Total posts: 4,833
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you want to change mine?Do you want to insult my intelligence or change my mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you believe in "legal standing" but not "qualified immunity" when both are arbitrary inventions of courts.legal standing is perfectly logical and easily determined
You think so huh?
Then why is this a question:
also, why would west virginia care at all about drone strikes ??
"qualified immunity" is amorphous and idiotic
They are both amorphous and idiotic and they are both band-aids to an underlying imperfection in the legal tradition.
The underlying imperfections could be mostly alleviated by staked interests, but that does not exist right now and the question is how these amorphous and idiotic things are applied with prejudice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If there is no shield, why can't West Virginia go after Obama for drone strikes?Well for starters, because West Virginia has no jurisdiction.
I'm sure they can make something up. Creativity is the name of the game in lawfare.
Second, because there is no evidence nor even reason to suspect his actions were for personal or private gain.
I doubt there are exceptions to the West Virginia statutes against murder for murders without obvious personal gain.
They were clearly the actions of a commander in chief doing what he felt was necessary to protect the people he was serving.
If 12 people get to decide that, then who gets to decide who the 12 people are?
Beyond all of that, if WV or anyone else in a position to bring such charges wanted to go after Obama they absolutely could.
We'll see, the supreme court may wish to stop the escalation. If they don't, then of course the right-tribe must respond in kind or lose the fight.
The remedy the constitution offers is an election.Voting out a corrupt president is not a remedy for a president who wishes to abuse the power of his office for personal gain. All that does is encourage the next president to do the same.
So much for democracy and the constitution.
And it is especially not a remedy when the corrupt president decides to use the power of his office to maintain power.
So seeking political power is a corrupt agenda? Good to know.
Meanwhile the only check against a corrupt president is the threat of prosecution.It's the threat of impeachment and conviction by the senate. That's the same threat individual congressmen, senators, and judges face.All of those individuals face the threat of prosecution
History disagrees, but nothing lasts forever.
Why is it that every public official in America can make decisions on behalf of the people they serve just fine despite the threat of prosecution but if we introduce that same threat to the president suddenly we’ve hamstrung the position?
There used to be law an order, which meant people didn't use to use criminal charges to subvert elections and punish dissent (much). Where that has happened, it has been a problem.
They’ve been doing the job just fine for the past 250 years.
If you discount the contested elections, the civil war, the KKK practically running state governments for 30 years... that sort of thing.
Even they didn't have the gumption to charge and convict Lincoln of crimes before he could be elected.
Trump is on trial because of his actions, you would have no problem understanding that if it were a democrat accused of the same exact thing with the same exact evidentiary record.
Yea, except they have done the exact same things and far worse; in every single case. In some cases hundreds of thousands of Americans have done the same thing without being charged as well.
It speaks to their incompetence or general level of corruption that they can't imagine a single made up crime they aren't more guilty of.
You know what I find really telling is that all of you MAGA trumpers have no problem endorsing this ridiculous notion that a president can do whatever they want don’t seem to be the least bit concerned that if this is true then Biden can do whatever the hell he wants.
He is doing whatever he wants, and so did Obama, and so did Bush, and so did Clinton. Lincoln REALLY did whatever he wanted.
2/3 of the senate is a high bar, no president has ever been so obviously corrupt as to create such a consensus; explaining why they could do whatever they want and why Biden is doing whatever he wants. This is as the framers intended, if you could veto a president easily then there wouldn't be much point in electing one.
That would be true of a truly national jury, when it's a jury of a tiny diamond of land occupied by zealots who all live off the government teat... well then it's extra obvious.
If you actually believe your own nonsense why aren’t you concerned about the powers you are ready to hand over to him?
I'm not handing him anything he doesn't have and utilize already. The coordination of this lawfare is itself a profoundly corrupt act which deserves impeachment and conviction, and if you are telling me 12 people in West Virginia can do the job just as well as 2/3 of the senate I'll take it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you believe in "legal standing" but not "qualified immunity" when both are arbitrary inventions of courts.So should West Virginia be allowed to convict Obama or not?west virginia would have no legal standing unless they were the victims of the drone strikes
Should West Virginia be allowed to convict Joe Biden for lying about sharing classified documents?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So should West Virginia be allowed to convict Obama or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Many, including Tim Pool and myself, have criticized Trump for even showing up in NY or DC for these farcical stage productions. He choose to pretend there is such a thing as rule of law in these places and thus conveys a certain level of legitimacy by appearing and obeying.
If this isn't beaten down hard, and it isn't right now; lawyers are facing jail time for being lawyers, then we'll soon have a situation where one political tribe's political actors need to stay within the territory of their own tribe lest they be thrown in irons.
That will accelerate the self-sorting that has been going on by an order of magnitude.
Where will the fear of prosecution be then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Another golden quote for the week.its just another stall tactic that won't be taken seriously in any legal way.
If the shoe was on the other foot Double R would be pointing out that judges decide law, not citizens, and therefore being taken seriously by the highest court in the nation is about as seriously as an argument can be taken.
It isn't though, and suddenly all that respect for authority has dried up for the moment. It will be back, when convenient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Corruption is when an individual uses the power of their office for personal or private gain.
Corruption is when an individual or group of individuals fail to honestly carry out the duties of office.
For instance Letitia James is corrupt because the mission of prosecutors is to prosecute crimes, not make them up because it makes you popular and won an election.
If an act is private, corruption cannot definitionally occur.
Of course it can, it's just normally called fraud. When you accept a responsibility and then you intentionally ignore that responsibility or abuse license given under that authority that is corruption.
An electrician who is let into your home is given license to execute a voluntarily offered and promised responsibility. If they spend 5 hours watching HBO, leave shit in the toilet, and then don't fix the electrical problem that is corrupt.
so how on earth does an act being considered official become a shield of sorts from being prosecuted?
If there is no shield, why can't West Virginia go after Obama for drone strikes? Why can't Brian Kemp be put on trial for breach of duty? The mayor of Seattle for sedition?
But here’s the thing, every one of these hypotheticals stands on the premise that the prosecuting administration is corruptly abusing the powers of their office. So in order for that hypothetical to even occur we’re already imagining a corrupt administration, and the remedy for this is to ensure these future corrupt administrations cannot be prosecuted?
The remedy the constitution offers is an election.
To get a conviction you need to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the former president’s corrupt intent
In fairyland...
Meanwhile the only check against a corrupt president is the threat of prosecution.
It's the threat of impeachment and conviction by the senate. That's the same threat individual congressmen, senators, and judges face.
The difference between the insane pretenders attempting to steal from and abduct Donald Trump and congress is the presumption that 2/3 of the senate represents an overwhelming national opinion. In other words 2/3 of the senate is the line in the sand which differentiates the politically controversial from the officially corrupt.
by removing the threat of prosecution we’re only encouraging future administrations to do whatever they want, like, say, imprisoning their political opponents
That is happening now, via fascist imitation of prosecution.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
rofl aderol and food, what's the difference?
What a joke the user base of this site is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JoeBob
Here is the problem:Well there are good people on both side. I don’t see a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
It's good IWRA is back. He asks a pointed question of our so called president.
Just remember the rules, nuance and context are not permitted, ignore any clarifications, insist upon the most offensive interpretation possible and mock anyone who suggests there might be others.
Created:
-->
@Mall
I guess the answer is something only those who majored in women's studies are able to give.
I am an individualist. "her" is unspecified, so I have no idea what makes her so special. Having a pleasure hole is not very special, almost every her has one.
As for what a simp is, it appears to be a dishonestly submissive or obedient male who is dishonest in order to obtain sex. I do not think this concept is well defined or that there is a useful well defined concept at the heart of it.
Interpersonal dynamics are as complicated as individual characters. When almost every attempt to objectify character fail, how can generalizations about interpersonal dynamics be valid or useful?
Only surface level principles are generally useful when there are hidden mechanisms, and one principle I am sure of is this: Any relationship that requires dishonesty to obtain or maintain is worthless. If the only way to get something from another person be it pizza or sex is to lie (including lying to yourself) then one should ask whether that thing is truly necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
and by that he clearly means nazis and antisemites. Fair is fair.
Created:
-->
@RaymondSheen
So, the basis of "sexuality" is procreational drive.That really doesn't explain various sexual deviations that aren't geared towards procreation. Masturbation, homosexuality, beastiality.
...
Could you eloborate on that? I'm trying to imagine where you might be coming from and I got nothing. I can't imagine.
Many people have a shallow understanding of natural selection + random mutation and can only imagine perfectly rational design. The reality is that the changes which are preserved would be any that make the slightest net improvement in fitness (which is average multi-generational genetic reproductive success).
There are underlying systems and those systems are not susceptible to be changed just as easily to one way vs another. There are a finite number of "directions" which small changes can affect without catastrophe.
So suppose there is a sequence of basepairs which control the equilibrium level of a muscle growth hormone. This hormone not only makes the creature become strong with slight provocation but it increases the power of the heart and many other functions.
Suppose a heart that beats too fast also reduces lifespan, leading to seizures at a younger age.
Natural selection may very well move towards early heart attacks if beating the shit out of a predator outweighs dying young.
So back to sexuality, what makes you imagine there is a genetic system which specifies exactly who and what to be attracted to? There isn't, it is obviously a rigged system that is ultimately developed in the brain, by neural connections susceptible to many factors including experience and culture.
Masturbation is perhaps the perfect example, what is the cost of wasting semen? Very little. What causes masturbation? The reserves are constantly being filled, a nerve signals the brain, the psycho-sexual system in the brain becomes more active. That tension can be released by masturbation. Something similar no doubts happens in females.
You may objectively say "that's a waste of time" but natural selection doesn't operate based on rationality but changes. What if the only way to change the described sexual system is to reduce the sex drive? To reduce the amount of semen produced? To only produce semen after being attracted by someone?
All of those things could easily cause a net detriment to fitness far greater than ten minutes a day and a few mL of protein.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Western decadence. Don't let it corrupt you, stay true to the emperor!
Created:
Posted in:
That's what the pro putin people said about navalny.
Created:
Posted in:
Need to kill a political opponent? Well you could send your goons to "convict" him and then he just happens to die in custody, or you could "convict" him and then let the assassins go after him.
You know, whatever works. Just remember USA is always democratic and the people the Pentagon doesn't like never are!
P.S. Unlike Underdog's misinformation, this is based in fact.
Created:
Even criminal if you piss off the wrong people.Taking a stand can be very violent.
That's why it's so important to take a stand while wholeheartedly supporting the manufacture and export of weapon systems regardless of the cost or consequences. Make sure to obey any warning signs from social media and CNN/BBC talking heads and you too can take a stand in a safe and responsible manner!
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
Anarcho-capitalism is poorly defined, so I don't know. There were people with guns telling other people what they could and could not do, but when isn't there? and that is the point RM was making; but since it's poorly defined we don't know if RM is actually debunking what they are talking about.
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
A minor insurrection in seattle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Occupied_Protest
Created:
Posted in:
*sigh* not good news for people wanting to see religion fade away.
A near-martyr attempt is like steroids for a christian preacher.
He's going to be bigger than ever now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Don't you have a greater east asian co-prosperity sphere to work on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Another interesting difference is that real HOA's face meaningful competition. If a person does not like the rules of one HOA, it is very easy to avoid that HOA and live in another neighborhood or housing complex. This does not require leaving behind one's family, friends, job, and culture; learning a new language; or getting the permission of some other nation-state. This makes competition among HOAs much more meaningful than competition among national governments.
It is true that HOAs are easier to escape than nations, but that does not mean they are escaped easily enough.
I think what the original question was aiming at, and what I would aim at is this: Just because volunteerism is morally superior does not mean that everything which is voluntary is effective and just.
People will from time to time accumulate gambling debt and then try to sell their kids into slavery. An HOA at it's worse is as detrimental to a person's life as a communist government even though people 'consented' by moving into the neighborhood.
Here I would say we can have the best of both worlds. We can have a voluntary society, but we need to be keenly aware of the dangers of corruption, fraud, and dishonestly obtained "consent" (not really consent). For example we must not discard the attitude of the liberal revolutionaries of the late 18th and early 19th century insofar as we actively try to engineer legal systems to bias the society towards honesty and justice.
I think HOAs are an excellent case study in what we must not try to scale up. In other words "sign here to sell your soul" buried in the fine print is hardly an improvement over government coercion. That is not real consent.
I am not sure, but I think the question may have been suggesting that the people in one generation can create rules that restrict the use of their land for all future generations. I think this is not legitimate. I think any future generation would be free to alter the rules of the HOA or even to abolish the HOA, and earlier generations cannot do anything to prevent this.
This is exactly what I am talking about. There is (from the principle of consent alone) nothing stopping an HOA charter from binding future houseowners.
... but we can see the problem as can Dr. Huemer. If the only legitimate HOAs are democratic and allow for alteration of the rules (including abolishment) that is a principle of government, one that has been discovered to be useful already.
Where one principle is useful, others are as well. Why not take the moral reasoning which created volunteerism and use it to craft a constitution not as giver of authority but a blueprint for legitimate government. If for no other reason than to help people recognize the emergence of tyranny this would be better.
Indeed, empirically, companies bend over backwards to accommodate even unreasonable customer demands.
This is true of legitimate businesses that value their reputation.
I am not joining that war. And neither, I believe, will any of my neighbors.
They may not need you to attack. If you've been paying fees assuming they were sane they could use that money to hire mercenaries.
This all works out when these arbitration firms are the only plausible option, but in order for that to be the case arbitration firms need to be powerful, trustworthy, and not at each other's throats... kind of like a government ought to be.
Taking into account, in addition, that immigration benefits the receiving country
It benefits it when rational & moral people move for rational causes. A swarm of destitute people with no skills showing up because they were lied to about the streets being paved for gold is not a net benefit on any scale.
Yes it eventually works out, people adapt; but that does not mean an alternative history where that migration didn't occur wouldn't have been better.
In seriousness, no, there is no phenomenon of "saturating" an economy. There isn't a maximum amount of work that can be done; the amount of work increases with the population.
The desire for goods and services scales with population, but production may not. The most obvious example would be a shift in the ratio between mechanized means of production and population.
Production becomes less efficient per capita and the quality of life goes down. Demand is a two factor variable: It isn't just people wanting something, it's people having something to trade for it as well.
Granted, the people who just decided that they don't want to work aren't included
That's not a small concession that renders the "statistic" meaningless.
But if Americans don't want to work, that's hardly the fault of immigrants.
There is a difference between fault and causation. A toddler with a gun may not be at fault, but the bullet still kills.
We don't need to condemn the toddler to lock up the gun.
You can't conclusively prove that animals are conscious, so it's theoretically possible that they are zombies. You also can't conclusively prove that any other people are conscious, so it's theoretically possible that other people are zombies too. But this theoretical possibility doesn't make it morally permissible to torture a person; nor does it make it permissible to torture an animal.
These statements are entirely true, but not exactly an answer.
He says what you can't conclude, not what you can. If I were to answer this question I would start out by observing the enormous overlap in biological function (due in my opinion to common ancestry).
As Jordon Peterson has pointed out. In that context, anthropomorphism is the simplest explanation for similar behaviors or intuitive understanding of their behavior.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Politicians do very well on the stock market.No one wins in politics , especially the taxpayers.,
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
He's back, let the trump bashing begin again
It wasn't complete with FLRW fawning over Melania at every turn. We need to know just how much IWRA doesn't care about what the other side has to say.
Created:
Posted in:
It's not actually Texas requesting the verification... perhaps the issue is to find voters... maybe the real issue is to figure out who is dead who is alive and who can vote; and they're not real registrations.
You want to live in a democracy again? Start thinking like a that. Start thinking like a free citizen who asks questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Whatever follows you ignoring your own statements which led to the constitution even being mentioned is irreverent. Red herring.Let's go to #46 where this began:Post 46 is irrelevant to this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Now you're just distorting the conversation. Let's go back to post 92 where this began:
Let's go to #46 where this began:
The right wing ethos is that none of this matters, which is my point. It's easy when you already have a job, a car and a license. For many people it's not easy despite the fact that we're talking about something that's supposed to be a constitutional right.
That something being voting for POTUS.
You claimed that any impedance of proof, fee, or paperwork is violating that right. I will concede that point if you apply the principle equally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Vote for POTUS, I didn't just try; I succeeded.I never said I accepted the document. I've only ever said it's the closest thing to a real social contract we have.You tried to argue that gun rights are more fundamental than the right to vote
Argument based on sound and consistent moral or philosophical principals? No, but 'because the constitution says so'.
That's what "constitutional right" means, "what the constitution says". Who said "constitutional right"?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
So maybe then don't call yourself a label then that you don't care about the definition
lol, thanks for the advise. I continue to advise you to stop making up absurd dichotomies based on shallow one dimensional analysis. Also stop blindly believing and spreading misinformation and then not caring when it's debunked in front of your face.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
@WyIted
Long term contracts exist in "market forces", what makes you so sure the HOA wouldn't just make a 30 year contract?Given I do not live in the United States, Canada, nor Philippines, my country does not have a HOA, so I have minimal knowledge of what it is besides the fact that its' a government entity. Could you outline the particular issue you have right now?
Wylted summed it up fairly well.
It's a voluntary association, at least in theory (at first).
It's just a contractual entity that behaves like a government without any structure to protect rights. Essentially it's a "sign here to forfeit all your property rights", and people do (that's the crazy part).
In many cases HOA's try to form based on majority and non consensus, that is there are holdouts but the HOA claims to have authority over them. Now I am saying there is a problem in either case, even with consensus, but I am specifically pointing out that majorities (or sheep with a few lunatics at the front of the herd) have historically had no problem trampling the rights of minorities and this can be seen in modern HOAs which are more or less spontaneous attempts at government with no initial military power.
In the end, if morality is objective, there is no error in stating it. People can't be loyal to a principle that nobody speaks aloud. So when you say something like:
People would care more because they are directly paying for the service (not having their income involuntarily expropriated by taxation).
You are addressing a purely economic error, which is a considerable part of the world's avoidable problems right now; but it's not the only kind of error there is.
The HOAs don't need a lot of resources to ruin the lives of a few people. Thus the economic self-interest of the minority is not put at risk by focused tyranny. Fear is the mechanism by which focused tyranny can harm everyone, but normally by then it it's too late.
People do follow their self-interest, but the systems that don't work are the ones where the general or long term good contradicts with the immediate self-interest of people who find themselves with the power to violate rights.
There needs to be a grave threat to immediate self-interest for anyone who tries to violate the rights of others.
Created:
@RM asserting hypothesis about limits to what human beings can believe or what cultural norms they will have tends fail at historical review.
To know what is stable and possible one must look at dynamics and that is complicated. The asimovian "science of pyschohistory" is not yet a science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Israel is a bad ally anyway, as we need allies which make us look good and not the ones which turn entire muslim world against us, which is 1 billion people.
The muslim world are bad allies. They think we should throw the sexual deviants off buildings. As someone who would get thrown off buildings for sexual deviancy in 80% of the world I don't want anyone else to have to worry about that.
Pick allies by first by character and then by ideology. Never convenience or else you will end up with no friends soon enough.
The US has pissed off Greece, our cultural grandpappy in favor of step nomads turned islamic imperialists. Pointless. The Turks cannot be trusted and do not love us. The Helenes might have done both.
The US pissed off India for the petty and transient convenience of Pakistan being opposed to the USSR.
Every time we pick islamics over people with more compatible values the world ends up worse for it and we go down in reputation. I say we take those sanctions that were levied against Russia and Putin and apply them equally.
"Anti-LGBT culture with questionable elections and territorial ambitions" - Not just a Russian thing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The 3/5th compromise was about apportionment and not a statement of personhood, but the entire reason why it's in the constitution is because slaves were not considered people, so to pretend that's some kind of logical leap to get from one to another is ridiculous.
"I'm wrong, but somehow I'm still right"
The reason why it's in the constitution is because the abolitionists couldn't form a union where no slave is considered in apportionment. Counting any part of a population that can't vote with representatives is simply solidifying the status of the enfranchised population as the true masters and motivates increasing the population of non-citizens for political power.
Sound familiar? Yea they're doing it again. There are seats in congress right now representing illegal aliens who have NO RIGHT TO VOTE. End result? Fewer people have more representation if they live next to non-citizen yet apportionment worthy people.
Imagine a state with five slave holders and 10,000,000 slaves getting the same congressional representation as a state with 10,000,010 free men.
That means 5 slave holders have the same say in congress and in POTUS as 10,000,010 freemen.
That's not a statement of "personhood" but of profoundly undemocratic privilege.
When a document codifies that slaves will only count as partial people for the purposes of apportionment, that is at the very least a direct and explicit sanction of slavery as an institution.
Look up the word "explicit". Contrast with "implicit"
If it was explicit it would contradict the 14th amendment, but it doesn't. We still apportion 3/5 of the representatives to those held in service. There just aren't any (officially).
So back to the point here, you are holding up a document that sanctions slavery as the end-all-be-all arbiter of what defines a "real" American
What happened to all that "rule of law" nonsense you prattle on about so long as your biases are being stroked by "the law"?
You tried to pearl clutch with "constitutional rights", you didn't care about a real constitutional right. End of story.
So just call this argument what it is; an attempt to sheild your views from moral and philosophical scrutiny as well as critical thinking by hiding behind a document you don't fully accept yourself.
I never said I accepted the document. I've only ever said it's the closest thing to a real social contract we have. It's the thing that causes people to give a shit what people in NYC or Los Angeles want instead of just shooting them when they come streaming out desperate for food.
You are the one who tried to shame me for daring to slightly impede what you falsely called a "constitutional right".
You want to disclaim the constitution? Absolutely fine by me, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. We wouldn't have to argue about whether governments have to prove they held legitimate elections because we would both agree election outcomes have no significance whether rigged or genuine.
Created:
-->
@Bones
and @RM
You can stop talking about Vietnam because RM already undermined his position.
"The world isn't AnCap, that's why. People have a sense of justice and don't like it being survival of the fittest."
If people don't like survival of the fittest because of some intrinsic sense of justice then that sense of justice does not come from a structure of authority and would not disappear without an authority.
This attack on anarchism fails.
The problem remains one of definitions and mechanism for achieving justice. RM tries to define AnCap as survival of the fittest because he assumes that any attempt to uphold justice is an exercise of authority.
I agree with that, but you can't just ignore it when someone else isn't using the same definitions you are. The concepts Bones is describing is not defeated because you don't think he's using the right words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
No, it never "DID"."DID"...yes..."DOES"...
Representative apportionment was reduced for slaves, it was ridiculous to give the slave states any seats based on populations that weren't allowed to vote; but it certainly wasn't even close to a statement about percentage of person hood or even explicitly about race. Natives (not taxed) were excluded entirely.
Also the completely false part was always completely false: no restrictions on voting based on race or sex were ever in the constitution.
Created:
-->
@Savant
My family decided to use the eclipse as an excuse to get together. I'm afraid I did not see this in time.
Created:
Posted in:
But that's just not true, he wasn't an isolationist even those Fascists usually are.
He was an economic isolationist. He believed in autarky.
Unlike say American isolationism he wanted to destroy anyone who might disturb the isolation and steal everything he thought was required for it to prosper.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Did I?Why ask me?Because it's what you want to do when you call yourself fiscally conservative.
Created:
Posted in:
DOJ puts people in prison for contempt of congress, also tells people to ignore congress. "Rule of Law"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
If an anarchist HOA existed, it would be subject to market forces and competition.
Long term contracts exist in "market forces", what makes you so sure the HOA wouldn't just make a 30 year contract?
How does one HOA interfere in the harassment operations of another? Why would the 90% stop paying if even now they don't even show up to meetings to vote against things?
Created:
Posted in:
Well it's usually not that hard to find good reasons to destroy a government, they are born of violence and turn back to violence by nature.
This is why it's important to ask the question: and you have a better idea?
Hitler's better idea was to kill everyone and then the magic superiority of aryan blood would bring about a utopia.
It's not easy to be more wrong than the communists, but there you have it.
At least it wasn't some crazy theory like mine: Just stop attacking innocent people and maybe we'll get closer to Utopia.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why ask me?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Me: Is it social security? Do you want elderly people to suffer more?
Have you learned what a fallacy of a complex question is yet?
Created:
Posted in:
normal American house size (not 2 bed apartment size)
Created:
Posted in:
shack
shack
shack
shack
shack
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But you (and all other fiscal conservatives) won't back this position because you have a party to stick too.
Still clueless
Created:
-->
@FLRW
You remind me of Aristotle.
@Aristotle's ghost: We're sorry, you're lessons will outlive this nonsense.
Created: