Jump to content

abrasivesaint

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,711

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Everything posted by abrasivesaint

  1. abrasivesaint
    For the record, i never argued this, but carry on..
  2. abrasivesaint
    This is just black and white nonsense. You’ve asked people to offer alternatives to their arguments in the past, so i ask again. Where do you think evictions would have lead, and what benefits would it have had on our society?
  3. abrasivesaint
    Is the “KS” in “folks” now considered masculine or some shit?
  4. abrasivesaint
    “Tlaib and other lawmakers who pushed for the continued moratorium hoped to provide more time for states to distribute federal funds — nearly $47 billion approved by Congress this year — to reach tenants and landlords that need it. Hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money is yet unspent in Michigan.” - Also from the Detroit News article. Italics and underlining of landlords done by myself.
  5. abrasivesaint
    Seeing as how the Daily Mail seems to be either inept, or willfully disingenuous as i’ve claimed, i finally decided to dig a little deeper, and do their job for them.. Pressley: [Her latest financial disclosure report submitted to the clerk of the House of Representatives states she and her husband received rental income of $5,001 to $15,000 on her “primary residence” in the city that was converted to a “two-family building.” That primary residence, she disclosed, is worth $500,001 to $1 million.. .. Pressley could not be reached for comment after multiple attempts by the Herald Tuesday.] https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/08/17/ayanna-pressley-claimed-up-to-15000-in-rental-income-last-year/ Tlaib: [The rent was for a residential property in Detroit valued at $100,000 to $250,000, according to a financial disclosure report posted this week. “There is no contradiction between advocating for an eviction moratorium and rental relief and having a great relationship with a long-term tenant in a single rental home,” Tlaib spokeswoman Adrienne Salazar said.] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/08/20/tlaib-defends-detroit-rental-income-amid-conservative-attacks/8201891002/
  6. abrasivesaint
    Again, not arguing the legitimacy of property rights. Any talk of amendment was to a system that offered no protections to both tenant, NOR LANDLORD, in the rare situation we found ourselves in due to lockdowns resulting in massive amounts of unemployment and income loss, and not because one simply does not want to pay rent because they’re a lazy cunt and don't want to work. Both LANDLORD, and tenant, lost their source of income through no fault of their own during pandemic lockdowns. The system that enforced these lockdowns, should have implemented across-the-board protections for both parties. Similar to something like this one.. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/information-for-landlords-on-emergency-housing-assistance Again, that article left questions unasked, important questions. Questions that if they had answers to, may not paint the picture they desired. Maybe they would, but we don’t know, because they didn’t ask. If not because they’re being disingenuous, than because of their weak ass journalism skills. edit: But if we’re going to continue into the weeds.. Please play out the scenario that you think should have happened, involving evictions, and where that would have ended.
  7. abrasivesaint
    It’s not my position, and i was getting the feeling that you felt it was, and i tried to clarify. I don’t believe in the abolition of property rights, that’s why i said amended and not abolished. I think the fact that we’re even discussing who has more important rights in this predicament is the clear indication that the system has a flaw. Again, this doesn’t mean abolition of the system is the answer. Neither tenant nor landlord should be put in this position. We have protections and insurances for damn near everything else within this system, why can there be no protections for both parties in this situation? The concept of a free market has led to Facebook and what many consider their, damn near, monopoly on free speech. Including many folks around here. They have reached the point where they own the majority of major social media sources. This has resulted in Facebook’s ability to control free speech, and restricting the rights that the country claims to uphold. Other industries only follow suit. A system does not check the market, leaves the market open for monopoly. A people who do not check the system, leaves the system open to corruption, and still, monopolies. The abolition of the state in place, only leads to monopolies becoming the state. It results in Chevron being able to hold their own court, and prosecuting Donziger at their will. Imposing harsher penalties than even the current state would enforce in their prosecution, but are upholding under the state, due to corruption. Those who attempt to live outside the system succumb to the enforcement of violations, whether public or private. Eventually leading to force, leading to exile, imprisonment, or death. This doesn’t improve under privatization. Admitting that one has rights, admits that there is a need for an authority to protect those rights. I have no faith that unfettered free markets protect these rights, or lead anywhere but totalitarianism. I certainly appreciate it, and i reject that statement on a personal level. I contribute to the system like anyone else. I don’t seek abolition, (despite my criticisms of it), but amendment. To be honest, i have to partially attribute that to some conversations around here. Correct. To clarify, i didn’t mean it drains the host to death, i meant it drains the host until it’s death. Regardless, this wasn’t the point. The point to all of this was that i believe the article you shared was disingenuous, on their end. If those Reps “cancelled rent” for tenants, and some tenants still chose to participate in the rental agreement, that is of no fault of the Reps, but the article doesn’t ask those questions.
  8. abrasivesaint
  9. abrasivesaint
  10. abrasivesaint
  11. abrasivesaint
    Being forcefully robbed of your income due to lockdowns during a pandemic, and having to give the limited funds you do possess to a landlord instead of potentially putting food on the table is also draining the “lifeblood” of the worker, and tenant, and in some cases can be fatal. It invalidates one’s basic right to life because of a rigid system that was poorly crafted and is enforced by zealots who fear the consideration that their precious system is flawed and needs amendment, because admission of such means that inevitably they may not have unfettered access to resources at the expense of their host. Edit: this does not mean the system is without merit, but must evolve and adapt, or perish. “..but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.“ There is no alternative, even in the most free land (allegedly) on the planet. Human beings are forced to live within a predetermined system, regardless of their position of it. Parasites attach themselves to the host and drain it of it’s nutrients until it expires within this system. There are 2 options within this system, remain a host, or become a parasitic host. An attempt of being an entity free of this predetermined system results in forfeiture of liberty, or life. There are many parasites, and they work in many ways.
  12. abrasivesaint
    Would they though? Does having food in the fridge, or utilities functioning mean more than having the roof over your head? What i meant was. How many tenants do they have? Were tenants given the opportunity to keep their usual monthly rent, under the circumstances, but these tenants still chose to pay the money? Someone who carried on living and working normally through lockdowns, like myself, and had no changes to my income or budget, has no hard choice in the situation. If rent is complimentary, great, if not, here’s your money.. Someone who is out of work and relying on aid may have to budget that aid money more so than they would their normal income, i.e. food in the fridge or roof over the head. edit: this was more of a piggy back or extension of my first question. Not necessarily intended to be a stand alone point to be made. My questions weren’t in regards to the morality of the situation. The article clearly is trying to paint a picture that they were still charging tenants rent while pushing to cancel rent, and giving absolutely no further evidence of the circumstances of the source of that income. There are a lot of unasked questions. I think it is incredibly disingenuous and clearly pushing a pre-determined narrative. I have no stake in the game, i don’t give a fuck about either one of those Reps. If they’re guilty of the hypocrisy, then by all means, fuck em. In regards of the article, i’m just calling a spade a spade.
  13. abrasivesaint
    https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/08/trumps-pledge-exit-afghanistan-was-ruse-his-final-secdef-says/184660/
  14. abrasivesaint
  15. abrasivesaint
  16. abrasivesaint
  17. abrasivesaint
  18. abrasivesaint
    This is by no means a defense of those 2, they are simple questions, because that article doesn't hold a whole lot of information.. Was the income willfully paid by those who could still afford it? Were the tenants still working, regardless of lockdowns and circumstances surrounding COVID? Did either one of them attempt to evict tenants that could not pay the rent?
  19. abrasivesaint
  20. abrasivesaint
  21. abrasivesaint
    the unintentional meme here is the name of this account combined with the post itself, haha.
  22. abrasivesaint
    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623?i=1000532288478 edit: dont agree with everything these 2 say, but some good points made, some i think most if not all people around here agree with.
  23. abrasivesaint
    Haha.
  24. abrasivesaint
  25. abrasivesaint
×
×
  • Create New...