Posted on 09/12/2003 8:56:23 AM PDT by tdadams
Third world country is as third world country does.
I would expect this type of behavior in Mexico, not in the United States. Well at least I used to.
Sure they do, if her elected representatives so decide. And she is an imbicile not to take DOUBLE what her house is worth. You scream "her property" like this is the old West, or like that movie "Far and Away". Give me a break. Most Americans stay in the same home for for an average of 7 years. Houses are just commodities. She could have bought a similar one in a nearby area for $400k and had $300k cash left over. Sounds good to me.
Are their ancestors buried in the freakin back yard? Sheesh, buy a new home and pocket the 300 grand.
Usually it takes the city 200 years to rationalize the cost of all this hoopla. But in the meantime, another group will come along and the land will be traded back and forth among the city fathers and mothers, who are in and out of office.
Are Americans now to stupid to see that some persons of extremely modest means, are extremely wealthy after several terms on city council? Bond Issues, eminent domain, and development are a very large feeding trough for politicos.
Makes me damned glad I didn't serve in the military.
Risk life or limb to defend communism? Pffft.
So what was the cold war about? Communism? Looks like it was just to see who was the biggest bully on the block.
These are your values... she's allowed to have hers.
As far as the "elected representative" comment, they are still constrained by the law. I don't know AL law specifically, but I do know in FL the law only allows eminent domain for the public good (public use) and specifically denies the use for property transfer.
Young women are just commodities. New ones are born every day, and others die every day. (See my previous post for context to this statement.)
Does the concept of private property mean anything to you? How about the Consitutional protection from taking except in cases of public use? A man's home is his castle; if he has no say in that, tell me: what does he have a say in?
There is a poem I once heard, that although was focused towards religions, it comes to mind when things like this happen. Just subtitute some of the words in it as approprate, and it relates quite nicely.
"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
-Martin Niemoeller German Lutheran Pastor
More like $150 or $200 k cash left over, after taxes. (Gotta pay for government "services" like the seizure of her previous property.)
You say this as if the principle of the matter is of no importance whatsoever. That's utterly contemptible.
It is of no relevance what the statistical average is for people staying in one place. Screw the statistical average. Statistical averages is what leftists use to deteriorate our Constitutional rights. It's her home, her property. She, not Costco, is entitled to decide how long she wants to live there and bloody hell if she has justify why.
You say this as if the principle of the matter is of no importance whatsoever. That's utterly contemptible.
It is of no relevance what the statistical average is for people staying in one place. Screw the statistical average. Statistical averages is what leftists use to deteriorate our Constitutional rights. It's her home, her property. She, not Costco, is entitled to decide how long she wants to live there and bloody hell if she has justify why.
The average human lifespan is 69.32 years. You will some day receive a card in the mail ordering you to report to the nearest biological reprocessing center.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not (yet) suggesting armed rebellion. Before we reort to that, there are a whole host of nasty, perfectly legal ways, to f*** up a politician's personal life. Take a cue from Operation Rescue: they have forced many abortionists out of business by picketing their *homes* -- now THAT was a masterstroke of true genius, possibly not of human origination. Or, suppose the homewrecking politician's own home is in violation of some pesky community-association standard -- time to file a complaint. Or, suppose the scumbag is having an affair... don't just hire a lawyer, hire a P.I.! Many other such dirty-but-legal tricks can be envisioned -- use your imagination.
Of course, I would never suggest unlawful vandalism or assaults, or anything of that nature. But, if a politician draws a lot of unwanted attention in his own neighborhood, however lawfully it is expressed, he will certainly be haunted by the fear that, "Now they know where I live... my face is known... what if some nutcase decides to...?" Let them sweat -- it serves them right.
Politicians operate in the public realm, expecting scorn and opposition there, but they think they can enjoy their private home life unhindered. Well, it's time to lawfully, peacefully, but oh-so-infuriatingly SHATTER that illusion of sanctuary. Politicians that screw up other people's homes, should never, never, never be allowed to enjoy their own in peace. Quid pro quo.
It won't work if only a few people do it. But it will work splendidly if it becomes a widespread and well known phenomenon, to the point where every politician is afraid to trample on us. (Remember that rattlesnake flag!)
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.