|
Post by gumbo on Apr 18, 2020 9:23:09 GMT -5
Lemme know when you need me to jump in and derail this thread....... ....always ready to help.. g-f-b
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Apr 18, 2020 9:33:26 GMT -5
in re: An apology is owed by (me)....
When I said "the King will [fix this]", I was riffing on what NY Governor Cuomo said just a day earlier, calling Trump a King. Had I not used the word "King", and instead used the word "President" or even just "Trump", then the attempt at humor would've fallen flat... at least here in the USA. Though admittedly, the intent of the full statement still would've been understood, and any/all booing and hissing directed towards #45 still would've been well deserved.
Now, as to the tone of this thread. I seem to recall that less than 24 hours ago, I pointed out that civility was the Order Of The Day, here in the NutzHouse. That elucidation has seemingly fallen on deaf ears, hasn't it. Time to clean it up boys and girls, or I won't even attempt to talk newey out of flattening the contratemps.
In fact, I've added the most offensive word in this thread to the List Of No-No Words, replacing it with dimwit. Ace, I don't know what society is like over there in Denmark, but here on this side of the pond, we're still a bit provincial about kids and delicate ears, and all that drivel. Sorry, don't mean to stifle your speech, but the fact is that while this is the Coffee Shop wherein you can say what you want, nonetheless the House Rules are that you do so politely, as if your own child was listening in. Errr, providing that said child is being raised in the USA. Elsewhere on the globe, I'm not particularly interested in abiding by societal norms that don't comport with our Rules.
'Nuff said.
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Apr 18, 2020 9:51:08 GMT -5
Hear Hear!
Now about those guitars, for which we all share our love ....
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 18, 2020 9:52:09 GMT -5
In fact, I've added the most offensive word in this thread to the List Of No-No Words, replacing it with dimwit. Not a horrible plan, but if someone starts out with something highly egregious, is the best approach to just water it down to a lesser insult? I came up with different strategy. Let me know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Apr 18, 2020 10:31:53 GMT -5
i had the edit window up to replace the bad words with dumdum but then thought that maybe that was overstepping a bit
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 18, 2020 11:33:00 GMT -5
I've yet to see you reply with a more convincing argument than bolded text I only used bold on a dozen words. "I haven't seen anything but X." "But I've only used a little X." I presume you mean "balance," which nobody disagrees a political system needs. The disagreement is based on where that balance's fulcrum is. More at the bottom. I think the said snark regarding someone who says "When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that's the way it's gotta be. It's total" is accurately-targeted snark. Calling a party that is right-wing by any measure other than in relation to the Republican party a "Communist party" isn't really accurate snark. What's thoroughly offputting is what that implies: that any attempt at a citizenry organising to help themselves through a crisis the citizenry faces approaches 'communism.' Does this count as one of those ad hominem attacks? Mate I exasperatedly called you a nasty word meaning 'person with no intelligence' because I've yet to see you present convincing intelligible arguments for 1) why compassionately using public funds to help fund the public at a time when the public needs help approaches the negative label 'communist,' 2) why certain politicians who try to legislatively help people only do so to hoodwink people into voting for them, 3) why 'the social contract' should be an optional actual contract you get to opt out of having already benefited massively from society enough to comprehend a beneficial mutually-sustaining relationship between the individual and the society, 4) why you immediately assume that your opponents in this argument hold the default position that conservatives are 'evil' (bit of a straw man, no?). If I outline what you seem to be proclaiming as an ideology — given the beliefs on which the "communist barb" must rest upon to make sense, and your obtuse denial of the social contract as though it's an actual optional legal contract — and you interpret it as an ad-hominem attack, what does that say about that ideology? Ad hominems attack your character; I attacked your opinion. Do you think that attacking one's opinion is tantamount to attacking one's character because one's opinions reflect their character? I'm not sure how that could ever enable productive debate. The key difference is I'm not really asking you to accept everything about society if you live in it, nor do I feel you should move away from society if you dislike any part of it. I'm trying to illustrate that the eventual outcome of the libertarian ideology is dangerous anarchy — with total liberty, who polices the thugs? — à la Western Somalia. And I'm saying that, since I take it for granted that most people think Western Somalia isn't exactly utopia, that advocating libertarianism as a way to a happy, productive nation doesn't make logical sense. I can feel compassion for my fellow human being — given I surmise that the world has affected you in a way to cause you to dislike helping it to the degree that it has in general helped you — at the same time as attacking your viewpoint's logic. It's not a hard balance. I don't think you're damaged because you disagree with me; you've put false words in my mouth and then attacked those words. To clarify: I surmise that you have been subject to damaging experiences that have affected your opinion to the degree that it has become illogical. There is what I believe is an African proverb that goes "The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel it's warmth." This strongly resonates with my experiences of people who advocate libertarianism. That isn't an attack, I'm genuinely trying to figure out how your opinion came to be. That you react to it as an attack makes me feel that my surmising might be somewhat accurate. Accurate observation. Here's another: the folly of an ideologue is to believe that anybody who attacks their ideology does so because it sits in opposition to the attacker's, instead of meriting attack because it is ill-thought in itself. Your opinion isn't 'competing' with mine; I just think your opinion is poorly reasoned, and thus warrants criticism. Please clarify, as you don't define what 'perfect people' are. It seems to me that you're saying that it's fine to advocate ill-thought systems because any system's implementation is never perfect? So I suppose, as I said above, that you mean "balance." Assuming I'm correct: nobody disagrees a political system needs balance regarding individual liberty versus obligation to the society that actuates that liberty. We're arguing about where that balance is, and about how much one really depends on the society in which they live for 1) their own individual liberty and 2) so many things that help individuals prosper, e.g. education and infrastructure. And I'm stating, in argument, that it's completely illogical that individuals who have benefited from society's protection against anarchy and from society's provision can advocate not contributing to sustaining that society — as though the "take" is for granted but the "give" is optional.
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Apr 18, 2020 12:25:40 GMT -5
Ace, I don't know what society is like over there in Denmark, but here on this side of the pond, we're still a bit provincial about kids and delicate ears, and all that drivel. Sorry, don't mean to stifle your speech, but the fact is that while this is the Coffee Shop wherein you can say what you want, nonetheless the House Rules are that you do so politely, as if your own child was listening in. I apologise for using unpleasant words. I got hotheaded with frustration. It frustrates me to no end that 1) one tenth of American citizens — fellow human beings — have lost their jobs as a consequence of the public health crisis, 2) given that 78% of Americans lived paycheck to paycheck in 2019, few have been able to prepare in case of one — a general lack of preparation further evidenced by government bailouts for certain entities — and boy does it really frustrate me that 3) a government helping citizens survive a situation they have no control over is seen by some with incredulity, both because it infringes upon an abstract principle of liberty, and because some hold the opinion that any well-meaning act from any area of government is disingenous, and only serves to cynically signal compassion in order to hoodwink voters. With that latter view, how is anything good ever going to happen from people coming together to want a total citizenry to benefit? Can you imagine Jefferson writing "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence and the response being, "Pah, he just wants people to vote for him." People are dying — people are actually dying — and poverty certainly increases one's chances of exposure to coronavirus, and I think many others should be frustrated, as I am, at any ill-reasoned opinions that hold that certain actions that would mitigate said poverty and consequent death should not be implemented because it would tread on someone's libertarian ideals.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 18, 2020 14:23:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 19, 2020 7:22:40 GMT -5
As per the Forbes article, this is actually 2 separate bills. The first of the 2 is the one co-sponsored by Rep. Tim Ryan, which was the genesis of this thread in the first place.
The second bill, for mortgage and rent forgiveness, is a separate piece of legislation. And whether or not it would pass is pretty doubtful in my mind, because as written, it is clearly unconstitutional as in violation of the Contract Clause of the US Constitution.
If the legislation simply had the Government directly pay peoples' landlords and mortgage holders the amounts due, it might (emphasis on the "might") pass Constitutional muster. But the Government doesn't have the power to "forgive" payment, and then to direct landlords or mortgagees to some sort of fund for reimbursement. That won't fly.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 19, 2020 9:17:35 GMT -5
If the legislation simply had the Government directly pay peoples' landlords and mortgage holders the amounts due, it might (emphasis on the "might") pass Constitutional muster. But the Government doesn't have the power to "forgive" payment, and then to direct landlords or mortgagees to some sort of fund for reimbursement. That won't fly. I'm not sure that will kill it, but it could. "Temporary measures during time of national crisis, etc." In related news: The Housing Finance Agency flexed their muscles a bit on mortgage payment deferrals to lenders last month. Essentially blackmailing all lenders who do business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to work with all mortgage holders (even those whose loans aren't covered by Fannie or Freddie) to allow partial or no payments, based on need, during the crisis and defer the payments to a later date. It's not a complete umbrella but it does affect a LOT of homeowners who thought they were destined to lose their homes. www.npr.org/2020/03/22/819725417/the-u-s-orders-a-break-on-mortgage-payments-what-does-that-mean
|
|
|
Post by newey on Apr 19, 2020 10:41:18 GMT -5
For Federally-backed mortgages, this could be ordered, as the lender isn't really on the hook in the event of default. With other mortgages, they can suggest, and perhaps even twist the screws a bit, but ultimately the Feds can't "order" anything if the mortgage is not government-backed. Of course, a sizeable number are. Those who are protesting, claiming that their rights are being violated by the various states' "stay at home" orders, need a history lesson. The Founding Fathers were well-acquainted with pandemic diseases, particularly smallpox, and were willing to endorse very stringent measures in the name of public health. The US Supreme Court has typically deferred to state and local governments in matters of quarantine. Can the government throw people in jail for violating such orders? You bet they can. Just ask Mary Mallon.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Apr 20, 2020 11:06:47 GMT -5
For Federally-backed mortgages, this could be ordered, as the lender isn't really on the hook in the event of default. With other mortgages, they can suggest, and perhaps even twist the screws a bit, but ultimately the Feds can't "order" anything if the mortgage is not government-backed. Of course, a sizeable number are. The twisting of screws you mentioned would come in the form of not allowing the lenders who don't comply to write any new mortgages backed by Freddie or Fannie.
|
|