quote:pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that. As I've said before, I thoroughly screen my tenants. At any given time, 90% of my TENANTS are fine - no problems. Another 9% have some issues, but not to the extent that they need to be evicted. The remaining 1% get evicted (I've got an eviction tomorrow morning). So, the vast majority of my TENANTS are fine.
However, to find these good tenants, I have to go through a LOT of applicants. We eliminate about 95% of applicants for two reasons: criminal history and evictions. I just screened some scumbag a few minutes ago. He said his record was clean, but in reality had a very significant criminal record include violence. In addition, the "landlord" he listed was a girl whose name I recognized as a local loser who has multiple pages of criminal activity (a typical druggie). I come into contact with these criminals on a daily basis, not to mention the people who are hanging around in the low income areas where some of my low income rentals are located. So, YES, most of my tenants are fine. And Yes, I come into contact with drug dealers, drunks, and criminals on a daily basis. Both are true and completely normal in this business. This is NOT brain surgery, but yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Concentrate - it's just not that difficult.
IP: Logged |
quote:pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that. As I've said before, I thoroughly screen my tenants. At any given time, 90% of my TENANTS are fine - no problems. Another 9% have some issues, but not to the extent that they need to be evicted. The remaining 1% get evicted (I've got an eviction tomorrow morning). So, the vast majority of my TENANTS are fine.
However, to find these good tenants, I have to go through a LOT of applicants. We eliminate about 95% of applicants for two reasons: criminal history and evictions. I just screened some scumbag a few minutes ago. He said his record was clean, but in reality had a very significant criminal record include violence. In addition, the "landlord" he listed was a girl whose name I recognized as a local loser who has multiple pages of criminal activity (a typical druggie). I come into contact with these criminals on a daily basis, not to mention the people who are hanging around in the low income areas where some of my low income rentals are located. So, YES, most of my tenants are fine. And Yes, I come into contact with drug dealers, drunks, and criminals on a daily basis. Both are true and completely normal in this business. This is NOT brain surgery, but yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Concentrate - it's just not that difficult.
You been screened...
for credibility--and arrive...limping, at the finish line.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that. As I've said before, I thoroughly screen my tenants. At any given time, 90% of my TENANTS are fine - no problems. Another 9% have some issues, but not to the extent that they need to be evicted. The remaining 1% get evicted (I've got an eviction tomorrow morning). So, the vast majority of my TENANTS are fine.
However, to find these good tenants, I have to go through a LOT of applicants. We eliminate about 95% of applicants for two reasons: criminal history and evictions. I just screened some scumbag a few minutes ago. He said his record was clean, but in reality had a very significant criminal record include violence. In addition, the "landlord" he listed was a girl whose name I recognized as a local loser who has multiple pages of criminal activity (a typical druggie). I come into contact with these criminals on a daily basis, not to mention the people who are hanging around in the low income areas where some of my low income rentals are located. So, YES, most of my tenants are fine. And Yes, I come into contact with drug dealers, drunks, and criminals on a daily basis. Both are true and completely normal in this business. This is NOT brain surgery, but yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Concentrate - it's just not that difficult.
Understood. Funny how present tense our lingering mood is. I do wish to note that those you term as "Criminals" would not be fifty or sixty years ago. Seems our categorizations of each other should be based on something a little more permanent than the momentary blip that is this government. Meaning we've been around for a hundred thousand years or so.. government.. at least this one? Not quite so long.
IP: Logged |
OKAY..lemma guess..first you pack sum heat, you walk out of your million dollar town home, hop in your yuppie mobile..stop off at Starbucks(double latte cappuccino , lite soy , decaf ) cruise down to the " hood", park your yuppiemobile, hop out and slap some skin with the brothers, drop-kick a loser in the face, knock a crack pipe outta a deadbeats hand, proceed on to your glorified sec 8, crackhouse/rental unit, evict a stoned,drunkin low-life, head back outside, say bye to your best buddies, and scurry off to your next mission from god...
and you didnt even mess a hair atop your lily-white head!
quote:very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
That's very odd. I come into contact with the police on a frequent basis. I have never been strong armed or accused of being guilty of anything! In addition, I don't know a single normal person who claims to have been strong armed. I do know of some criminals who have been strong armed and deservedly so!
You forget something though.. your not normal.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:OKAY..lemma guess..first you pack sum heat, you walk out of your million dollar town home, hop in your yuppie mobile..stop off at Starbucks(double latte cappuccino , lite soy , decaf ) cruise down to the " hood", park your yuppiemobile, hop out and slap some skin with the brothers, drop-kick a loser in the face, knock a crack pipe outta a deadbeats hand, proceed on to your glorified sec 8, crackhouse/rental unit, evict a stoned,drunkin low-life, head back outside, say bye to your best buddies, and scurry off to your next mission from god...
Yes, JR, that's exactly right except a few little details. First, I don't have a million dollar home. I drive a used F-150 (with 150,000 miles) when I'm working. I certainly wouldn't drive a nice vehicle to work in a low income neighborhood. I never go to Starbucks (I don't even like coffee), but I do sometimes stop of McDonalds for a couple of bags of McDonaldland Cookies. I don't "cruise" to work, I just drive. I don't "slap skin" with the "brothers". As I've said before, there are very few black men left in our area. Our low income rentals are mostly filled with white men and women and black women. Where have all the black men gone? I never drop kick a loser or otherwise get involved in violence. I don't usually see crackpipes. Drug addicts are stupid, but they usually aren't so stupid as to be standing outside smoking crack. My Section 8 rentals are not "glorified" and I don't allow illegal drug activity in my rentals, so they are certainly not crackhouses. I am evicting a deadbeat this morning, but that's certainly not an everyday occurrence. I don't have best buddies for tenants - it's strictly business. Finally, operating rentals is not a "mission from God", it's just business.
Other than those few little corrections, you're in the ballpark.
Oh, and for a theme song, I'm not really a music fan. While I'm working on the buildings, I usually listen to Glenn Beck or Rush!
IP: Logged |
quote:i was really amused when the aclu defended rush.
I'm not a member of the ACLU, but I could be. While I don't agree with a lot of what they do, they don't seem to have a single minded agenda. They do seem to defend the constitution on both sides. I respect that.
IP: Logged |
quote:drug dealing, drug use and abuse is statistically no higher or lower among the white or black population
Yeah, Glass, I believe that - just like I believe the government's inflation rate data and unemployment rate data (NOT). The truth is that any numbers put out by the government have to pass through their filters. In the case of inflation and unemployment, the data is manipulated to reflect the inflation and unemployment rates they desire. Their motive is to inspire confidence in the economy (which is pure stupidity). In the case of the drug data, the government passes their numbers through the screen of political correctness.
I don't believe the inflation numbers because I see prices rapidly going up at the grocery store, at the hardware store, and at the gas station. Inflation is not ridiculously low like the government is reporting.
I don't believe the unemployment numbers because I KNOW that the government doesn't count people that aren't looking for a job. There are tens of millions of people getting government handouts who aren't looking for a job. Unemployment rate at 5%??? Not hardly - more like 20%!
I don't believe that the same percentage of whites and blacks are dealing drugs because that's not even close to what I see in the real world. In my experience, a shamefully high percentage of young black males in low income areas are using/dealing illegal drugs. Hint: that's why they are arrested and sent to prison in such high numbers for these crimes. Is that related to the number of black males still in poverty - yes (the fault of the socialists and their government handouts). Like it or not, YOU ON THE LEFT are directly responsible for this sad fact - whether you want to admit it or not! And pretending that there isn't a huge drug problem among the young black male population is simply insanity.
You're right, this is a shameful racial issue - CAUSED BY AND CONTINUOUSLY ENCOURAGED BY YOU SOCIALISTS. Nothing is going to change as long as you lefties pretend that nothing's wrong!
well here's what i was trying to tell you about:
Critics Call College Bust 'Ridiculous, Nonsensical Waste' 75 San Diego State University Students Were Arrested for Charges Stemming From Possession and Sales of Drugs By ANNA SCHECTER May 6, 2008 Ninety-six people, including 75 San Diego State University students, were arrested for charges stemming from possession and sales of cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and other drugs. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4798906&page=1
note that i'm not one of the people calling this bust a waste. it is sad, but illegal is illegal,
i will say that a bust like this takes a lot more work than a street bust. which is the primary reason you see more street dealers in jail, and you see more street dealers in general just because they are right out on the street...
read the article. the "critic" goes on to say that "This bust could have happened at hundreds and hundreds of campuses across the nation." and the "critic" would be correct....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: ...Higher learning?
from the confiscation list? they were pretty high JR.
so this begs the question. how many busts like this would be "tolerated" by the general taxpaying citizen that has put themselves into some serious debt to get their kids into and half-way thru college before people begin to demand a reform to drug and enforcement laws.
we are talking about some serious financial damage in this case. 75 students. that's alot of tuition down the drain. this case represents millions of middle class dollars lost when you add in the legal costs. i bet parents are even going to be blaming the school. the school is hurt too. this is the kind of thing that damages recruiting for ten years.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Durg laws,I agree have to be totaly revamped in this country.
As far as weed goes anyway.How can a society that uses alcohal like we do have the nerve to send people away for weed. All the harmful drugs I can see strict laws on but if you legalized weed I am sure that the hard drug use would go done.
Don't forget up until 1914 you could legally buy hard drugs over the counter at a drug store and the nation did not go to hell.
IP: Logged |
posted
[quote]so this begs the question. how many busts like this would be "tolerated" by the general taxpaying citizen that has put themselves into some serious debt to get their kids into and half-way thru college before people begin to demand a reform to drug and enforcement laws.[quote]
I don't know. Regardless of the money, cocaine, especially crack cocaine is a very dangerous drug. Getting hooked on crack will definitely ruin your life, even if you aren't prosecuted. The typical crack addict that I see lives in appauling conditions, usually with other crackers and will do ANYTHING to get their next rock. Very bad. I don't think legalizing these drugs would help these students have a bright future.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think legalizing these drugs would help these students have a bright future.
hmmmm....
so we keep on doing what we're doing which is basically failing?
cuz you are the one who told me that a disproportinate number of black males are druggies and i told you that's not true. here's the proof that it is actually pervasive. the statistics show that drug abuse is truly colorblind. what i was telling you is that the enforcement system and the justice sytem is not.
it's simply that the color that the enforcement and justice system seems to me to see is actually green and not brown or white
i'm not "for" legalising hard drugs... i just thnk we need to come up with a better plan than we have. the first thing to do is to get people into health care instead of jail cells. jail is actually higher education for young criminals.
as for pot? that's about the dumbest thing to make illegal there is. it's growing in ditches all over the midwest. if you know what you are looking at? you'll see thousands of tons of it driving from Chicago to Denver in August. i could care less, it doesn't interest me. i get "high" on creativity...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The real question is: Was the Federal Government ever intended to have the authority to dictate what chemicals or plants you ingest?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: The real question is: Was the Federal Government ever intended to have the authority to dictate what chemicals or plants you ingest?
no, they used Article 6 Pargraph 2 to make drug laws:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
by using treaties? it is possible to make almost any laws "they" want.
and to ratify a treaty? the Senate must "advise" the President to do so with a 2/3 vote. then the President can ratify it.
the President can and does unilaterally un-ratify a treaty...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I can see them having authority to monitor or limit the sale of hazardous materials... Though I'd prefer that being a state issue... But governing intoxicants as they do I'm sure can be proven unconstitutional. Perhaps even having them wrap their nuggets around the fact that people cannot be made better would be a monumental win.
IP: Logged |
posted
crank/crack equally harmful/addictive...maybe crank is worse...
Founding Fathers had no experience with either.
Last year, someone nabbed my best dog (prior to a burglary at my house) and let loose or took two other barking/watchdogs from two doors down. I *know* a crackie was involved in my dog's disappearance. Of course, I went by the book, police reports, blah, blah... I also put my lariat in my front seat...in case I saw said crackie tweaking down the street at an opportune time, under the heading "God helps those who help themselves." Fortunately, I found my dog before I found him.
All I can think of for those poor baztaaaages is something like old Australia...ship 'em somewhere severely remote, build 'em up, then work 'em...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
when the supreme court held that CA could not allow medical marijuana sales? the Justices used inter-state commerce laws. they basically said that CA could not guarantee that their pot would not end up in another state...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I agree there is a world of difference between crack, crank and weed... But I still don't see that making any of it illegal.. and certainly to the extent we have, makes anything better.. In fact making this nation a gruesome example of just how bad government can be. I really do think the best way to judge any society is by looking at the criminals. And we have jailhouse after supermax filled to the brim with petty drug offenders that sixty years ago would be common vagrants and not societal scum. And claiming that only the dealers get the big time is pointless when or if you know how every cop and then prosecuter crusade to get every suspect convicted of intent to distribute, no matter if its true or not. Any pothead knows that there are times when your guy only has quarter bags when you're buying an ounce.. get caught and instantly you're the biggest narco trafficker in history, even though you were merely reducing risk by buying a month's worth.
IP: Logged |
Of course, part of that is the American tendency to "distill" to the "best" molecule: sugar, which is more or less poison; bleached, white flour, etc.
Coca leaves, as used by natives, is a much less acute experience than refined cocaine. Shoot, even the pot they got nowadays...stoooopidly potent. I don't see the point in one toke basically disabling one's motor functions... doesn't seem like fun to me.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I agree there is a world of difference between crack, crank and weed... But I still don't see that making any of it illegal.. and certainly to the extent we have, makes anything better.. In fact making this nation a gruesome example of just how bad government can be. I really do think the best way to judge any society is by looking at the criminals. And we have jailhouse after supermax filled to the brim with petty drug offenders that sixty years ago would be common vagrants and not societal scum. And claiming that only the dealers get the big time is pointless when or if you know how every cop and then prosecuter crusade to get every suspect convicted of intent to distribute, no matter if its true or not. Any pothead knows that there are times when your guy only has quarter bags when you're buying an ounce.. get caught and instantly you're the biggest narco trafficker in history, even though you were merely reducing risk by buying a month's worth.
I guess I'm saying, bust the behavior: catch a guy sleeping in somebody's flowerbed after being up for a week? If they test positive for crack or crank, now it's "aggravated vagrancy" or whatever.
Basically, the person is no longer in control of themselves. Is kinda like the famous Churchill quote: "Madam, tomorrow I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly."
But in this case it's, "C'mon...tomorrow you'll still be outta control."
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
yup, but I don't think allowing the government the authority to control it is a good idea. Simply put: They cannot be trusted. They have proven it for decades now. Furthermore I don't think they should be allowed to own guns. Yup that's right. They want to take our guns because we aren't responsible enough. Well I would argue(And win by a WIDE margin) that it is government that has shown THEY are not responsible enough to own firearms.
IP: Logged |
posted
Essentially the only real answer to all of our "Issues" is to limit government to fixing roads. They have shown an unwavering inability to avoid life trampling corruption in EVERY power they have taken.
IP: Logged |
Icon 1 posted May 07, 2008 09:52 AM Profile for T e x Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote nice interview with Amory Lovins here; some excerpts:
So a good dose of conservative economic principles would get us even further than trying to give technologies we like subsidies as big as the ones we don't like are already getting. Of course, desubsidizing the whole energy sector would be a wonderful advance.
The barriers that renewables and efficiency face come less from our living in a capitalist market economy and more from not taking market economics seriously, not following our own principles.
For electricity, we decouple utilities' profits from sales so they will no longer be rewarded for selling more energy or penalized for selling less, and if they do something smart to cut our bill, we let them keep a small part, maybe a 10th of the savings, as extra profit—so we, and they, are both incentivized.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism... Posts: 18073 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
quote:yup, but I don't think allowing the government the authority to control it is a good idea. Simply put: They cannot be trusted. They have proven it for decades now. Furthermore I don't think they should be allowed to own guns.
So, are you saying that the police shouldn't carry guns? Remember that these police are our neighbors and are out there working in a dangerous environment to keep us safe. You would be sending them out to deal with criminals without protection. Who is going to become a police officer if they're not even able to protect themselves? And then what would you do to the criminals when they start killing cops right and left? Get them some therapy?
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
