Rotadom
Satan's Plaything
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Posts
- 7,405
You couldn't spark a tumbleweed with a flamethrower.Here’s the CNN clip I was referring to in my earlier post today that sparked so much outrage among the TDS community.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You couldn't spark a tumbleweed with a flamethrower.Here’s the CNN clip I was referring to in my earlier post today that sparked so much outrage among the TDS community.
•You couldn't spark a tumbleweed with a flamethrower.
lol what a trumptard.Wrong. Even though the Trumps live in luxury at Mar a Lago with its golf course and incredible amenities, it is not assessed by the county as a residence. If it were, his property taxes might be higher than they are. Trump signed a deed of conservation and preservation easement in 1996, meaning he ceded the right to use the property for anything other than a social club. Because of that, the county assessor uses an income approach to assess the value.
It’s not difficult to understand why even those who suffer from TDS believe the market value of the property likely far exceeds the $18-27 million figure used by the county assessor for property tax purposes. Letitia James has been quoted as saying “closer to $75 million.” Fuzzy says $120 to 150 million. CNN’s expert guest said “hundreds of millions.”
Trump wouldn't let boomer shine shoes there.lol what a trumptard.
They let you copy and paste that much? How many times did it take for it to work right?Letitia James and judge Engoron should familiarize themselves with our founding fathers opinions on what the government’s role is when it come to protecting property rights, property being a wide range of individual possessions not limited to material wealth and possessions. The government’s role is to protect and serve not confiscate using Gestapo tactics. Our justice system gone rogue.
CHAPTER 16|Document 23
James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
I'm sure they will take your very learned cut and paste job under advisement.Letitia James and judge Engoron should familiarize themselves with our founding fathers opinions on what the government’s role is when it come to protecting property rights, property being a wide range of individual possessions not limited to material wealth and possessions. The government’s role is to protect and serve not confiscate using Gestapo tactics. Our justice system gone rogue.
CHAPTER 16|Document 23
James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68
This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.
Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.
According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.
More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.
That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!
A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.
If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.
If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
At first blush, and not being a lawyer myself, I think this sounds like a, uh, whatdya call it? Oh, right, that's it.UNCONFIRMED reports that Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass is negotiating to post Trump's appeal bond for him, on the condition that he be named Secretary of the Treasury should Trump win.
Yass owns more shares of TikTok than anyone else in the USA reportedly.
He works closely with the Israeli government to help suppress news favorable to Gaza on social media (he is Jewish) but has had little success banning Israeli atrocities to date on TikTok
Yass is also the majority donor to Koholet, the fringe-right faction in Israel attempting to dismantle the Israeli judiciary and install an authoritarian leader in Israel.
Yass has been under IRS audit for six years, mostly for claiming short term gambling profits as long term investment income. He purportedly owes the government one billion dollars
UNCONFIRMED reports that Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass is negotiating to post Trump's appeal bond for him, on the condition that he be named Secretary of the Treasury should Trump win.
Yass owns more shares of TikTok than anyone else in the USA reportedly.
He works closely with the Israeli government to help suppress news favorable to Gaza on social media (he is Jewish) but has had little success banning Israeli atrocities to date on TikTok
Yass is also the majority donor to Koholet, the fringe-right faction in Israel attempting to dismantle the Israeli judiciary and install an authoritarian leader in Israel.
Yass has been under IRS audit for six years, mostly for claiming short term gambling profits as long term investment income. He purportedly owes the government one billion dollars
Why would someone make a bond for a cabinet position as a prize from a Loser, knowing the odds of Trump becoming President are unlikely? Sounds more like 'squid' pro quo.At first blush, and not being a lawyer myself, I think this sounds like a, uh, whatdya call it? Oh, right, that's it.
A QUID PRO QUO.