House arrest!

[KMart]

Any one here own your own house? I bet no one does... .

Nobody here owns any real property. The Government allows you to "rent" it from them. If you don't believe that, just stop paying taxes on "your" property and see how long it takes for them to put you out on the street.

 

[DirtySteve]

Keep my name out of this. I get in enough trouble on my own.

Hey Just wanted to thank you for the diploma...

 

[JimT]

Nobody here owns any real property. The Government allows you to "rent" it from them. If you don't believe that, just stop paying taxes on "your" property and see how long it takes for them to put you out on the street.

So let me see, I’m “renting” the house I “bought” with the money I received when I sold the last home I “owned” that I was really “renting.” And when I sell the current house I “own,” that you say I “rent,” I get to keep all of the money and not give any to my “landlord?” You are a fricking genius!!

BTW, when I say “own” that means I don’t have a mortgage.

 

[KMart]

So let me see, I’m “renting” the house I “bought” with the money I received when I sold the last home I “owned” that I was really “renting.” And when I sell the current house I “own,” that you say I “rent,” I get to keep all of the money and not give any to my “landlord?” You are a fricking genius!!

BTW, when I say “own” that means I don’t have a mortgage.

There you go. When you can't think of anything intelligent to say, you resort to name calling.

 

[JimT]

There you go. When you can't think of anything intelligent to say, you resort to name calling.

I’m so sorry! I truly regret I called you a genius!

 

[KMart]

I’m so sorry! I truly regret I called you a genius!

Your apology is half hearted and weak, but I'll accept it. I know that is the best you can do.

 

[D-4297]

@KeithGlasscock ; My post never said your Rights were eliminated . I said they were put "On hold" , which is far different meaning . Parsing phrases , and disecting sentences is usually done by Lawyers in a courtroom , arguing points of Law , which it sounds like you're doing . All one has to do to "equate" my comment is to look at other POTUS declarations of Emergency ; regarding Hurricanes , floods , and other natural disasters , to understand the meaning of my statement . Whether it was semantically correct , or not ? Ask the people of New Orleans if their "Rights" were suspended during the aftermath of Katrina , and 99% will say yes . Doesn't the phrase , "put on hold" , and the word "suspended" have the same meaning is normal context usage ? Did they lose some of their "Rights" for a period of time ? Yes , they did . Their Right of free movement . Their Right to posess a firearm , and other Rights were violated , Openly . For the good of the general population . I remember watching NOLA LEO's searching people for guns in the Superdome , and confiscating them . A clear violation of Rights under the Constitution , but made "Legal" by Emergency Declaration of POTUS , and the Governor . And the majority of the nation thought these steps were taken to benefit the health , safety and welfare of those in that dire situation , at the time . And the Courts backed up those "Un-Constitutional" actions . And yes ! Your "so-called" Rights can be taken away by declaration , even if only briefly .... Take it up with the courts then , too .

 

[Keith Glasscock]

As for my rights. They are mine. There is no "so called" involved. If you wish to surrender some or all of yours for a short time, or forever, please feel free. I will be retaining and exercising mine all the time.

We seem to partially agree on one thing. Redress of grievances is best handled in the courts for limited (small) violations of our rights.

Let me make a hypothetical argument. The 14th amendment guarantees you have the right to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. You argue that rights can be put on hold, and seem to argue that my right to liberty can be placed on hold. Do I have that correct?

So what if the government places the 14th "On Hold", as you say, and you have to redress your grievance with the courts after the fact? You have been thinking about the second item on the list so far, but what about the first? What if the government decided to deprive people of their "life" during an emergency declaration in the future? Would you feel the same way?

As hyperbolic as that whole argument seems, looking in the news reports, it appears that some other countries might be doing just that. If we do not have rights, we are subjects not citizens, and the same could happen to us.

I would never argue such things in court. We have lawyers to do that. Unfortunately, allowing any slippage of our rights is a really bad idea. We must remain vigilant against that slippage the same way we must be vigilant against this virus. In the end, a responsible, self-disciplined citizenry is the answer not the question.

 

[ronsatspokane]

@KeithGlasscock ; My post never said your Rights were eliminated . I said they were put "On hold" , which is far different meaning . Parsing phrases , and disecting sentences is usually done by Lawyers in a courtroom , arguing points of Law , which it sounds like you're doing . All one has to do to "equate" my comment is to look at other POTUS declarations of Emergency ; regarding Hurricanes , floods , and other natural disasters , to understand the meaning of my statement . Whether it was semantically correct , or not ? Ask the people of New Orleans if their "Rights" were suspended during the aftermath of Katrina , and 99% will say yes . Doesn't the phrase , "put on hold" , and the word "suspended" have the same meaning is normal context usage ? Did they lose some of their "Rights" for a period of time ? Yes , they did . Their Right of free movement . Their Right to posess a firearm , and other Rights were violated , Openly . For the good of the general population . I remember watching NOLA LEO's searching people for guns in the Superdome , and confiscating them . A clear violation of Rights under the Constitution , but made "Legal" by Emergency Declaration of POTUS , and the Governor . And the majority of the nation thought these steps were taken to benefit the health , safety and welfare of those in that dire situation , at the time . And the Courts backed up those "Un-Constitutional" actions . And yes ! Your "so-called" Rights can be taken away by declaration , even if only briefly .... Take it up with the courts then , too .

No, Rights cannot be taken away via declaration. That would be termed "infringement". Fortunately one amendment in particular prohibits infringement. It happens to be the very amendment that prevents infringement of all the other rights granted under the Constitution. The only way rights can be removed is via the amendment process. That is very difficult and depending on the targeted rights, doing so may result in the union being dissolved. Consider Keith's argument and tell us which rights you would be comfortable forfeiting via declaration.

This of course is not an argument against the stay at home "guide lines" (which they are as opposed to edict). Common sense and a little understanding of biology should lead to prudent behavior.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

They welded doors shut on apartment complexes in china. Think about that

 

[orkan]

Anyone looking to the law for protection in this country, will be very disappointed.

The law treats citizens, very much like many of the members of this forum are treating each other in this thread.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Anyone looking to the law for protection in this country, will be very disappointed.

The law treats citizens, very much like many of the members of this forum are treating each other in this thread.

This thread does not appear to be out of hand. Reasoned dialog is all I see. There were a couple of threads that were getting edgy but that settled down. These are good days to engage in reasoned dialog as long as everyone can control their emotions.

 

[spclark]

...as long as everyone can control their emotions.

Case in point:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-derails-train-coronavirus-aid-ship-usns-mercy-feds-say

What the heck do they put in the water out there anyway?

 

[orkan]

Reasoned dialog is all I see.

If you can read this page alone, and see reasoned dialog, then you're more understanding than I.

It will be my wish, that people would be significantly more reasonable in their dealings.

 

[ronsatspokane]

Case in point:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-derails-train-coronavirus-aid-ship-usns-mercy-feds-say

What the heck do they put in the water out there anyway?

Something that results in paranoid delusions it seems.

 

[ronsatspokane]

If you can read this page alone, and see reasoned dialog, then you're more understanding than I.

It will be my wish, that people would be significantly more reasonable in their dealings.

I guess I grew up in a age where thick skins were the norm and I've always abhorred mutual admiration societies. My experience is that when there is universal agreement, everyone has universally screwed themselves. That and of course I'm always right.

 

[orkan]

I've always abhorred mutual admiration societies.

There's a big difference between mutual admiration, and mutual respect.

People almost never behave in person, the way they behave on these forums.

 

[ronsatspokane]

There's a big difference between mutual admiration, and mutual respect.

People almost never behave in person, the way they behave on these forums.

You raise an interesting topic that is under discussion a lot these days and there are a number of viewpoints on the subject. In some of the companies I've worked for over the years (often software startups moving at a rapid pace), arguments would get overheated in the pressure of the moment. When it was over, we'd all go out for a beer. Of course those where the days when 60-80 hours a week were the norm in that field and we rarely got out for that beer before 9 or 10 at night. There were times when we'd send management out to bring beer back to the office. Those who argued the most intensely are still the best of friends. Passion is not a bad thing as long as one can either reach compromise or admit defeat.

In later years as companies became more sensitive to the emotional needs of the individual, us old timers have noticed that it is much more difficult to get to the root cause of any particular issue. We (my old friends and I) find that tossing a grenade into the middle of the conversation and heating up the discussion a bit usually results in the core issues surfacing rather rapidly. Once surfaced, they can be addressed and most feel pretty good about it. However, these days you do have those who are traumatized by the process of arriving at truth. Will coddling help those individuals deal with life? I have my doubts.

 

[orkan]

The truth can easily be discovered without coddling anyone. However, most people do not trouble themselves over truth when it pertains to gaining "internet cool kid points" and furthering the perception of their anonymously created forum persona.

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

Currently state and local governments can "interfere" with individual rights,liberties and the constitutional amendments because courts will not or are not hearing arguments. Also with these "temporary" acts, courts will typically not hear arguments because they are temporary. But for the socialist agenda they are serving a purpose. They want to establish a "new normal".