Jump to content

Everyone about to get a $1,000 check?


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Hagar said:

This post has to come with a warning - You may feint.  A CNN Reporter praising President Trump.

This is the hidden content, please

She looks good enough to be on Fox. People don’t want to admit it, but Trump is a leader. In times of crisis, we all look to our leaders to do just that......lead.

I think I will use my $1000 to put down on a set of tires for my truck. Isn’t that terrible? That won’t cover a set of truck tires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stevenash said:

But it will help keep the tire company open, help the guy who mounts them keep his job, and help that same guy buy groceries for his family thus keeping the grocery store open and not laying off people  in such an extraordinary time.

Aah, the cycle of money. Happy to be able to contribute. I was just complaining about prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Gasp...you're going to accept government assistance?

 

I am not accepting but glad it is available in extraordinary times .   something that can and should be done in national emergencies but not on an every day basis.  If you do it all the time, it makes it nearly impossible to do it when it is most needed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I am not accepting but glad it is available in extraordinary times .   something that can and should be done in national emergencies but not on an every day basis.  If you do it all the time, it makes it nearly impossible to do it when it is most needed

What happened to pulling yourself up by your bootstraps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stevenash said:

Also heard someone suggest that in order to keep locally owned restaurants afloat, buy gift certificates from them.   Helps them with cash flow and gives you or someone you give the certificate to to have a good meal somewhere in the future

 

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

I am not accepting but glad it is available in extraordinary times .   something that can and should be done in national emergencies but not on an every day basis.  If you do it all the time, it makes it nearly impossible to do it when it is most needed

I have a solution.  Accept it and buy gift certificates to local restaurants, and then do with them what you like (you could even donate to local “feed the hungry” type charities).  Win-win.   Besides, while declining may be noble (well, IS noble) in principle, I know good and well you’ve paid more than your fair share in taxes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Gasp...you're going to accept government assistance?

 

There’s a difference. I pay in many many many thousands each year, because I’m willing to work for it, and not accept the fact that I can choose to do nothing and let the left wing-nuts keep me down by buying my vote with just enough to survive. I will give mine to my newly pregnant daughter and her husband to help with the birth cost. But those truck tires sound pretty good too... 🤭

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

There’s a difference. I pay in many many many thousands each year, because I’m willing to work for it, and not accept the fact that I can choose to do nothing and let the left wing-nuts keep me down by buying my vote with just enough to survive. I will give mine to my newly pregnant daughter and her husband to help with the birth cost. But those truck tires sound pretty good too... 🤭

I owed on my income tax this year. Just about to get it back. That’s why I said it’s “MY MONEY” to Big Girl......and I need tires.

She doesn't know the difference between assistance and living off the mammary gland of the working class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, baddog said:

I owed on my income tax this year. Just about to get it back. That’s why I said it’s “MY MONEY” to Big Girl......and I need tires.

She doesn't know the difference between assistance and living off the mammary gland of the working class.

I gotta get out more. The “mammary gland” reference kinda got my wheels turning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...