YES! No evictions!! How we benefit from Bidens move

[Ray From Cleveland]

Notice how Peach45 has ran off after getting her ass kicked? She is a crook and slime to take advantage of others the way she wants to. She is a thief.

She probably expected all her left-wing friends to agree and support her. Everybody turned against her so her best hope is that the tread dies quickly, which it's not.

 

[Canon Shooter]

My understanding is the rent continues to accrue, which makes the moratorium not so great. At the end you get kicked out and still owe.

That's what I thought, as well.

Seems as though the OP could open himself up to a nice civil suit...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Quid Pro is counting on any SC challenge to take long enough for him to be out of office before his edict gets slapped down. It's clearly an overreach, but unless Congress moves against him (HA!, like that'll happen with the sycophants in the House) it'll stand long enough for the democrats to get political mileage out of it.

Since he already violated his oath of office, as soon as the Republicans take leadership of the House, they can impeach him, legitimately unlike what they did to President Trump.

 

[Canon Shooter]

McDonald's in our area start at $14 an hour, most places are at $15 an hour.

A buddy of mine is opening a taco joint here in town. They're starting people of at $20 an hour. They're been in hiring mode for the last three weeks, and still haven't had enough applicants to to cover a week's worth of schedule...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No Ray, and far from it!
You've already been made aware of the many forms of socialist policies contained in a capitalist system.
But I would still be interested in hearing what you imagine would be the 'socialism' listed in the US constitution.

I didn't say they were forbidden from having social programs, what I stated is that it's not what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. You see, part of this great experiment was to have states operate like little individual countries. We lost grip of that as time went on unfortunately, and of course are suffering the consequences thereof.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't think of anything specific that your scotus has ruled on that I would or wouldn't support.

But in general I can at least say that any decisions they make based on political demands or on the demands of religious superstitious beliefs, I would oppose.

If you're trying to make a point, you'll have to be specific.

I will say though, any decision that rejects religious beliefs and accepts science wouldn't be ruling with your imagined commies.

Religions and forcing superstitious beliefs on children is tending toward fascist policy.

Our Supreme Court does one thing and one thing only, and that is hear cases that involve the constitutionality of laws, taxes, and to hear cases where written law was followed properly. Since you brought up religion, it's part of our Constitution. The government cannot support or go against people based on their religious beliefs.

 

[Donald H]

I didn't say they were forbidden from having social programs, what I stated is that it's not what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. You see, part of this great experiment was to have states operate like little individual countries. We lost grip of that as time went on unfortunately, and of course are suffering the consequences thereof.

I would say that it's fortunate that states lost the ability to act like individual countries.

That only allowed some states to promote extremist values that were not in the best interests of the country. America is full of examples of such.

Many of the southern states are still requiring force applied on them for the common good. Racism and their promotion of racism is one of the major examples.

This sort of promotion of autonomy is severely crippling America, while China practices quite the opposite with its central authority.

America chooses capitalism to the extreme, when 'socially' modified capitalism is the only way forward that can compete with China's 'communist' system that permits capitalism with necessary limits.

 

[hadit]

Since he already violated his oath of office, as soon as the Republicans take leadership of the House, they can impeach him, legitimately unlike what they did to President Trump.

That's a very good point, and if they had balls they would do it. Then, of course, they could give Kamala nothing dangerous to sign and serve notice that any attempt to circumvent the proper authority of Congress would result in impeachment of her as well. But that would take balls, something in short supply.

 

[Donald H]

Our Supreme Court does one thing and one thing only, and that is hear cases that involve the constitutionality of laws, taxes, and to hear cases where written law was followed properly. Since you brought up religion, it's part of our Constitution. The government cannot support or go against people based on their religious beliefs.

In this modern world your Scotus faces what could be a question on which it is impossible to decide, while staying within the bounds of your constitution.

No decision can uphold religious superstitious beliefs if it will then fly in the face of science. Therefore, freedom of religion stands as being fatally compromised. The only solution is for the Scotus to avoid making the long-awaited decision on abortion, for one example.

Wouldn't you agree? And why don't you agree?

Abortion is a woman's right! Push the question past reasonable limits and it will then become unlimited. Religious superstition is required to argue against that.
Those women who demand their rights will either travel to other countries or need to resort to coathangers and knitting needles in back allies.

Modern science has doomed religions to becoming inapplicable. The US constitution can't possibly stand the test of time. It's a good time to deal with it's inadequacies.

 

[Donald H]

And furthermore, it's even more complicated than it appears on the surface. The JW parents of a child in need of lifesaving medical attention, may not be allowed to decide over the child's best interests.
The Scotus isn't prepared to deal with the question (s) based on the outdated constitution.

As with nearly all important decisions that will set the bar, the US constitution falls silent. It can only decide for the parents based on religious freedom that flies in the face of science and reality.

 

[Donald H]

That's a very good point, and if they had balls they would do it. Then, of course, they could give Kamala nothing dangerous to sign and serve notice that any attempt to circumvent the proper authority of Congress would result in impeachment of her as well. But that would take balls, something in short supply.

Yes, it would call on having balls.
But balls are only in short supply when the outcome is far from being a winning strategy.

It's already been demonstrated that there is no power in America to take down a president. That's now an established fact for the other side's president or vice president.

It speaks well for a never ending fight!

 

[hadit]

In this modern world your Scotus faces what could be a question on which it is impossible to decide, while staying within the bounds of your constitution.

No decision can uphold religious superstitious beliefs if it will then fly in the face of science. Therefore, freedom of religion stands as being fatally compromised. The only solution is for the Scotus to avoid making the long-awaited decision on abortion, for one example.

Wouldn't you agree? And why don't you agree?

Abortion is a woman's right! Push the question past reasonable limits and it will then become unlimited. Religious superstition is required to argue against that.
Those women who demand their rights will either travel to other countries or need to resort to coathangers and knitting needles in back allies.

Modern science has doomed religions to becoming inapplicable. The US constitution can't possibly stand the test of time. It's a good time to deal with it's inadequacies.

Then you'd better get cracking trying to change it. Good luck with that. And as for religious freedom, no one can make a credible argument that people have to hew to the current proclamations of the scientific priests in order to have their beliefs protected. You want to talk abortion, it's quite simple and religion doesn't have to be involved. The only question is this. Is what is growing inside a woman a human being or not?

If not, then we are free to kill, just as we would be free to destroy a bald eagle's egg. Oh, wait, can't do that. Uh, free to shoot a stray dog. Oops, no, might have a collar on, can't do that. Darn it!!! I'm sure there's something out there we're as free to destroy as a non-human growing inside a woman. Maybe Zebras? Who needs them?
If, OTOH, that IS a human, then the state has ample standing to restrict and control the circumstances under and means by which a developing baby can be killed and destroyed.

Let's ask Biology. Biology, is that which is growing inside a woman a human being or not?
Biology: Of course that is a human being growing inside there. He/she has full blown, unique human DNA, a functioning circulatory system, working heart and brain, and if left alone, will develop further and be born a full-blown human, just like all the other humans walking around on the earth.

Let's ask politics. Politics, is that which is growing inside a woman a human being or not?
Politics: You can't say that, because science and my body and stuff. It's not a human unless the birth vessel says it's human. Until then, it might as well be a Zebra and we can kill Zebras because they creep us out. All those stripes and moving around and science stuff. No, it is only human if the birth vessel says it is, or until it is born and the lawyer fairy sprinkles his invisible magic dust on it, then POOF! it becomes a human. You know, because science and stuff.

No, if you want to argue abortion, you're not going to be able to use science, at least not biology.

 

[Donald H]

Then you'd better get cracking trying to change it. Good luck with that. And as for religious freedom, no one can make a credible argument that people have to hew to the current proclamations of the scientific priests in order to have their beliefs protected. You want to talk abortion, it's quite simple and religion doesn't have to be involved. The only question is this. Is what is growing inside a woman a human being or not?

If not, then we are free to kill, just as we would be free to destroy a bald eagle's egg. Oh, wait, can't do that. Uh, free to shoot a stray dog. Oops, no, might have a collar on, can't do that. Darn it!!! I'm sure there's something out there we're as free to destroy as a non-human growing inside a woman. Maybe Zebras? Who needs them?
If, OTOH, that IS a human, then the state has ample standing to restrict and control the circumstances under and means by which a developing baby can be killed and destroyed.

Let's ask Biology. Biology, is that which is growing inside a woman a human being or not?
Biology: Of course that is a human being growing inside there. He/she has full blown, unique human DNA, a functioning circulatory system, working heart and brain, and if left alone, will develop further and be born a full-blown human, just like all the other humans walking around on the earth.

Let's ask politics. Politics, is that which is growing inside a woman a human being or not?
Politics: You can't say that, because science and my body and stuff. It's not a human unless the birth vessel says it's human. Until then, it might as well be a Zebra and we can kill Zebras because they creep us out. All those stripes and moving around and science stuff. No, it is only human if the birth vessel says it is, or until it is born and the lawyer fairy sprinkles his invisible magic dust on it, then POOF! it becomes a human. You know, because science and stuff.

No, if you want to argue abortion, you're not going to be able to use science, at least not biology.

Hold on now. It's the same question based on religious beliefs as jerking off 'used' to be. It's just taken to a slightly more complicated level.
Only religion can, or will, make the determination on the fetus or the cum.

And furthermore, who says people can't kill other people? Did religion impose that law on society and did religion not decide the parameters on which killing is justifiable and quite legal? Even highly recommended in their bibles? If it's o.k. with little children in Iraq, can the same exception be made for cum and fetuses?

If Americans can kill a million people in Iraq based on the demands of religion, why can't religion be neutral or silent on killing cum or a fetus?

Best to rely on an argument based on science. A description of being a human being depends on the human in question being 'on the hoof' so to speak. Not being 'on the hoof' is something quite different.

We Canadians usually take the position of attempting to make abortions unnecessary by resorting to 'socially' responsible means to discourage the need arising.

Americans don't seem to think that 'socially responsible government is the solution.

 

[hadit]

Hold on now. It's the same question based on religious beliefs as jerking off 'used' to be. It's just taken to a slightly more complicated level.
Only religion can, or will, make the determination on the fetus or the cum.

And furthermore, who says people can't kill other people? Did religion impose that law on society and did religion not decide the parameters on which killing is justifiable and quite legal? Even highly recommended in their bibles? If it's o.k. with little children in Iraq, can the same exception be made for cum and fetuses?

If Americans can kill a million people in Iraq based on the demands of religion, why can't religion be neutral or silent on killing cum or a fetus?

Best to rely on an argument based on science. A description of being a human being depends on the human in question being 'on the hoof' so to speak. Not being 'on the hoof' is something quite different.

We Canadians usually take the position of attempting to make abortions unnecessary by resorting to 'socially' responsible means to discourage the need arising.

Americans don't seem to think that 'socially responsible government is the solution.

If you want to base the abortion decision on science, biology clearly states that a developing baby is a human being. When, how, and why to kill a human being is a matter the state has authority to decide. It can decide that killing humans on the field of battle is acceptable while killing your neighbor is not. The police are authorized to kill while you are not, and so on. You can argue that such restrictions are religion based (and thank God that many are), but everyone agrees that the state has the right and responsibility to declare some killings acceptable and others not. The state can, therefore, restrict or ban abortion based on biological science.

The only question remains, is that a human being or not? Science says yes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In this modern world your Scotus faces what could be a question on which it is impossible to decide, while staying within the bounds of your constitution.

No decision can uphold religious superstitious beliefs if it will then fly in the face of science. Therefore, freedom of religion stands as being fatally compromised. The only solution is for the Scotus to avoid making the long-awaited decision on abortion, for one example.

Wouldn't you agree? And why don't you agree?

Disagree because religion was not the issue when it came to abortions. It was won over the right to liberty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's a very good point, and if they had balls they would do it. Then, of course, they could give Kamala nothing dangerous to sign and serve notice that any attempt to circumvent the proper authority of Congress would result in impeachment of her as well. But that would take balls, something in short supply.

Whorris would never be President unless Big Brother instructs Dementia to step down. All Republicans can do is impeach him, but not get rid of him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would say that it's fortunate that states lost the ability to act like individual countries.

That only allowed some states to promote extremist values that were not in the best interests of the country. America is full of examples of such.

Many of the southern states are still requiring force applied on them for the common good. Racism and their promotion of racism is one of the major examples.

This sort of promotion of autonomy is severely crippling America, while China practices quite the opposite with its central authority.

No it would be the best thing in the world. As I stated, we were to operate as individual countries, but all fall under the guidelines of the Constitution, and only get together on federal matters. Social programs were not a federal matter. The military is a federal matter as outlined in the Constitution. We made a grave mistake when we allowed the federal government to provide for the people something that only the states should have provided.

So today we are 28 trillion in debt and growing, 30 trillion if Democrats get their phony infrastructure bill passed which again, little of it has anything to do with federal. Just in welfare programs alone, we have 80 of those. Now, picture what our country would be like today if we only adhered to the words of the great James Madison.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[lantern2814]

Wow. You're a true scumbag.

As long as it doesn't hurt you, right? **** your landlord. You know, the guy you made a promise to? The guy who you signed a contract with?

Landlords should immediately cease doing any and all upkeep to their properties. After all, without rent payments coming in, it would be simple to justify. They should start having utilities cut to their building under the guise of "testing" to make sure gas, water and electrical systems are operating properly. They should schedule that utility work from 4pm until midnight every day, as to be as big a disruption in a tenants day as possible.

Finally, and I don't know the answer to this because I don't rent, does the eviction moratorium relieve you from having to make good on the rent that you're currently not paying?

Are you essentially now a squatter?

Once the moratorium ends, these freeloaders are on the hook for everything they owe in back rent. This wasn’t a “no rent, free living space” bill. Just an eviction moratorium.

 

[JoeB131]

When you move, you only need a one way ticket. Now go buy one.

Nope. We've got the votes to fix this country, and that's what we're going to do.

Deal with it... your America is going away, and good ******* riddance.

 

[JoeB131]

Quid Pro is counting on any SC challenge to take long enough for him to be out of office before his edict gets slapped down. It's clearly an overreach, but unless Congress moves against him (HA!, like that'll happen with the sycophants in the House) it'll stand long enough for the democrats to get political mileage out of it.

Awesome. You talk like this is a bad thing.