OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
I provided examples already. Become a public figure, mimic him and see what happens.
Sounds like paradise. Ever thought about moving there? You should. Send me the bill.
so if a black person is pro-black, as in BLM, for example, then he/she is a racist. Got it.
Paying property taxes doesn’t mean that you don’t actually own something.
If you can exclude someone else from using your property, then you have a strong property right. Paying taxes doesn’t change that.
that's mostly correct because otherwise they wouldn't be workers; but many FORMER workers or their children have 'owned the means or modes of production'. That's how it's supposed to work in this system, if the commies among us will let it.
yes, in effect it does. 'Own' and 'ownership' are subject to various interpretations, including legal ones that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in the broadest, most common sense, if you own something you have paid for it and have thereby released any other holds on it. You can't own it if you're still paying for it, and if you fail to keep paying for it in the form of taxes the local jurisdiction can legally take it away from you. Call that ownership if you want to, language is fluid and imprecise enough that you can get away with it...but don't try to sell that shit to me.
And when I say don't sell me that shit, I'm not necessarily objecting to the taxes, but rather the idea that I actually own the property.
It's like buying a car as opposed to leasing it. While you are leasing, you have the right to deny use to others...but you damn sure don't own it. You are paying for the right of determining the usage when you are leasing. If you own something, YOU and only you supposedly say how it's to be used because you have already paid for that right. But some level of government can step in at any time and dictate how you are to use your property. That ain't ownership.
If you want to have a real discussion, consider a man who is the lone survivor of a shipwreck and who finds himself the only human inhabitant of an uncharted island. Does he own it? Or does ownership even have any meaning in that circumstance?
right. It isn't what he says, it's the context...or the tone...or the way his eyebrows twitch...
In my opinion? Yes, it is. I'm not sure how this BLM terminology is being characterized, or portrayed. It's indistinct, to me, so, I'm never totally sure what's going on there. I don't have anything against the BLM movement, personally. I'm not convinced it will work. Again, I'm not 100% sure what they're trying to do. Black Lives Matter or All Lives Matter. One is supposedly racist, one isn't. I dunno how well that language will work.
It reminds me of pro-life and pro-choice, a little. The pro-life term is misleading, and pro-choice folks couldn't go with "pro-death" so they took a softer, nuanced alternative name. No one is always pro-life or always pro-choice, in their fullest extremes. But, that doesn't stop them from arguing with each other.
I have a feeling your anal cavity has been remolded into the shape of Donald Trump's very small penis. Due to repeated play.
Like I said, he's not Grand Wizard-y racist. He's not like Homer Stokes in O Brother, Where art Thou... at least not overtly.
A good example, to me, is when he was having to go to court over he and his father's housing discrimination. There was a woman (I forget her name, I think she was either a journalist, or someone in the legal process), and she said: "He leaned over and whispered to me, 'C'mon... you know damn well you don't want them in your neighborhood, either.'" Now, of course he's not "on record" saying that. And, yes, it is hearsay. Do I believe the woman who said it? Yes, I do.
I just recently read 2 books by David Cay Johnston. Now, it's no secret that he dislikes Trump. But, from what I read, his criticisms are from things that are public record. And, I also have seen a few lectures by Tony Schwartz- his writer of The Art Of The Deal. And, a few other people who are Jewish that he's dealt with. They all have the same reaction. It's basically: "He refers to [Jews] in a favorable way, a lot like Archie Bunker. They're great at helping you (or him) legally or financially. We have fields of expertise that are superior based on just being Jewish. Very stereotyping, and what most people consider racist."
Ownership is about having strong and enforceable property right. If you have the ability to exclude others from using your property, then yes, that is a strong and enforceable property right. If you enter into a contract to lease a particular piece of property, then the owner of that property is granting you temporary access to it. The owner is the one with the strong and enforceable property right, and they have decided to grant you temporary usage of that property. The right to exclude others from using that property still lies with the dealership/owner.
The fact that something could be possibly be taken away from you if you don't pay your taxes doesn't mean you don't own it right now. Of course you do, and the reason why you pay taxes is because you want to keep owning it. There are restrictions on how certain types of property can be utilized because the utilization of property often creates negative externalities. Whether you own your land or not, burning tires 24/7 is going to have a negative impact on your neighbors, so yes the government often has to step in and prevent that from happening, because there is no market incentive to stop it. That's why it's called an externality.
The notion that having to pay taxes means you don't own something is juvenile libertarian silliness.
You know his penis is small? Is that firsthand information or did someone in your immediate family tell you?
In your example, it isn't the burning of tires on your property that they are trying to prevent, it's the acrid smoke that drifts into the neighbors space. Negative externalities has nothing to do with whether you have ownership or not. Negative externalities is simply one reason that the government should step in and prevent you from trampling on your neighbors rights, or the good of the community. If you have a strong enforceable property right, what strong and enforceable right are you exercising when they make you stop taking down your trees? What strong and enforceable right are you exercising when they condemn your property for that freeway or some commercial development? They do have a reason and probably a good one, but the why isn't the point. The point is simply that as long as they can and they do step in, you don't in reality own the property. If they can take the property away from you, for whatever reason, you don't actually own the property.
Ownership is about control. When some other entity can exercise control over what is supposed to be your property, you don't in fact truly own it. If you have to pay in order to continue to use your property, you don't truly own it. You can say you own it all day long according to some legal framing of the term, but saying it doesn't make it so. Control is generally and ultimately ceded to the entity with the biggest stick. The government has a bigger stick than you have.
If that's what you think, then you don't understand how this works. We spend more money, time, collect more intelligence, provide more equipment, provide more man power by far. There's no comparing our military capabilities to anyone in the world. If we were to pullout of Europe, then they would get steamrolled by Russia. NATO is just a side gig and we let other countries play to make themselves feel better.
We have already pulled out of Europe for the most part. IMO NATO is still doing a good job keeping Russia at bay in Eastern Europe.
We've pulled out of Europe for the most part? Have you lost your mind? Maybe you think defense and security is just troops on the ground, which we still have a significant amount of.
I was stationed in Europe during the Vietnam war and we have nothing close to the presence there now as we did then.
Again, it's not just boots on the ground. In today's world the number of troops isn't the most important thing. Our nuclear deterrent alone is priceless. They don't have to develop their own weapons, have the type of intelligence network that we have, etc. That doesn't even include the support we provide in things like training and infrastructure. Our military, for better or worse, provides safety and peace for most of the world.
Nice..I guess fat people are the last of the list thats it's ok to make fun of. Id bet either of them could whip your ass.
it was just an offer and it still stands. But if you're willing to pay your own way, that's OK too. Every commie vote we can cancel out helps America.
I would hope so, as scrawny as I am. I like my chances, though. I can probably move around ten times better than them, even at my age.
I’m driving to chik fil a on my good year tires with some Goya beans on the side and getting Starbucks with “happy holidays” on it for desert.
Lol obama eloquently ripping trump to shreds while trump rage tweets in all caps in response. If Biden had half the mentality and presence of Obama he would be a shoe in. Instead we have a guy who i would be afraid to allow to to McDonald’s by himself vs a guy who screams at himself in the mirror.
Yes Obama lies much more eloquently than other politicians.
Steve bannon arrested and charged with fraud over “we build the wall” fund raising. Lol. The jokes just write themselves.
Gonna build a wall and make offshore shell companies pay for it after i pay myself!
Bannon prosecution is one of the cases Trump & Barr were trying to stop by firing Geoffrey Berman. Nice attempt at corruption., good to see it failed. If Bannon just pleads guilty and gets his sentence over quickly enough, he might be in line next to Manafort, Stone, Gates, Cohen and some other jailbirds looking for pardon.
