that can generate livings so we can get unemployment back down.. there are too many ghost stripmalls and empty manufactoring plants and towns with no economies.. get back to where our dollar is backed by our earning and not our spending..get back to where we can make our own things..things that last more than five years..this whole thing with selling us crap that last only so long so we end up spending..it's for the birds..i'm tired of overpaying for crap that has a 1 year warranty and craps out the month after it expires.. sorry..it was just embarrassing..in just about ever article about this..they never fail to mention that both parties just couldn't work together.. i have to agree..because even after meeting the dealine they still looked like a divorced couple fighting over the kids.. ETA: Someone mentioned the last time they saw something like this was back in 2008.. the last time the market was down 650+ points was back in 2008..lets hope it was just a big burp and not something that is gonna last..

Peewee Musytari wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: Peewee Musytari wrote: Psst Void, I know it says that, but its not actually true. I heard of people going back to basic and upgrading again later & still getting their original stipend level, so I tested it and same happened to me. ya i had gotten my 400 back when i went back to premium a couple of months ago.. maybe we are grandfathered in and it only applies after a certain join date? thats just a guess.. i just know i kind of smiled when i saw my old rate hehehe.. hehe It made me smile too Did you get a 2nd bonus? I don't think I did, so I assumed its a one off thing. well they did say after 45 days i will..i will have to look at when i actually went back to premium and then see..it may be close to 45 days now.. if i don't get it i'm not going to hound them for it hehehe i did get a bonus the first time..

I'm curious..now that S&P has dropped the credit rating from triple-A to Double-A where do you think we will be in a year ....with our second life? I guess this could be considered an "after" thread to the "before" thread of the debt ceiling being raised.. now that it has been raised and it seems to have not achieved to save it's credit rating.. how will this touch our second lives? now that we lost one of the biggest safety nets we had.. here is one of the articles i was reading thismorning.. please share your thoughts and ideas.thank you =) China tells U.S. "good old days" of borrowing are over

LOL that was a cute video hehehe it reminded me of a friend telling me about the movie residentual evil when it first came out hehehehe

Peewee Musytari wrote: Psst Void, I know it says that, but its not actually true. I heard of people going back to basic and upgrading again later & still getting their original stipend level, so I tested it and same happened to me. ya i had gotten my 400 back when i went back to premium a couple of months ago.. maybe we are grandfathered in and it only applies after a certain join date? thats just a guess.. i just know i kind of smiled when i saw my old rate hehehe..

Yann Mizser wrote: There's a bonus?..... :mansurprised: ya if you go premium there is. i think it's like 1 or 2k ..i forget..

regular layer outfits won't change much from how they look on another avatar in an add unless the image has been photochopped to death..prim clothes are about the only thing i have ever seen demos for..mostly sculpt items like jackets and boots..

it's not going anywhere..Why you ask? well because it's filled with too many damned zombies..thats why.

Trolls seem to be a rare sight anymore in these foums.. now the forums before these..it was loaded hehehe.. but i can't remember the last time i had seen one in these..

another thing to add to the list of funny products hehehehe which one will it bump from this list? i could use the towel or the monk blankey myself hehehe

i was always told from my grandmother that veggies grew under the ground and friut was above the ground.. or was it that fruit had seeds and veggies were roots? bleh who cares ..they are all good nom nom's..i eat tomotoes both ways..like a friut just biting into it or like a veggie with my meals.. i can wear some tomoatoes out i tell ya hehehehe just give me the bib and i'm ready to go hehhehe *winks*