Debates
27 Aug 21
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
27 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidyou can gain some credibility if you can explain what is wrong with proof of WHO YOU ARE?
@Rajk999
Here is a hint: The US is ALREADY a failed enterprise.
We are well on our way to the destruction of the US as a democracy and instead when the cursed repubs win they will LITERALLY destroy the US as a democracy since the state laws passed as we speak are SPECIFICALLY designed to cut out as many dem votes as possible because you know good and well the only way repu ...[text shortened]... ere?
US turning into another banana republic with a huge military.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
27 Aug 21
@sonhouse saidHuge Military? Biden’s $5T spending spree covers growing pretty green grass, etc, but has ZERO funding for military, Sonhouse. And as he is on the road to bankrupt us, there will be no money left for a banana military. So you can rest easy.
@Rajk999
Here is a hint: The US is ALREADY a failed enterprise.
We are well on our way to the destruction of the US as a democracy and instead when the cursed repubs win they will LITERALLY destroy the US as a democracy since the state laws passed as we speak are SPECIFICALLY designed to cut out as many dem votes as possible because you know good and well the only way repu ...[text shortened]... ere?
US turning into another banana republic with a huge military.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
Did you just write a soliloquy without mentioning Trump?!?!
@techsouth saidThankyou Techsouth. Indeed, common law contract law , by itself, before America, controls here. It is a contract, which no court can just throw out.
What is your ideal world?
A person offers to rent a house and promises to pay a certain amount per month. Are you saying that after making such a promise, the person should not be expected to actually pay any rent?
Can you foresee undesirable consequences of doing this at all?
Breach of Contract, it is that simple. Of course, if y’all achieve Marxism, then ‘Willy Nilly’ will prevail,…. burn all landlords at the stake 🔥!!!!!
29 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidThey disregarded property rights with the Emancipation Proclamation too.
So to do otherwise, the court would have had to disregard property rights. How would you square your comment with that result?
29 Aug 21
@techsouth saidBetter is if a person offers to buy the house instead of paying tribute to a landlord.
What is your ideal world?
A person offers to rent a house and promises to pay a certain amount per month. Are you saying that after making such a promise, the person should not be expected to actually pay any rent?
Can you foresee undesirable consequences of doing this at all?
@earl-of-trumps saidYes it is!
The whole point is, Suzi, it's *NOT* their "own homes".
If my landlord kicks in the door to my apartment at 2 in the morning and I shoot him dead, I don't go to jail. But when Arnoldo Lozano-Sanchez shot his tenants dead in THEIR HOME (which was his legal property) he was arrested.
Think about that.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-24-me-42531-story.html
A tenant, fearing her landlord was about to sexually assault her in her bedroom Thursday, killed the man with a shotgun blast, police said.
James Golido, 31, a stockbroker, was shot once in the upper torso and was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics, said Los Angeles Police Department Det. Rick Swanston.
Karen Walkden, 18, who had been living in a one-bedroom apartment connected to the garage at the rear of Golido’s house in the 22400 block of Dolorosa Street, called police shortly after 2:30 p.m. and told them of the shooting, Swanston said.
“She told police he was an intruder and she shot him in self-defense,” he said.
“At this point, the evidence at the scene is consistent with her version,” Swanston said.
29 Aug 21
@athousandyoung saidCould you try comparing apples to 🍎?
They disregarded property rights with the Emancipation Proclamation too.
@athousandyoung saidIt depends. Some are better off renting. People have different circumstances. But of course it makes a WHOLE lot of sense to live in your investment. A 100k house can be a $1M house in about 20 years, depending on location. A fact.
Better is if a person offers to buy the house instead of paying tribute to a landlord.
@athousandyoung saidWell, you could make an appropriate distinction between a ‘home’, being the abode of a tenant in a rental house, ….it is his home,…..and the house, which is the landlord’s house.
Yes it is!
If my landlord kicks in the door to my apartment at 2 in the morning and I shoot him dead, I don't go to jail. But when Arnoldo Lozano-Sanchez shot his tenants dead in THEIR HOME (which was his legal property) he was arrested.
Think about that.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-24-me-42531-story.html
A tenant, fearing her l ...[text shortened]...
“At this point, the evidence at the scene is consistent with her version,” Swanston said.
29 Aug 21
@averagejoe1 saidGW tried to push a program to give loans to poor people. We had a huge crash in the market with a flood of defaulted loans.
It depends. Some are better off renting. People have different circumstances. But of course it makes a WHOLE lot of sense to live in your investment. A 100k house can be a $1M house in about 20 years, depending on location. A fact.
29 Aug 21
@athousandyoung saidFor most of my adult life, I would agree that I personally have preferred to own rather than rent.
Better is if a person offers to buy the house instead of paying tribute to a landlord.
However, that has not always been the case. Other times I have preferred to rent because I didn't want to be tied down.
Do you have a problem with my using freedom in that way?
@eladar saidThat's because wealthy people were financially encouraged to compete with the poor for housing and simultaneously the same wealthy people were financially encouraged to keep wages as low as possible i.e. the wealthy were legally, financially incentivized to prevent the poor and middle class from owning their own homes which made it impossible for those people to do so.
GW tried to push a program to give loans to poor people. We had a huge crash in the market with a flood of defaulted loans.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/housing-bubble-real-causes/
“There’s a false narrative here, which is that most of these loans went to lower-income folks. That’s not true. The investor part of the story is underemphasized.”
29 Aug 21
@techsouth saidNot at all!
For most of my adult life, I would agree that I personally have preferred to own rather than rent.
However, that has not always been the case. Other times I have preferred to rent because I didn't want to be tied down.
Do you have a problem with my using freedom in that way?
Do you have a problem with those who are not wealthy from using their freedom to buy their own homes?