United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Homeowner’s Fight Involves Gadsden Flag Tied to Tea Party
Source:
NYTIMES
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/us/politics/31flag.html?_r=1&hp
Published: Aug 31, 2010
Author: MARC LACEY
Post Date: 2010-08-31 12:40:27 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 160675
Comments: 228
LAVEEN, Ariz. — Don’t tread on Andy C. McDonel. This year, Mr. McDonel began flying a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on his roof in this unincorporated area just outside Phoenix. The historic banner — which dates to 1775, when it was hoisted aboard ships during the initial days of the Revolutionary War — has been adopted by the Tea Party movement. But Mr. McDonel said that he had unfurled the flag for its historical significance and nothing else. He notes that the banner, the Gadsden flag, has been widely used over the years and was even featured on the cover of a rock album. “Am I a Metallica fan because I’m using the flag?” he asked. This month, he received a letter from the homeowners’ association ordering him to remove “the debris” from his roof. It threatened fines if the debris (i.e., the flag) did not go within 10 days. But Mr. McDonel, 32, a logistics operation manager, has vowed to fight the order. “It’s a patriotic gesture,” he said of his banner. “It’s a historic military flag. It represents the founding fathers. It shows this nation was born out of an idea.” The Avalon Village Community Association, which sent the letter, takes a strict interpretation of the state statute that allows Arizonans the right to fly a variety of flags — the Stars and Stripes, the state flag, flags representing Indian nations as well as the official flags of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. The listing of acceptable flags stems from a dispute several years ago in nearby Chandler, Ariz., in which a woman with a son serving in Iraq was challenged by her homeowners’ association for flying the Marine Corps flag. State legislators intervened. The Arizona law, says the homeowners’ association butting heads with Mr. McDonel, does not give residents authorization to fly anything else on their properties. That means no pennants bearing sports team logos, no Jolly Rogers, no rainbow banners celebrating gay pride and no historic flags showing a coiled rattlesnake bearing its fangs. As Javier B. Delgado, a lawyer for the homeowners’ association, put it in a statement on the association’s Web site: “Should the Arizona Legislature expand the Community Association Flag Display Statute to include the Gadsden Flag, the Association will accommodate Mr. McDonel’s desire to display it. Bottom-line, anyone considering residing in a community association should carefully review the association’s governing documents beforehand to ensure that the community is a good fit for them.” Mr. McDonel knows the rules well since, until July, he was a member of his homeowners’ association’s board of directors. He resigned in a dispute with the board’s president and shortly thereafter received his first debris notice. That one concerned a treadmill that he had left on his porch, which he admits was a violation of the rules. His second debris warning, which came weeks after that, concerned the flag, which had been up for about six months. “If this is a grudge, it’s sad that the funds that the homeowners put into the association are being wasted on such a petty matter,” Mr. McDonel said. Mr. Delgado, whose law firm represents thousands of homeowners’ associations, denies that any dispute among board members led to the citation of Mr. McDonel’s property. “There is still the potential for dialogue on both sides,” he said, indicating that no fines had yet been levied. The homeowners’ association represents a community of tract homes in what had been a sprawling agricultural area. A survey of Mr. McDonel’s neighbors after the dispute drew the attention of the local news media revealed more concern about the television trucks that have been parking in front of his property than the flag flapping on his roof. After Mr. McDonel’s standoff was picked up by the media, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona jumped in on Mr. McDonel’s side, arguing that homeowners’ associations do not have the right to “hijack” the free speech rights of their members. The A.C.L.U. fired off a letter to the association on Monday that seeks a meeting with Mr. Delgado to resolve the matter without going as far as a lawsuit. “We’re urging the homeowners’ association to adopt a less limited interpretation of the statute,” said Dan Pochoda, the legal director for the civil liberties group. “The Gadsden flag meets the spirit of the law. It’s a historic military flag. Many consider it the original American flag, before the Stars and Stripes.” As for the political significance that the flag has taken on in this election season, Mr. Pochoda was uninterested, saying that Mr. McDonel’s motivation for flying the flag was irrelevant to the dispute. “We didn’t ask him,” Mr. Pochoda said. As the flag becomes more popular — it was on prominent display on the Washington Mall last weekend during a rally organized by the conservative commentator Glenn Beck — more such disputes are expected. Already, a Colorado homeowner flying the same flag is locked in a standoff with his homeowners’ association. And in Connecticut, a group of retired Marines is challenging the Capitol Police’s decision blocking the Gadsden flag from being flown over the State Capitol.
Subscribe to *Jack-Booted Thugs*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
(Edited)
The lesson here is don't join an association in which you cede your right of expression.
Exactly. I once considered a townhome until I read the association's "rules." Too much like living with mommy and daddy. But unlike mommy and daddy, you agree to it--which I didn't.
I lived in a townhome/condo association thingy while in the DC area for about 4 years. I played the game but I was happy to depart when my time was up.
#2. To: war (#1)
The lesson here is don't join an association in which you cede your right of expression.
#3. To: Suzanne (#2)
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#4. To: war (#1) (Edited)
So you'd be okay with the HOA banning blacks? They can move to the other side of the tracks. If the 1st amendment doesn't apply, why bother with the 14th?
don't join an association in which you cede your right of expression.
#5. To: hondo68 (#4)
How are they remotely the same issue? Really...I want to see your logic here.
So you'd be okay with the HA banning blacks?
#6. To: hondo68 (#4)
Don't be silly. HAs can't violate laws about fair housing, etc. They can, however, make ridiculous rules about the color of your front door, the type of trash can you can have, how long a car can be parked outside, the display of banners, etc. These are "mommy and daddy" types of rules and not rules that violate civil rights. HAs are all about conformity and non-distinctiveness. That's why I lost interest.
So you'd be okay with the HA banning blacks?
#7. To: war (#5)
Civil liberties, inalienable rights, natural/God given rights. You're on the slippery slope, wanting the 14th, but not the whole 1st. Yeah, the 1st shouldn't apply to Gadsden flag flyers, just American flag burners. /s
How are they remotely the same issue?
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
How does that have anything remotely to do with agreeing to a standard of landscaping? They have to agree to not hold a lantern in front of their houses? What?
#9. To: hondo68, war (#7)
You're on the slippery slope, wanting the 14th, but not the whole 1st. Just try expressing your "1st Amendment rights" at your employer's place of business. You'll quickly find out that employers (just like HAs) can set standards of appropriate conduct and acceptable displays.
Civil liberties, inalienable rights, natural/God given rights.
#10. To: Suzanne (#9) (Edited)
Well...not tryiong to tringulate this issue, but I ***think*** this guy has a better case of infringement than a guy at work. But when he moved in, he agreed to a standard of landscaping of which flags were a part.
#11. To: war (#8)
So a standard of landscaping, no blacks on the landscape is OK with you?
standard of landscaping?
#12. To: hondo68 (#7)
You're on the slippery slope, wanting the 14th, but not the whole 1st. Yeah, the 1st shouldn't apply to Gadsden flag flyers, just American flag burners. /s Moral..don't buy a house that has involves a HA contract. I'm sure no one held a gun to this guy's head to do so. The right of the majority of homeowners in the assn to determine who they have to associate with and all that. Good old conservative values.
Civil liberties, inalienable rights, natural/God given rights.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#13. To: mininggold (#12)
The right of the majority of homeowners in the assn to determine who they have to associate with and all that. Good old conservative values. Home owners associations contracts are unconstitutional. You can do whatever you want on your property. He should target the people hassling him covertly.
Moral..don't buy a house that has involves a HA contract. I'm sure no one held a gun to this guy's head to do so.
#14. To: hondo68 (#11)
You do have a way of using twisted logic, I'll give you that.
So a standard of landscaping, no blacks on the landscape is OK with you?
#15. To: Suzanne (#14)
He isn't twisting anything. He is being consistent. You are the one twisting.
You do have a way of using twisted logic, I'll give you that.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Sure they are Stoner. One of my friends lives near DC. He pointed me to a pickup truck in his neighborhood. It was some sort of restored gem from the 50's, probably worth $20K or above. The homeowners association didn't allow pickup trucks in the area. I don't know what ever came about it.
Home owners associations contracts are unconstitutional.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#17. To: A K A Stone (#13) (Edited)
Where does it say that a group of people can't make rules they agree with? I guess clubs are illegal in your world too along with being irresponsible and immature. Or was this guy forced to buy there? Just imagine him as a Muslim wanting a crescent flag in the front yard to make it easier on you.
Home owners associations contracts are unconstitutional. You can do whatever you want on your property. He should target the people hassling him covertl
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#18. To: A K A Stone, hondo68 (#15)
Well, let me try being straightforward. No blacks on the landscaping? That's silly and violates fair housing rules and other civil rights so HOAs can't make rules like that. No lawn jockeys or garden gnomes on the landscaping, now that IS something that HOAs will likely have rules about--as well as parties on the landscaping. And, no, Stone, you can't do "anything" you want even on your property. Just try having sex on the front lawn and see what comes of that. HOAs operate by contract and are subject to state statues. As long as their mommy and daddy rules stay within that structure, they're lawful. And, you always have the right not to sign the contract and to find another place to live.
He isn't twisting anything. He is being consistent. You are the one twisting.
#19. To: Fred Mertz (#16)
When people violate your property rights. You fight back. Sugar, corn on the cob, chocolate or whatever it takes.
#20. To: Suzanne (#18)
You are a communist. You don't understand freedom. The first amendment says free speech. Then you have the 14th. They trump any law passed. You are letting your feelings cloud your judgment.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#19)
What is it about the ability of citizens to make laws and contracts that they agree with that's so disagreeable to you?
When people violate your property rights. You fight back. Sugar, corn on the cob, chocolate or whatever it takes.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#22. To: Suzanne (#18)
Then you think someone should be able to say no blacks in the contract? If not you can tell them to find another place to live. No that is not the way it is supposed to work. The problem is that your parents didn't teach you right. I hope you don't have any kids.
And, you always have the right not to sign the contract and to find another place to live.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#20)
LOL...no, the only thing red about me is my hair. I do believe that if you sign a lawful contract that you are obligated to live according to that contract. Apparently, you think it's OK to sign a contract and then break it. Nice ethics.
You are a communist.
#24. To: mininggold (#21)
They are violating private property rights. If they want to rent out the property and make rules fine. If they sell the property they no longer have a say so. That is the way it is suppposed to work. Until people who think like you commies got some power. Why do you hate private property rights?
What is it about the ability of citizens to make laws and contracts that they agree with that's so disagreeable to you?
#25. To: Suzanne (#23)
It is not a lawful contract. You have a right to own property and do whatever you want with it. You think like someone from the USSR.
#26. To: Suzanne (#18)
Gawd! I think I'm going blind!!!
Just try having sex on the front lawn and see what comes of that.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#27. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Quit being an asshole, Stoner.
I hope you don't have any kids.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#28. To: A K A Stone (#24)
The people in that area say different and have the ability to make laws and enforce their desires and wants (pursuing their own happiness), even if that means abridging their property rights. Who are you to say they are wrong? Unless he was forced to buy his home he was free to look elsewhere and exercise HIS freedom of association.
They are violating private property rights. If they want to rent out the property and make rules fine. If they sell the property they no longer have a say so. That is the way it is suppposed to work. Until people who think like you commies got some power. Why do you hate private property rights?
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Again, you're being silly and reactionary. Contracts can't violate laws. But stupid HOA contracts can make lawful rules about controlling the appearance of the property, which doesn't include the color of the people living there. It's all about conformity. And I expressed my freedom by not signing the contract. BTW, when arguing with me, I wish you'd have the decency to keep my parents/child out of the discussion. It's irrelevant and tacky.
Then you think someone should be able to say no blacks in the contract?
#30. To: Fred Mertz (#27)
The dictator of his own forum now thinks he's the dictator of the country. LOLOL
Quit being an asshole, Stoner.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#31. To: Suzanne (#18)
LOL...I'm going to prison for sure....how many years do you get for this offense?
"Just try having sex on the front lawn and see what comes of that."
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#26)
So stop playing with yourself, jerx.
Gawd! I think I'm going blind!!!
#33. To: Murron (#31)
Wait until Badeye and Tull learn about this. They'll be combat pistoling for position. LOLOL
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#34. To: Murron (#31)
You'll probably just pay a fine...but think of the cost if that image "goes viral." :>)
LOL...I'm going to prison for sure....how many years do you get for this offense?
#35. To: hondo68 (#11)
Is there a cogent interrogatory that you have for me?
So a standard of landscaping, no blacks on the landscape is OK with you?
#36. To: war (#35)
Mammy having sex in her front yard. What is your reaction?
Is there a cogent interrogatory that you have for me?
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#37. To: Suzanne (#29)
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that doesn't conform isn't a law. There is no law that says you can't discriminate against someone in renting selling or whatever. When you OWN property it is yours to do as you please with. Commies disagree. You must be a commie. I hope if you have kids you aren't teaching them your ignorance.
Contracts can't violate laws.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37) (Edited)
All zoning laws are illegal? I think I'll buy the prop next to yours and open an outdoor 24 hour shooting range, raise roosters or run a cattle feedlot..
When you OWN property it is yours to do as you please with.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#39. To: Fred Mertz (#36)
Thankfully her front yard is 2 miles away from any road...
#40. To: Suzanne (#29)
You would be happy if 100 percent of neighborhoods in America had homeowners associations. Then they could do away with the constitution. That is your position if you realize it or not.
#41. To: A K A Stone (#37)
You're a jerk.
#42. To: mininggold (#38)
There isn't room. Sorry about your luck. Maybe you could buy some neighbors house and do that. It is your right. As long as no stray bullets go my way. If that happened I would consider it an attack and aim for heads.
#43. To: Suzanne (#41)
So I disagree with you and I'm a jerk. Ok whatever.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#43)
She was being polite. You're an asshole.
So I disagree with you and I'm a jerk.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#45. To: Suzanne (#41)
He's trying to ban you by setting up a flame war. Pretty soon he'll tell you to not post to him and then he will post: YOU'VE BEEN WARNED. LOLOL
You're a jerk.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#46. To: mininggold (#45)
You made me laugh there. That was funny wasn't it. It was only 5 min don't get your panties in a wad.
Pretty soon he'll tell you to not post to him and then he will post: YOU'VE BEEN WARNED. LOLOL
#47. To: A K A Stone (#37)
There are, in fact, several...
There is no law that says you can't discriminate against someone in renting selling or whatever.
#48. To: mininggold (#45)
No this is just something I feel strongly about. If you buy a property you should be able to do what you want with it. Now if you open a place for the public then some building standards are appropriate.
He's trying to ban you by setting up a flame war.
#49. To: war (#47)
There are, in fact, several... If you knew the constitution and read my statement on the FIRST line you would know that I said truthfully that any law that violates the constitution is not really a law. So my comment stands.
There is no law that says you can't discriminate against someone in renting selling or whatever.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#46)
You sound like the one who needs to have your children removed. I'm can't help but think you ambush them constantly for your own amusement, since you seem so adept at it.
You made me laugh there. That was funny wasn't it. It was only 5 min don't get your panties in a wad.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#49)
You haven't reproduced, have you?
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#52. To: A K A Stone (#40)
What part of "I didn't sign the HOA contract" did you not understand? I didn't like those types of mommy and daddy rules. If I want a red door, I'll have one (and I do). That's because I opted for a single family home that is not subject to HOA rules. I exercised my freedom and you call me a commie. Yeah, sure. Why don't you come back with more petty insults directed at my parent(s)/child(ren)?
You would be happy if 100 percent of neighborhoods in America had homeowners associations.
#53. To: mininggold (#50)
It wasn't for my amusement. I made a decision then thought about it and changed my mind.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#49)
Your original comment betrays the same ignorance that your last one did. There are several, they are constitutional and if you don;t believe me I invite you to try to so discriminate.
#55. To: Fred Mertz (#51)
multiple times.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#49)
So my comment stands. Good, so do you want the beef operation or the dairy next to you? I'll build it up like a parking garage. I take it the skies the limit because it's my property.
f you knew the constitution and read my statement on the FIRST line you would know that I said truthfully that any law that violates the constitution is not really a law.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#53)
Did it set off the smoke alarms?
...then thought about it...
#58. To: war (#54)
I already do discriminate. I never hire fags. I never rent to fags.
#59. To: war (#47)
Apparently, for some people, the Fair Housing Act just doesn't exist.
There are, in fact, several...
#60. To: A K A Stone (#58)
How do you know?
#61. To: mininggold (#56)
If that is what you want to do and you have the funds. Go for it. Would you maybe hire my kids? They are hard workers.
#62. To: Suzanne (#59)
It violates the constitution so it isn't a legitimate law. It is known as color of law. It may take money out of your pocket like law or put you in jail like law, but it is still actually color of law.
Apparently, for some people, the Fair Housing Act just doesn't exist.
#63. To: war (#60)
I inject them with truth juice.
How do you know?
#64. To: war (#57)
Did it set off the smoke alarms? No smoke alarms. I just thought I made a mistake and corrected it.
...then thought about it...
#65. To: A K A Stone (#61)
I think five stories should be about right, evidently you never heard or smelled a cow operation. Most of the smell actually comes from the fermentation of the silage, which allows cows better utilization of the feed. It sticks to clothing like glue too.
If that is what you want to do and you have the funds. Go for it. Would you maybe hire my kids? They are hard workers.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#66. To: mininggold (#65)
Awesome. I have a truck. Maybe I can deliver it for you. I know the area and have a GPS.
#67. To: A K A Stone (#66) (Edited)
You have a cattle hauler? First things first though. The state of the art facility will be a needing building, but I bet you can't get your county to waive it's zoning laws. Maybe you can go down and wave that constitution in front of their noses though. That surely will clinch the deal.
Awesome. I have a truck. Maybe I can deliver it for you. I know the area and have a GPS.
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#68. To: mininggold, A K A Stone (#65)
Make sure they sign an employment contract...
Would you maybe hire my kids?
#69. To: mininggold (#67)
My Uncle does. We will have to give him a cut. He lives outside Jamestown. Not to far away.
You have a cattle hauler?
#70. To: A K A Stone (#64)
{;^D
I just thought I made a mistake and corrected it.
#71. To: mininggold (#67)
Haven't you seen the area yet? Before you made this proposal you should have looked up where I am. You are going to have to buy these houses around me and have them demolished first. That is going to be costly. But no problem I know people in the area and I can do the work for you. I will need the money in advance.
First things first though.
#72. To: A K A Stone (#62)
How so?
It violates the constitution so it isn't a legitimate law.
#73. To: war (#72)
The 10th amendment.
How so?
#74. To: All (#73)
And remember. Since the 10th was passed after the constitution and the first 9 amendments. It trumps them all.
#75. To: A K A Stone (#71)
How would I know where you live? Do you think I'm Badeye? I will pay after the work is done. I hope I can put the facility right up to the property line. Up wind would be best. My cows hate the smell of stinky boys.
Haven't you seen the area yet? Before you made this proposal you should have looked up where I am. You are going to have to buy these houses around me and have them demolished first. That is going to be costly. But no problem I know people in the area and I can do the work for you. I will need the money in advance
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#76. To: mininggold (#75)
Are you trying to say you have fat daughters
My cows hate the smell of stinky boys.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#76)
Teenage boys generally go through a stinky phase.
Are you trying to say you have fat daughters
"Look you leftist pervert, make sure you keep your Mr Winky away from your family's new addition or I will send some fellow salad tossers to square away your sorry butt. Got it??"
The good "cop", Jethro Tull explaining how to prevent a Palin family tradition in YOUR family.
#78. To: A K A Stone (#73)
What about it? You believe that a) there is a right to deny or disparage the inalienable right of the pursuit of happiness and b) that it lies in the 10th amendment?
#79. To: A K A Stone (#63)
Sniffing...backing away slowly...
I inject them with truth juice.
#80. To: war (#78)
I KNOW you have a right to sell your property to whomever you want to. I know that when you own property you can do what you want with it (if we had lawful govt). I am not responsible for someone Else's happiness. It would infringe on my right of pursuit of happiness to force me to sell to someone I didn't want to or to tell me what to do with my property. As long as I'm not murdering people on it. You people are weirdos. You think there is a right to murder your offspring. And you think you don't have a right to private property.
#81. To: A K A Stone, war (#73)
So...it's a states right thing. OK. HOA contracts are subject to state statues; therefore, they don't violate the constitution and are in harmony with the 10th Amendment. BTW, states, too, have fair housing laws.
The 10th amendment.
#82. To: Suzanne (#81)
You're being disingenuous. You know the 10th says the states or the PEOPLE.
#83. To: A K A Stone (#80)
When you are conducting a transaction, it's not a private property issue. Property is what it is...ownership...commerce is what it is, too...an entirely separate issue. And abortion is your "Goodwin's Law". Is your body YOUR private property?
#84. To: A K A Stone (#80)
Here's a little snippet of Ohio (not my state) fair housing laws: (These laws appear to be on the books in most [if not all] of the states) In 1965, Ohio became one of the first states to enact Fair Housing Legislation. On June 30, 1992, Governor George Voinovich signed House Bill 321, which enacted changes in the classes of persons protected by the Ohio Fair Housing Law, and significantly enhanced the enforcement powers of The Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The law gives all persons in the protected classes the right to live wherever they can afford to buy a home or rent an apartment. It is unlawful on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, disability, or familial status to: a. refuse to rent, sell, finance, or insure housing accommodations or residential property b. represent to any person that housing accommodations are not available for inspection, sale, rental or lease c. refuse to lend money for the purchase, construction, repair, rehabilitation, or maintenance of housing accommodations or residential property d. discriminate against any person in the purchase, renewal, or terms and conditions of fire, extended coverage, or home owner’s or renter’s insurance e. refuse to consider without prejudice the combined income of both spouses. f. print, publish, or circulate any statement or advertisement which would indicate a preference or limitation. g. deny any person membership in any multiple listing services, or real estate broker’s organization.
I KNOW you have a right to sell your property to whomever you want to. I know that when you own property you can do what you want with it
#85. To: Suzanne (#84)
trumped by the constitution.
#86. To: Suzanne (#84)
Your two of diamonds doens't bean my queen of spades.
#87. To: A K A Stone (#82)
state government officials are elected by the people; you know, it's that Republic thing.
You're being disingenuous. You know the 10th says the states or the PEOPLE.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#85)
You threw the 10th amendment at me. That was a State law she quoted you. Find a new amendment.
trumped by the constitution.
#89. To: A K A Stone (#85)
So...are these matters determined by the state or by the federal government? You can't have it both ways. You said it was a 10th Amendment issue, which means it comes under state jurisdiction...and the states have rules on the book covering these topics. Now, you say the states can't do this because of the constitution. Yes, we have no bananas
trumped by the constitution.
#90. To: war (#88)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
#91. To: Suzanne (#89)
no no no. It is a god given right. nothing to do with state or fed govt.
So...are these matters determined by the state or by the federal government? You can't have it both ways. You said it was a 10th Amendment issue, which means it comes under state jurisdiction...and the states have rules on the book covering these topics. Now, you say the states can't do this because of the constitution.
#92. To: Suzanne (#89)
Like I said. When all the neighborhoods adopt this. You wont be able to bitch about it. Would it be lawful for every neighborhood to adopt these standards? Then we would all have to live by them because we couldn't go somewhere else. Then the constitution would be meaningless.
#93. To: A K A Stone (#90) (Edited)
Yep. States first. In this case they exercised it.
#94. To: war (#93)
Quit lying. It is not BEFORE it is OR.
#95. To: A K A Stone, war (#91)
Just for comparison, here's a snippet from New Mexico's Human Rights Act: It is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to: (1) refuse to sell, rent, assign, lease or sublease or offer for sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease any housing accommodation or real property to any person or to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, lease, assignment or sublease of any housing accommodation or real property to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation; Of course, now you say that only God can make the laws and, apparently, you've got the pipeline to that connection. Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that Human Rights are part of God's will.
no no no. It is a god given right. nothing to do with state or fed govt.
#96. To: A K A Stone (#94)
What does the word "respectively" mean, doofus?
#97. To: Suzanne (#95)
trumped by the right to own private property.
#98. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Elected state officials passed these laws. If enough of the people weren't happy with the laws, they would have elected new officials to repeal these laws. Since these laws are still standing, it sounds like the laws and people's wishes are in harmony.
Quit lying. It is not BEFORE it is OR.
#99. To: war (#96)
It means that people are superior to the state. That their rights are superior to the states interests.
#100. To: Suzanne (#98)
So if the elected leaders pass a law that says whites only drinking fountains it will be ok under what you just wrote.
Elected state officials passed these laws. If enough of the people weren't happy with the laws, they would have elected new officials to repeal these laws. Since these laws are still standing, it sounds like the laws and people's wishes are in harmony.
#101. To: A K A Stone (#97)
You're a good teacher stone, we need more like you... Anyway, do you have any property that you rent out, if I may ask?
"trumped by the right to own private property."
#102. To: Murron (#101)
Not at the moment.
#103. To: Murron (#101)
Thanks. What it comes down is that these people don't believe in Americas founding principals. They prefer Marx and Darwin.
#104. To: Murron (#101)
No sex on the front lawn, Murron.
Anyway, do you have any property that you rent out, if I may ask?
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#105. To: A K A Stone (#102)
I have a good reason for asking, because there are some property owners that rent homes, and if they don't look into the laws with a fine tooth, they could end up losing it... Are you game to go along with what I did to a property owner? Don't get me wrong, I was a renter for about 19yrs, and it took that long to educate myself on both sides.
#106. To: A K A Stone (#97)
You're not claiming a right. You're claiming a power. 10A does not mention any right.
#107. To: Murron (#101)
Too much zinc oxide on your nose? Looking for a quick fix?
You're a good teacher stone, we need more like you...
#108. To: A K A Stone (#100)
That would kind of go against our basic tenents of "All men are created equal" now, wouldn't it? You can't play the state vs. the feds for your own amusement. The Supreme Court struck down the Jim Crow stuff. You know, that other branch of government.
So if the elected leaders pass a law that says whites only drinking fountains it will be ok under what you just wrote.
#109. To: A K A Stone (#99)
Uh...no...not even the author of that amendment viewed it as you do. ..."the States, respectively..." The meaning is clear, in deference to state power, or, such a political subdivision lacking, the people.
It means that people are superior to the state. That their rights are superior to the states interests.
#110. To: A K A Stone (#103)
I've been catching up, and I see what you mean, but that is the thinking of the average person who just don't know any better, and don't want to know....
Thanks. What it comes down is that these people don't believe in Americas founding principals. They prefer Marx and Darwin.
#111. To: Suzanne, war, mininggold, murron, fred mertz (#108)
Why do you only quote part of it. Go all the way to LIBERTY. Liberty is being able to own something and sell it to whoever you want to at an agreeable price. Now a question for you. Forget the law for a sec. Would you be more free or less free as an individual if you were able to sell to whoever you wanted for whatver reason you wanted? More free or less free?
That would kind of go against our basic tenents of "All men are created equal" now, wouldn't it? You can't play the state vs. the feds for your own amusement.
#112. To: war, A K A Stone, Murron, Fred Mertz (#109)
OK, I'm going to change my stance a bit. An HOA contract is lawful under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The courts have interpreted the "impairing the Obligation of Contracts" as also pertaining to private contracts. So, we're talking the big kahuna here: the main body of the constitution. Take that 10th Amendment. Justices have reinforced the concept that, under natural law, individuals have a right to act as free agents. So, if you agree to a contract, you agree to the contract (as long as that contract doesn't violate statues). Over centuries, the courts have upheld (when there has been shown to be a pressing need to do so) the right of states to add "statues" to this overarching contract provision. Thus, states have statutes on the books outlawing discrimination and other things. So, an HOA contract is a contract and contracts are covered by the U.S. Constitution and later court decisions have allowed states to pass statutes putting parameters on what constitutes an acceptable contract. I found some of this info at: http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-1/64- private-contracts.html
#113. To: A K A Stone (#112)
And go ahead, Stone, tell me how bringing up U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 makes me a communist and someone who doesn't respect our founding fathers...
#114. To: A K A Stone (#111)
Oddly missing from the declaration was the oft cited Lockean phrase, "...life, liberty and property."
Why do you only quote part of it. Go all the way to LIBERTY.
#115. To: A K A Stone, Suzanne (#111) (Edited)
stone: "Liberty is being able to own something and sell it to whoever you want to at an agreeable price." Equality and Liberty, those are wonderful things we have, but they have to be tempered with responsiblity so you don't tread on another persons Freedom. Suzanne, no one agrees more with you more about us all being equal than I do, but God forbid, if I didn't want to sell my property to you because I didn't like the color of your skin, that does not give you the right to try and force me, you have the freedom to buy from someone else, you have NO Right to tread on my freedom....I know that may sound awful, but that's a fact!
Suzanne: "That would kind of go against our basic tenents of "All men are created equal" now, wouldn't it? You can't play the state vs. the feds for your own amusement."
#116. To: Murron (#115)
So your treading on her freedom trumps her freedom to trump on your freedom... Got it.
#117. To: A K A Stone (#111)
I would be just as free if I were to approach any attractive male and fondle him: it might serve my purposes, but it would violate his.
Would you be more free or less free as an individual if you were able to sell to whoever you wanted for whatver reason you wanted? More free or less free?
#118. To: Suzanne (#113)
Do you know what amendments to the constitution are? They happen when 2/3 of the Senate and House and 3/4 of the states pass bill and call it an amendment to the constitution. When that happens it changes the constitution. Then 10th amendment passed after article 1 section 10 clause 1 was already passed. Therefore the 10th amendment is superior and any conflict the 10th amendment wins.
And go ahead, Stone, tell me how bringing up U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 makes me a communist and someone who doesn't respect our founding fathers...
#119. To: A K A Stone (#118) (Edited)
What is in the second clause of 10A, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES.... You know what that means? That if there is already something in the USCON then it takes precedence.
Do you know what amendments to the constitution are? They happen when 2/3 of the Senate and House and 3/4 of the states pass bill and call it an amendment to the constitution. When that happens it changes the constitution. Then 10th amendment passed after article 1 section 10 clause 1 was already passed. Therefore the 10th amendment is superior and any conflict the 10th amendment wins.
#120. To: war (#119)
The ultimate authority is the people. They keep all their rights.
#121. To: A K A Stone (#118)
There is no conflict. The amendment says powers not granted to the federal government go to the state or the people. The Obligation of Contracts is granted to the federal government. Bottom line: signing a contract is serious business and protected by the U.S. Constitution.
any conflict the 10th amendment wins
#122. To: A K A Stone (#120)
10A states forgoing POWERS...
#123. To: Suzanne (#121)
No the bottom line is that you have a right to buy property. Owning property means you own it and choose the rules. People signing it gave up their constitutional rights under DURESS. Therefore any part of the contract giving up constitutional rights is null and void.
Bottom line: signing a contract is serious business and protected by the U.S. Constitution.
#124. To: A K A Stone (#123)
The U.S. Constitution says what it says about contracts. You can't alter that. Over time, courts have upheld the right for states to put parameters (when there is a demonstrated need to do so) on this provision. Still, as a free agent, you can choose to sign a contract or not--and I'll defend your right to do so. But, if you sign a contract, well, you've signed a contract. What you're saying has absolutely no basis in the constitution. I found something about contracts in the constitution. You're being emotional, I'm being factual.
Therefore any part of the contract giving up constitutional rights is null and void.
#125. To: Suzanne (#124)
You're wrong. I'm right. As usual. :)
#126. To: A K A Stone (#125)
Get a hankie dearie, you're wrong. Contracts are covered by the U.S. Constitution. So sayeth the constitution.
#127. To: A K A Stone (#125)
BTW, your "wanting" to be right is not the same as "being" right. My Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 trumps you on this one.
I'm right.
#128. To: Murron (#115)
You know, Murron, I don't know you...really, but I know enough about you to understand that you believe in equality--particularly among the races. And, what I'm about to say isn't about what you might or might not do; because at the end of the day, I think you'd always come down on the side of being fair (although you're a firebrand). So here goes: If I had a skin color that you disapproved of and wanted to buy your house, I don't think you should have the right to refuse my competitive offer (on the basis on my skin; credit score is an entirely different matter). I'm not "forcing" you to sell to me, I just want the rules to be fair--and to that end I'm going to use a sports analogy (extremely rare for me). Why is it that baseball players run the bases in a counter-clockwise fashion? Why can't each batter determine which base to run to first as long as the right number of bases are covered? Why can't the pitcher determine whether a batter should start off from first base? Some might call that freedom; some might call that unsportsmanship-like conduct. So, baseball players agree to follow certain rules...about the number of outs, the way bases are run, etc. These rules allow for consistency and for a level playing field. All the players abide by these rules (with the help of an umpire) and know what to expect. It's fair (although umps sometimes make bum calls). So, why can't it be about being fair? How does a level playing field hurt anyone?
Suzanne, no one agrees more with you more about us all being equal than I do, but God forbid, if I didn't want to sell my property to you because I didn't like the color of your skin, that does not give you the right to try and force me, you have the freedom to buy from someone else, you have NO Right to tread on my freedom....I know that may sound awful, but that's a fact!
#129. To: Suzanne (#128)
That's right, you don't know a g-damn thing about me, but you assume you do, and we all know (at least some do) that Assumption is the mother of F*ckups! Missy, you can take that race card, and shove it straight up your ass, wanna know why? Because I'm the g-mother of black and mexican children, RACE has NOTHING to do with personal Liberty and Freedoms...so STFU! Even tho I would NEVER refuse to sell to another person because of their race, there in NO WAY in hell you, or anyone could force me to. Girl you better bone up on what Stone's been trying to teach you, cause my Constitutional lawyer would have you for lunch! No offence intended!
You know, Murron, I don't know you...really, but I know enough about you to understand that you believe in equality--particularly among the races
#130. To: Suzanne (#128)
First~ Please...please, forgive me for misunderstanding your post and going into a stupid rant, I think it was more out of habit because of some stupid people who don't know me, but assume they do because they misundertand me...lol I humbly apologize, and hope you forgive me! Now! You're right, I would Never refuse to sell because of your race, but you're wrong, dead wrong in my Right as a private property owner to make that choice, it has nothing to do with what's right, it has to do with individual Freedoms, my Inalienable Right, given to me by my creator, not meted to me by some federal government, and I will protect these rights to my death... No one ever said life was fair, but you don't force yourself on others and take from them, or it might come back and bite you! JMHO! Again Suzanne, I hope you forgive me! &;-)
If I had a skin color that you disapproved of and wanted to buy your house, I don't think you should have the right to refuse my competitive offer (on the basis on my skin; credit score is an entirely different matter). I'm not "forcing" you to sell to me, I just want the rules to be fair--and to that end I'm going to use a sports analogy (extremely rare for me).
#131. To: Murron (#129)
Missy, you can take that race card, and shove it straight up your ass, wanna know why? Because I'm the g-mother of black and mexican children, RACE has NOTHING to do with personal Liberty and Freedoms...so STFU! Murron, I said what I did based on a certain memory of things--perhaps I was wrong. I thought I remember you asking someone on LP not to use the "N" word because you found it offensive...because your family was mixed race and you loved them all. I liked that. That's what I remembered. Go ahead and tell me that I'm wrong. As for "STFU," no, I won't. Don't attempt to be the "thought police" on my comments, either. I will voice my opinions just like you will. It's part of that level playing field thing. And race has something to do with it if people are denied their personal freedoms because of it. As for Stone, I found a basis for contracts listed in the actual constitution and he didn't know that--and, frankly, I didn't know that either until today because I did some checking. Stone is not my teacher; I'll tackle that one on my own or seek out real experts.
That's right, you don't know a g-damn thing about me, but you assume you do, and we all know (at least some do) that Assumption is the mother of F*ckups!
#132. To: (#129)
Gawd Stone, can you please delete #129..? Thanks~
#133. To: Murron (#130)
You know, Murron, you're one of the people I'd like to have a drink with. You are a firebrand, but I sort of like that (being a redhead myself). We'd probably yell over drinks, but would end up laughing. BTW, I remember some of this stuff because I believe you live in an area where some of my friends do (Cincinnati-ish). So, some things in my memory bank struck a chord. I have an Appalachian background; you know how all that ties together.
Again Suzanne, I hope you forgive me! &;-)
#134. To: Suzanne (#133)
BTW, I remember some of this stuff because I believe you live in an area where some of my friends do (Cincinnati-ish). So, some things in my memory bank struck a chord. I have an Appalachian background; you know how all that ties together. Gawd..thank you, I am sooo ashamed! I haven't had a damn dring in a month of sundays, maybe that's my problem...lol Cincinnati's a hell-hole, badeye could tell ya more about that, he's on the edge of it, haven't been there in years. I'm here in the Cumberland Falls area, beautiful Laurel Lake is in my back yard. The Appalachia's are beautiful, but damn if I'd ever wonder into some of the areas....aha...
You know, Murron, you're one of the people I'd like to have a drink with. You are a firebrand, but I sort of like that (being a redhead myself). We'd probably yell over drinks, but would end up laughing.
#135. To: Murron (#134)
Don't be...we all go a little off-course sometimes. I did with you recently. At least I'm glad to know that I (somewhat) remembered correctly. I know the Cumberland Falls area. That whole stretch of Kentucky/West Virginia/northern Tennessee is where my family comes from. I moved west...an area can handle only so many firebrands (LOL).
Gawd..thank you, I am sooo ashamed!
#136. To: Suzanne (#135) (Edited)
that's why I live on a 45-50 acre ranch, no neighbors to kill in the heat of passion...&;-)
...an area can handle only so many firebrands (LOL).
#137. To: A K A Stone (#123)
There was no one holding a gun to their head. They could walk away. Duress is defined as the use or threat of force to compel a person to perform an act that they would not under no such threat.
People signing it gave up their constitutional rights under DURESS.
#138. To: war (#106) (Edited)
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Rights don't have to be listed, but gov powers DO. You Bush/hObama nanny statists would like to control everything, ain't gonna happen!
10A does not mention any right.
#139. To: hondo68 (#138)
You know that IX is not X. Correct?
#140. To: hondo68, war (#138)
LOL..hondo darlin, that's a contradiction in terms, if war, and those who think like him, had their way, they wouldn't be in 'control' of anything, wonder if they've thought about that? &;-)
"You Bush/hObama nanny statists would like to control everything, ain't gonna happen!"
#141. To: war (#139)
If you can't understand 9, you'll never figure 10 out.
#142. To: hondo68 (#141) (Edited)
Are you fucking stupid? I'm not the one who was promoting 10 as being applicable here. Stone was. I'm the one telling him it's not. Read the goddam thread, asshole, or sulk away; I don't care...
#143. To: war (#137)
There you go...being logical and defensible again.
Duress is defined as the use or threat of force to compel a person to perform an act that they would not under no such threat.
#144. To: Murron (#140)
Your stupidity speaks for itself. That's a polite way of saying "Shut the fuck up."
#145. To: Suzanne, war (#143)
war: "Duress is defined as the use or threat of force to compel a person to perform an act that they would not under no such threat." "There you go...being logical and defensible again." Yessssssssss....like forcing another to sell their property to a person with purple skin, even if they didn't want to....lol By jove I think he's got it...NOT!
#146. To: Suzanne (#143)
You're dealing with people who believe it is a sacrosanct right for them to deny someone else rights and now you have this moron quoting the 9th amendment to me.
#147. To: Murron (#145)
Stipulating that property rights exist without limitation and all share the same rights. Your right to sell cannot be superior to someone's right to acquire. Nor can your right to acquire be greater than anyone elses right to acquire. If all property rights exist in an equal sphere then you have NO RIGHT to claim a superior position by claiming you can discriminate when you sell.
#148. To: war, A K A Stone, Murron, All (#146)
You know, this has been an interesting thread for me--and sent me on a search where I learned more about the body of the constitution. Most of us know the constitution more by amendments than by the actual text within the body. So, I was intrigued by the subject of "private contracts" and their place within the U.S. Constitution. What I found about contracts and what I posted has been defensible by reference to court rulings, etc. It's been a good mental exercise. Now, we have the 9th Amendment. This seems to say that not all rights are listed here (within the amendment), but could be added later on because, well, times change and our perception of rights might change. What it doesn't say is that there are secret rights that someone can proclaim at any moment--without consensus--and upon which that individual will use to defend whatever action he or she has taken.
#149. To: Murron, war, A K A Stone, hondo68, all (#145)
Level playing field...just want a level playing field. What's wrong with that?
#150. To: Suzanne (#149)
They don't understand that rights are what level the playing field and why the word "equal" is so vital.
#151. To: Suzanne (#148)
The right to privacy is what 9A is all about...
#152. To: Suzanne (#148)
Yeah, even before we began talking I've been scrounging the net digging info into "private contracts", and I've only touched the issue. Even tho I may not join in most of the ..cough..cough...discussions on these issues here, doesn't mean for a moment I'm not soakin em up, I learn something new everday. What you need NEVER FORGET is, The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents. No state can remove or abridge rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. Times and Perceptions do change, men change, our founders, the wisest men on the face of this earth, they knew this too, they knew exactly what was in the hearts and minds of men, and they did their best to protect us from them. No one ever said it was going to be easy, and most of the time it certainly isn't fare, but once we give up just one of our unalienable rights, we will never get it back again. "WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
So, I was intrigued by the subject of "private contracts" and their place within the U.S. Constitution. What I found about contracts and what I posted has been defensible by reference to court rulings, etc. It's been a good mental exercise.
#153. To: Suzanne (#149)
Does a good, stiff drink go with it....?
Level playing field...just want a level playing field. What's wrong with that?
#154. To: Murron (#153)
Heck, bring in the leveler and I'll pay for the drinks AND snacks. I haven't done a complete, intensive study of the amendments, but upon first review, it would be that the amendments do not contradict or replace certain language within the constitution. Instead, they clarify, expand the meaning of, or add on to what is already there.
Does a good, stiff drink go with it....?
#155. To: war, hondo68 (#146)
As we both now know, contracts are covered by the constitution (allowing for state statutes); the 10th Amendment and any other amendment (or issue) on this topic is a non- issue.
quoting the 9th amendment to me
#156. To: All (#152)
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. (above)People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123). Chancellor Kent defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained.
#157. To: Suzanne (#148)
I meant to ask you about these contracts you're talking about, are they oral, or have they already been signed by both parties, and now the seller had second thoughts and is backing out? And if so, what is the sellers reason for backing out? You may have explained this already, but this thread is so long, I wouldn't know which post to look up. Thanks!
So, I was intrigued by the subject of "private contracts" and their place within the U.S. Constitution. What I found about contracts and what I posted has been defensible by reference to court rulings, etc. It's been a good mental exercise.
#158. To: Murron (#157)
I understand. The basic principle of contracts is covered under Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, which basically states that states won't impair (void) a contract (you sign it, you must live according to it). The following is my interpretation based on what I've read: Over time (centuries) that somewhat vague mandate was qualified, through statutes, by specific states according to their individual needs. It's those statutes that may allow an individual to back out of an individual contract within a certain time period, or make a certain contract invalid because it runs contrary to state laws about discrimination, etc. How a contract can become null and void will depend on the statutes of the state in which you live. From what I've read, the initial concern was that colonists who owed legitimate debts to foreign countries might appeal to their respective colonies or states to have the debt wiped away. A given colony or state might be tempted to take such an action (particularly for influential land owners); however, forgiving this debt might antagonize a foreign power/political ally. Therefore, in the constitution, the feds stated that the states can't just step in and forgive such a debt willy-nilly. The debt was the debt. After we became less concerned about PERSONAL debts owed to foreign powers, the language became altered and more statutes were introduced on a state-by-state basis that became more protective of consumers.
You may have explained this already, but this thread is so long, I wouldn't know which post to look up.
#159. To: Suzanne (#158)
Well! Thanks for scrambling what little brains I had left..lol I'm sorry Suzanne, in order for me to make any sort of personal judgement on this I'd have to at least know a little something about what the contract consist of (if it's 2 citizens and not government), and who's doing what to whom. I've done some research on "Intitlement Rights" (discrimination) v. the Rights of Individual. If I knew more, I could tell you whether it was invalid because of ' msrepresentation', 'fraud in inducement', 'fraud in the factum', I've found several ways to get myself out of a contract even if it did run against 'state laws', set down by minorties who think they can penalize me, and punish me for crimes I've never commited (example), by taking something away ones persons rights in order to satify group intitlements. LOL...I hope I understood you right....
It's those statutes that may allow an individual to back out of an individual contract within a certain time period, or make a certain contract invalid because it runs contrary to state laws about discrimination,
#160. To: A K A Stone (#13)
This is a exapmle of why we will NEVER have total Ayn Rand style Objectivist Libertairianism. Without the Government / State these "Home Owner's Associations", similar Associations and giant Corporations will become the State. We never can have a totally Libertarian society while we are still in our sinful natures. But then Ayn Rand based her form of Libertarianism on ATHEISM and EVOLUTION just like the Commies, the Fascists and the "Progressives" did.
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#161. To: Suzanne (#128)
"Home Owner's Associations" are just a way to bring about SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM and PROGRESSIVEISM through supposidly private means. Contract or no contract "Home Owners Association" leaders are TRAITORS TO AMERICA and should be put on trial and lose their American Citizenship or be SWUNG just like any other "Progressive" DONKEY TRAITOR!!! You know the REAL reason why these "Home Owner's Accociation" leaders hate the Gadsden Flag, because it tells the "Progressive" JACKASSES, DONT TREAD ON ME!! that's why.
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#162. To: Suzanne (#155)
You need to study Thomas Jefferson and INALIENABLE rights. Rights are inalienable.
#163. To: A K A Stone (#162)
Jefferson never enumerated property as an inalienable right nor did he enumerate laisse faire capitalism as one.
#164. To: All (#163)
Not all rights are inalienable. Your right to swing your fist ends before it reaches my nose.
Rights are inalienable.
#165. To: All (#163)
The above is for you...sorry...
#166. To: war, A K A Stone (#142) (Edited)
If you weren't so F'n stupid you'd be able to connect the dots. The un-enumerated (9th amendment) inalienable right to fly or burn flags, is passed to THE PEOPLE under the 10th amendment, not the States. IMO that's the gist of AK's argument, and the Supreme Court agrees with him. The supreme court has already declared flag burning a civil right, so if the homeowner wanted to burn a few Che Guevara and Kenyan flags while he's flying the Gadsden that'd be cool too. Flag rights are settled law, deal with it.
Are you fucking stupid?
#167. To: hondo68 (#166) (Edited)
Dickhead...you've created an argument of which I am not even a part. Stone is claiming that the 10th amendment a) allows him to do what ever he wants and b) that because it's an amendment it trumps anything in Articles 1-VI. He's also claiming that this guy's rights are being violated even though he has agreed to live in a private association under the specific rules of the association. THAT is the argument. If you want to discuss the ninth amendment, start another thread. PS: The general right to fly a flag is protected UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT not the Ninth. DEAL WITH THAT.
#168. To: war, A K A Stone, Coral Snake, Murron, Suzanne (#167) (Edited)
If you want to discuss the ninth amendment, start another thread. Dickbreath.... If you want to ban flying the Gadsden flag, start another thread AND pass a Constitutional amendment. My proposed amendment to ban spandex wearers from the voting booth, has a better chance of passing. Americans like the Gadsden flag a lot more, than they like fags in spandex.
Dickhead...
#169. To: war (#167)
Actually I meant the 9th. I wasn't with it yesterday. But the 10th also applies. The 9th moreso.
#170. To: A K A Stone (#169)
I'm beginning to think there are actually some here, after all these years lurking on the net, who don't know the difference between our God given rights and those who think Entitlement Thieves, Special Interest Thieves, and Affirmative Action Thieves trump Individual Rights. They honestly think, that just because some asshole passed a bill, an ordinance, or law for these groups, that it must be so....go figure!
#171. To: hondo68 (#168)
This former bicycle racer, who still wears spandex when riding the back roads would pound the snot out of you if you came up to me making sneering remarks assuming you know why some athletes wear clothing made with it. I've had car drivers scream insults because they did not like cycle shorts and jerseys. Go to a road race or criteruim start/finish line and call all the surly and muscular guys that they are fags for shaving their legs and wearing spandex. Let me know where and when you do this if you decide to commit suicide. I'll videotape it and put the snuff piece on You Tube for ya.
"My proposed amendment to ban spandex wearers from the voting booth, has a better chance of passing. Americans like the Gadsden flag a lot more, than they like fags in spandex."
#172. To: Ferret Mike (#171)
You still crack me up, Ferret, after all these years. I think you've got me nearly on your side.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#173. To: A K A Stone (#169)
Then why did you quote the 10th?
#174. To: Fred Mertz (#172)
He's always cracked me up.
#175. To: hondo68 (#168) (Edited)
I don't want to ban any flag nor would I be stupid enough to live in a place that not only tells me how tall my grass can grow, what hedges I can plant and WHAT GODDAMN FLAG I CAN FLY but makes me sign a piece of paper in which I pledge not to.
#176. To: war (#174)
I got another job offer. Summbitch....it ain't right.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#177. To: Fred Mertz (#176)
BASTARDS!!!
#178. To: war (#177)
They want me to rediscover the world. It ain't right.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#179. To: war (#177)
Here, you might get a laugh out of this...
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#180. To: Fred Mertz (#179) (Edited)
Yukko being the whiney bitch that he is because he didn't get a PING. As if he doesn't read every goddam post anyway.
#181. To: Fred Mertz (#178)
DOUBLE BASTARDS!!!!
#182. To: war (#181)
Exactly.
"Lets [sic] rent a room." ~ Tull to Rotara
#183. To: A K A Stone, war, hondo68 (#169)
So, Stone, Hondo, you're both big believers in the 9th amendment, ehh? That's fine. Just realize, it's the foundation for overcoming bans on birth control and for the "right to privacy" (Roe v Wade). From http://legal- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment: Until 1965 no Supreme Court decision made more than a passing reference to the Ninth Amendment. In 1958, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment "are still a mystery." Nevertheless, the dormant Ninth Amendment experienced a renaissance in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965). In Griswold the Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that banned adult residents from using Birth Control and prohibited anyone from assisting others to violate this law. In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the Court, rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. On several occasions in the past, Douglas wrote, the Court has recognized rights that cannot not be found in the written language of the Constitution. Only briefly discussed in Douglas's majority opinion, the Ninth Amendment was the centerpiece of Justice Arthur Goldberg's concurring opinion. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, Goldberg wrote, demonstrate that the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to protect certain unwritten liberties with the same zeal that courts must protect those liberties expressly referenced in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, Goldberg emphasized, reflects the Framers' original understanding that "other fundamental personal rights should not be denied protection simply because they are not specifically listed" in the Constitution. Justices Hugo L. Black and Potter Stewart criticized the Court for invoking the Ninth Amendment as a basis for its decision in Griswold. The Ninth Amendment, the dissenting justices said, does not explain what unenumerated rights are retained by the people or how these rights should be identified. Nor does the amendment authorize the Supreme Court, in contrast to the president or Congress, to enforce these rights. By reading the Ninth Amendment as creating a general right to privacy, Black and Stewart suggested, the unelected justices of the Supreme Court had substituted their own subjective notions of justice, liberty, and reasonableness for the wisdom and experience of the elected representatives in the Connecticut state legislature who were responsible for passing the birth control regulation. The Griswold decision was the starting point of a continuing debate over the proper role of the Ninth Amendment in constitutional Jurisprudence. One side of the debate reads the Ninth Amendment to mean that the Constitution protects not only those liberties written into the Bill of Rights but some additional liberties found outside the express language of any one provision. The other side sees no way to identify the unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment and no objective method by which to interpret and apply such rights. Under this view, courts that interpret and apply the Ninth Amendment do so in a manner that reflects the political and personal preferences of the presiding judge. Federal courts have attempted to reach a middle ground. A number of federal courts have found that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of judicial construction, or a guideline for interpretation, and not an independent source of constitutional rights (Mann v. Meachem, 929 F. Supp. 622 [N.D.N.Y. 1996]). These courts view the Ninth Amendment as an invitation to liberally interpret the express provisions of the Constitution. However, federal courts will not recognize constitutional rights claimed to derive solely from the Ninth Amendment (United States v. Vital Health Products, 786 F. Supp. 761 [E.D. Wis. 1992]). By itself, one court held, the Ninth Amendment does not enunciate any substantive rights. Instead the amendment serves to protect other fundamental liberties that are implicit, though not mentioned, in the Bill of Rights (Rothner v. City of Chicago, 725 F. Supp. 945 [N.D. Ill. 1989]). After Griswold, federal courts were flooded with novel claims based on unenumerated rights. Almost without exception, these novel Ninth Amendment claims were rejected. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft (United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 [1970]). The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered submachine gun (United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 [1976]). The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana (United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 [1986]). The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment (Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 [1992]). This series of cases has led some scholars to conclude that the Ninth Amendment may be returning to a constitutional hibernation. Yet the Ninth Amendment retains some vitality. In Roe v. Wade, the federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a state law prohibiting Abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother violated the right to privacy guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment (314 F. Supp. 1217 [1970]). On appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that the right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 [1973]). Federal courts continue to rely on the Ninth Amendment in support of a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion under certain circumstances.
Actually I meant the 9th. I wasn't with it yesterday. But the 10th also applies. The 9th moreso.
#184. To: Suzanne (#183)
The 9th isn't a right to kill babies. There is no right to kill babies. People who support the imaginary right to kill babies should themselves be killed. After a trial for attempted murder.
#185. To: A K A Stone (#184)
Well, depending on the poll, somewhere between 55 and 60 percent of Americans support legal abortion in most cases. So, Stone, God love'ya, you've got a lot of killin' to do.
People who support the imaginary right to kill babies should themselves be killed.
#186. To: All (#183)
BTW, I mostly just wanted to point out how funny you've been with this thread in your inconsistency. First you declare HOAs and their contracts as unconstitutional. They're not. Contracts are covered by the U.S. Constitution. Then, you want to make it a states right thing (10th Amendment), saying that fair housing laws, etc. are unconstitutional. Well, even if that argument would hold water, you still wouldn't get want you want because states have their own nondiscrimination laws (the states claimed their right to do so). Then, you fall back onto the "mystery" 9th Amendment that says individuals have rights not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and you should still have the right to do what you want (flags, discriminate, etc.). But, when courts have granted rights (like the right to privacy) that you don't approve of, then it's a bad amendment. Geez, Stone, you and the Constitution just aren't getting along lately. So sorry to hear that.
#187. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone (#186)
Well, even if that argument would hold water, you still wouldn't get want you want because states have their own nondiscrimination laws (the states claimed their right to do so" The US Constitution is the supreme law for the states in the Union. Even before the Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress, instructions had gone out to the former British colonies to form state governments. In order to form such governments, state constitutions were written. A state constitution applies just to that state for which it was written. The United States Constitution applies to all of the states making up the union. A constitution is a plan that provides the rules for a government, be it state or nation. All constitutions serve several purposes. First, it sets the ideals that the beople bound by the constitution believe in and share. Second, it establishes a basic structure of government. Third, it defines the powers and duties of the government. While the state constitutions bind the people in that state, all state constitutions must abide to the United States Constitution. The US Constitution is the supreme law for the states in the Union.
Suzanne:"Then, you want to make it a states right thing (10th Amendment), saying that fair housing laws, etc. are unconstitutional.
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus
#188. To: hondo68, war, ferret, e_type_jag, badeye (#168)
Lol, OUCH! This is an attack on a sacred synthetic material!! My proposed amendment to ban spandex wearers from the voting booth, has a better chance of passing. Americans like the Gadsden flag a lot more, than they like fags in spandex.
#189. To: Ferret Mike, hondo68 (#171)
Let me know where and when you do this if you decide to commit suicide. I'll videotape it and put the snuff piece on You Tube for ya. That's a 15 yard penalty. Unnecessary roughness. Btw, IF you do decide to commit hari kari, Hondo, would you mind...wearing Spandex? It would it so...ironic. (hee-hee)
This former bicycle racer, who still wears spandex when riding the back roads would pound the snot out of you if you came up to me making sneering remarks assuming you know why some athletes wear clothing made with it.
#190. To: Suzanne (#186)
There is no right to kill babies born or unborn. How many abortions did you have liberal? Feeling a little guilty? Trying to justify your murders? Or maybe someone you know murdered their kid and you rationalized it away. Again there is no right to kill your baby. Only sickos think there is. Are you a sicko?
#191. To: Suzanne (#185)
most people are against baby murder/abortion. And I don't have any killing to do. It is the govts job to punish those who perform abortions and those who seek them.
#192. To: A K A Stone (#190)
Or maybe someone you know murdered their kid and you rationalized it away. Again there is no right to kill your baby. Only sickos think there is. Are you a sicko? How cute. You're trying to shift the focus from the fact that your whole constitutional/states rights argument about HOAs and their idiotic contracts didn't hold water. In fact, they sank like a stone. I'm not into revealing oodles of personal details on websites, but since you seem so obsessed with my "behavior," I'll answer your tacky question. Sorry to disappoint you, zealot, I did the birth control thing very well and circumvented the need to contemplate any bigger issues. Yippee for me. However, I will also say that if I had become pregnant through rape or incest, first (right after pressing charges), I would have demanded Plan B and barring that, yes, I would have had an abortion at the earliest moment. And it wouldn't bother me for a second that people like you would label me a sicko.
There is no right to kill babies born or unborn. How many abortions did you have liberal? Feeling a little guilty? Trying to justify your murders?
#193. To: Suzanne (#192)
You go girlfriend! I love you, Suzanne!
I'm not into revealing oodles of personal details on websites, but since you seem so obsessed with my "behavior," I'll answer your tacky question. Sorry to disappoint you, zealot, I did the birth control thing very well and circumvented the need to contemplate any bigger issues. Yippee for me. However, I will also say that if I had become pregnant through rape or incest, first (right after pressing charges), I would have demanded Plan B and barring that, yes, I would have had an abortion at the earliest moment. And it wouldn't bother me for a second that people like you would label me a sicko.
#194. To: meguro (#193)
Right backatcha!
I love you, Suzanne!
#195. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone (#192)
Like many other's before you Suzanne, you keep coming back to the old dead horse 'rape and incest' as an example of your argument, but you couldn't be more wrong. I think stone feels he same way, but he'll have to speak for himself, no woman should be forced to carry a child of rape and/or incest, or if her life were in danger because of she's pregnant. I agree that all three of these examples are very legitimate reasons for an abortion. Show me where stone called you a 'SICKO' because of any of these reasons! jmho!
I will also say that if I had become pregnant through rape or incest, first (right after pressing charges), I would have demanded Plan B and barring that, yes, I would have had an abortion at the earliest moment. And it wouldn't bother me for a second that people like you would label me a sicko.
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus
#196. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#195)
You're right, Stone should speak for himself. OK Stone, how 'bout that rape/incest/life endangered thing. The ball's in your court.
I think stone feels he same way, but he'll have to speak for himself, no woman should be forced to carry a child of rape and/or incest, or if her life were in danger because of she's pregnant.
#197. To: Murron (#195)
Thanks. Sorry to pick on you about this in open forum my dear. Next time if I have a point of order, I will go to inhouse mail.
""The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus"
#198. To: Suzanne (#186)
You should study unalienable rights.
#199. To: A K A Stone, Murron (#198)
I answered your question. Answer mine...directly and specifically. How 'bout that rape/incest/life endangered thing?
You should study unalienable rights.
#200. To: Suzanne (#199)
A woman has a right to preserve her life. If a pregnancy threatens her existence, she should be left alone if she and her loved ones decide to end the pregnancy. Incest produces an unhealthy child with a high chance of birth defects. All incest pregnancies should be terminated unless the woman decides otherwise. As for rape, I would prefer to see the child go to term and be adopted, but rape is a horrible act or violence and sometimes an abortion is necessary if the woman is so traumatized carrying the child to term would affect her mental health. Abortion is wrong, but not black and white. The views I expressed many conservative woman believe in too. In any event, I would always give more weight to the overall consensus of women as to what should be legal in abortion. After all, it's their bodies and lives most effected by carrying a child. Women seldom get enough respect, especially in areas their lives are most effected. Men have to be very careful on the abortion issue as the fine line between respect for life and the desire to control women socially, economically and politically is too easy to cross. And if the consensus if women ever is that that line is stepped over by men, they have a right to push them back to the right side of the line again.
#201. To: Suzanne (#199)
I am against abortion on demand, but first and foremost, I am very much a feminist.
#202. To: Ferret Mike (#201)
That makes you sound like a fag. Not saying you are. Sarah Palin has redefined what a feminist is.
I am very much a feminist.
#203. To: Suzanne (#199)
Suzanne first let me know if you realize that abortion is the taking of innocent human life. Do you agree with that or do you have a false belief that it isn.t?
#204. To: Suzanne (#199)
He'll never do it.
Answer mine...directly and specifically. How 'bout that rape/incest/life endangered thing?
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." — Jack Handey
#205. To: A K A Stone (#202) (Edited)
I don't take kindly to that sort of taunt. Your bait lies in that you also don't say I'm not. I say it does not matter if anyone is heterosexual like you or I am or homosexual. That is just a normal difference between people; their sexual imprinting. This has always been, always will be, and people like you cannot change that. Women can and often are aligned to support the dominant gender's mindset and advocacies, and similarly, anyone - male of female - can be a feminist. As for Suck face Sarah, she has only defined her own brand of idiocy. She is no feminist. Quite the opposite.
"That makes you sound like a fag. Not saying you are."
#206. To: A K A Stone (#203)
Stop hedging. You asked me a question and I answered. I have a question and you avoid. Murron said that she thought you were on the same page with her, that in some circumstances, such as rape, incest, and life endangerment, abortion was understandable. So...come on...give it up. What is your belief under these circumstances? Time to pony up, chum.
Suzanne first let me know...
#207. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone (#206)
Maybe I was way off base for thinking it, but he'll have to speak for himself. I only know I have no problem with these three reasons for having an abortion, all other reasons are just excuses to get rid of a problem (an innocent baby).
"Murron said that she thought you were on the same page with her, that in some circumstances, such as rape, incest, and life endangerment, abortion was understandable."
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus
#208. To: Murron (#207)
I meant to include your name on my response before, but I hit "post" before doing so.
#209. To: Suzanne (#208)
No worries, good to see you....
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion"~ Albert Camus
#210. To: Suzanne (#206)
It is part of answering the question. Now go ahead and answer.
#211. To: A K A Stone, Murron (#210)
No it isn't. My question stands independently and I'm sure you can handle it. I answered your original question and asked my own. The ball's in your court now. It's only fair. So...are you and Murron, indeed, on the same page that in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment abortion is a legitimate option? Pony up, dude. Stop stalling.
It is part of answering the question.
#212. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone (#211) (Edited)
He's probably waiting for his copy of The Limbaugh Letter to arrive in the mail. I'd be okay with abortion for life threatening or incest. Rape victims should receive a Gadsden flag baby blanket, from a private charity. Stop stalling.
#213. To: Suzanne (#211)
203
#214. To: A K A Stone (#213)
You're a gutless weasel, Stone. Answer the lady's question.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." — Jack Handey
#215. To: Skip Intro (#214)
I am answering the question. First there has to be some parameters.
#216. To: Skip Intro (#214)
I've answered the question before.
#217. To: A K A Stone (#215)
She's given you the parameters. Answer her question.
am answering the question. First there has to be some parameters.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." — Jack Handey
#218. To: Skip Intro (#217)
lol. You're slow skippy. I make the parameters.
She's given you the parameters. Answer her question.
#219. To: A K A Stone (#218)
Not if you want to have any posters.
ol. You're slow skippy. I make the parameters.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." — Jack Handey
#220. To: Skip Intro (#219)
You're free to leave anytime you want to. Just don't let the door drill you in the ass on the way out.
#221. To: A K A Stone (#213)
211
#222. To: Suzanne (#221)
If you answer the questions and define some terms you will get your answer and you will understand why. So if you are interested then just play along for a few posts. Otherwise it doesn't really matter to me if you understand why I believe what I believe.
#223. To: A K A Stone (#222)
I answered your original question. In polite society, that earned me the right to ask you a question and have it answered. I will not "play along for a few posts." You're simply trying to find a way of belittling me because my opinions differ from yours. Not interested. And it doesn't really matter to me if you understand why I believe what I believe. And someone like you doesn't have the standing with me to make me change my opinions. Since you won't answer my straightforward question (after I answered yours), I'm done with this thread.
If you answer the questions
#224. To: Suzanne (#223)
You have to let someone answer their question the way they want to. Just wanted to define some terms. Have a good night.
#225. To: hondo68, liberator (#168)
Chuckles......Slapped both the upper and lower set right outta dwarf's maw with that one:):)
My proposed amendment to ban spandex wearers from the voting booth, has a better chance of passing. Americans like the Gadsden flag a lot more, than they like fags in spandex.
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. Below is the latest Dwarf revelation: ...."the shorts and bibs I wear are of a carbon/lycra/nylon composition......and maaaaaannnnnn....just letting everybody know that makes my balls SWELL......I'm just tooooooo sexy for you all!!" ....Dwarf August 2010.............. And one from the bluehair 2-legged GPS "I always get the Carolinas mixed up for some reason." ......Fred Jerx (who will doubtless figure out intricacy of that tricky "North / South" thing someday.
#226. To: Ferret Mike, hondo68, liberator (#171)
Chuckles Mike .........Tyson:) So.....spandex "boy".....what we learn here on anonymous chatrooms #101 and cover in review in anonymous chatrooms # 102....is that pounding snot really just does ......not....... fly real far in the "cred" game. I for instance just finished bitch slapping Jet Li and Jason Statham right off their al fresco chairs over in Old Town Pasadena when they mouthed off after I took swigs of their respective beers. The beer was needed after I finished off munching on a box of 12 gauge shotgun shells for lunch. Not just 45 minutes ago. You are a spandex bra wearing-all-things-leftist-fellator whose hormone injections haven't yet taken full effect. Know your place, spandex warrior:):) I stand 6-10 and weigh 288 and am on my may over to give some pointers to Lane Kiffin's DT's and OL this afternoon. I invented the BowFlex machine....aka the JagFlex. I have time to have my snot knocked out later this afternoon.....if you can manage. BBBBWWWWAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAAA!!!!!.....sheesh........BBBBBBBWWWWWAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAA!!! Seriously Mike...... avoid looking dwarflike-stupid in the posting style.....he's been the only one on this site to go there tmk.....leave the laughabll pointless bloviation to the expert.
This former bicycle racer, who still wears spandex when riding the back roads would pound the snot out of you if you came up to me making sneering remarks assuming you know why some athletes wear clothing made with it.
Death to everybody who does not get outta my way. Below is the latest Dwarf revelation: ...."the shorts and bibs I wear are of a carbon/lycra/nylon composition......and maaaaaannnnnn....just letting everybody know that makes my balls SWELL......I'm just tooooooo sexy for you all!!" ....Dwarf August 2010.............. And one from the bluehair 2-legged GPS "I always get the Carolinas mixed up for some reason." ......Fred Jerx (who will doubtless figure out intricacy of that tricky "North / South" thing someday.
#227. To: Suzanne (#223)
Tick Tock. Still waiting.
#228. To: A K A Stone, war, Fred Mertz (#227)
My answer is in 223
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]