Posted on 03/03/2009 12:12:32 PM PST by TornadoAlley3
NIAGARA FALLS—Two days after a man was sentenced to probation and community service for putting up a sign as a “joke” in a public works garage that said “whites only” on a drinking fountain, city police were called to a home in the 600 block of 25th Street on Sunday to investigate another racially charged sign.
This one was clearly no joke.
No charges were filed Sunday, but police told the woman she must take down the handwritten sign on a fence on her property saying, “I rent three bedrooms [at her address to] white people Niagara Falls.”
The 53-year-old woman told police she put up the sign after someone tried to break into her house and added, “I can do what I want. I live in America,” according to a police report.
Police said they received complaints and she must take the sign down. An officer at the scene said the woman agreed to take down the sign under protest. The officer said the woman already had seven more signs she was planning to hang up.
I'm glad youagree that your answers are nonsense. Now maybe you'll try making sense -- in at least one post before you quit.
>> I’m glad youagree that your answers are nonsense.
No — I agreed that I was right. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re being intentionally oblivious (as opposed to assuming that you’re actually incapable of understanding).
>> Now maybe you’ll try making sense — in at least one post before you quit.
To every question or point you had for me, I had a suitable and sensible response — most of which remain unanswered by you. With the exception of your propensity to feign misunderstanding of every word I utter, I’ve seen no useful contribution from you whatsoever.
SnakeDoc
>> I don’t think the FHA applies to someone renting out bedrooms in the home where they are residing.
If that is in fact the case (which it very well may be — I’ve not read the details of the FHA), then, like the water fountain schmuck, the woman is simply an obnoxious twit — as opposed to a criminal obnoxious twit. She’ll still recieve no sympathy from me.
My statements were that this idiot should be prosecuted to the extent that she violated the FHA. If there is an exception for persons in her situation, then perhaps no prosecution is warranted. She’s still obnoxious, however.
SnakeDoc
Why is she obnoxious? Don’t you think people have a right to choose people who are residing in their own home on any basis they see fit?
>> Why is she obnoxious? Don’t you think people have a right to choose people who are residing in their own home on any basis they see fit?
Sure — so long as she doesn’t violate any other law in the process. But, I have just as much right to think that her “policy” is obnoxious.
To me, there is a huge distinction between actual blatant racism, and the ridiculous ticky-tack PC nonsense usually thrust upon us by “black leaders”. This, however, does not seem to be excessive political correctness — it appears to be actual racism, and it is pretty pathetic.
Even if her sign doesn’t violate the law, like the water-fountain sign, it does cross a line of common decency — and it is therefore obnoxious.
SnakeDoc
that video was very interesting and informative.
thanks for posting.
:)
You’re right.
People who READ and interpret the plain language of actual written LAWS, instead of basing their ideas and thoughts on their “feelings” about the way things SHOULD have been, are a menace to our Republic; and yours.
>> People who READ and interpret the plain language of actual written LAWS, instead of basing their ideas and thoughts on their “feelings” about the way things SHOULD have been, are a menace to our Republic
This has nothing, whatsoever, to do with anyone’s “feelings”. This has to do with very the principles of our foundation.
The question is, do you believe that we are each endowed by the Creator with rights that are inalienable? If so, how can you believe legitimate or legal government actions which specifically foster the alienation of those right via the enslavement of millions?
The Constitution cannot legitimately rescind inalienable rights of innocent men — and, if it can, then those rights are not inalienable. Therein lies the contradiction.
Is our loyalty to the paper that the Constitution was written on, or to the principles it was constructed to protect?
SnakeDoc
As a lawyer, you SHOULD know that, LEGALLY, the "four corners of the agreement" is all that matters. That is why the "four corners" had to be changed via the 13th Amendment, and subsequently the 14th Amendment.
And I disagree - You ARE allowing your feelings to interfere with a strictly logical and rational interpretation of what is, basically, a legal contract between the United States government and its member States and citizens.
At the time the agreement was written and codified, slaves were not recognized as citizens (or even men, according to some). They were considered property. Thus, the legal agreement did not include rights for them.
You said: The question is, do you believe that we are each endowed by the Creator with rights that are inalienable?. The answer is: Yes, but that isn't REALLY the question.
What I personally think or believe or "feel" doesn't matter one whit. What matters is, as I have already said, what is WRITTEN in the agreement.
Now watch it.
Some of us here ENJOY sarcasm for its own sake.
Oh wait, you covered me... you said idiots...
>> As a lawyer, you SHOULD know that, LEGALLY, the “four corners of the agreement” is all that matters. That is why the “four corners” had to be changed via the 13th Amendment, and subsequently the 14th Amendment.
I am aware of how to read and interpret the law. But, we’re not arguing about what the law WAS — we’re arguing about whether the law was LEGITIMATE. The “four corners” rule applies only to interpreting what the law is, not its legitimacy.
It was the law (according to the “four corners”) that King George could tax the colonies without their consent — but that law was illegitimate, because legitimate law can only be derived from the consent of the governed. The law, according to the “four corners” of the Constitution, was that innocent men could be enslaved against their will — and that law was illegitimate, because it was not derived with the consent of the enslaved.
>> You ARE allowing your feelings to interfere with a strictly logical and rational interpretation of what is, basically, a legal contract between the United States government and its member States and citizens.
Nonsense. Slaves cannot be bound by a legal contract to which they did not agree. Basic contract law.
>> At the time the agreement was written and codified, slaves were not recognized as citizens (or even men, according to some). They were considered property. Thus, the legal agreement did not include rights for them.
... without the consent of the governed (slaves). Again, the essential contradiction. We overthrew the illegitimate non-consensual governance of King George, and instituted illegitimate non-consensual governance over blacks.
>> What matters is, as I have already said, what is WRITTEN in the agreement.
The men that wrote the agreement had no legitimate authority to deprive black persons of their freedom (according to the very theories of governance espoused in the revolution they founded).
SnakeDoc
No. YOU are arguing as to whether it was “legitimate”.
I was and AM arguing what the law actually WAS.
And in the end, the “legitimacy” of a law is simply a matter of whether the government can/will enforce it.
>> No. YOU are arguing as to whether it was “legitimate”.
Then, for three consecutive days, you’ve apparently missed the words “illegitimate and illegal” from each of my arguments.
>> I was and AM arguing what the law actually WAS.
Ah — then you’re right. The illegitimate, illegally-written law was that black people were slaves. Duh.
>> And in the end, the “legitimacy” of a law is simply a matter of whether the government can/will enforce it.
Ridiculous. Legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed, not the power of the despot implementing the law.
The U.S. had the will and power to enforce slavery laws ... that doesn’t make the laws legitimate, any more than the non-consensual taxation of the colonies would’ve been truly legimate had we lost the Revolutionary War.
SnakeDoc
Good luck arguing your pie-in-the-sky theory on the law to a conservative judge.
>> Good luck arguing your pie-in-the-sky theory on the law to a conservative judge.
“Consent of the governed” as the crux of legitimate governance is hardly a “pie-in-the-sky” theory. It is the basis of our system. It is the reason for the overthrow of King George. It is the core of conservatism.
And, since the slavery laws were overturned 150 years ago ... it won’t be going in front any judges, conservative or otherwise.
You’re the first person, conservative or liberal, I’ve ever heard take the position that African slavery was not a violation of the principles of the American Revolution.
SnakeDoc
Maybe you had better take another look at pasts 72, 74, 75, 76 and 81 before you make a liar of yourself by standing by that statement.
To every question or point you had for me, I had a suitable and sensible response — most of which remain unanswered by you.
How does one go about giving a germane answer to pure, unadulterated wrong horsedump -- which is just about all you have posted so far.
With the exception of your propensity to feign misunderstanding of every word I utter, I’ve seen no useful contribution from you whatsoever.
1. I haven’t misunderstood one single word you have posted. In my time I have heard and read enough horsesh-t put forth by people like you that I can spot it a mile away.
2. Your totally wrong crap certainly doesn’t contribute one helluva whole lot to the thread - so I wouldn‘t come on with that happy puke, if I were you..
What law school taught you that our basic law (the Constitution) was based on the Bible?
>> What law school taught you that our basic law (the Constitution) was based on the Bible?
I don’t believe I ever said that the Constitution was based on the Bible.
SnakeDoc
>> How does one go about giving a germane answer to pure, unadulterated wrong horsedump
It is difficult, but I’ve managed.
>> In my time I have heard and read enough horsesh-t put forth by people like you that I can spot it a mile away.
You haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. I’d tell you where you went wrong — but I haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about, either.
>> Your totally wrong crap
You seem quite capable of stating that I am wrong — you seem far less capable of stating where or why. In the last several posts, you’ve failed to respond to any point I’ve made — instead preferring the liberal use of the words “horsedump”, “crap”, etc.
Honestly, I don’t care anymore why you think my ideas are wrong, because you don’t seem to have any useful critique beyond spouting euphemisms for “horsedump”. This isn’t a debate, its a George Carlin skit.
SnakeDoc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.