<!--QuoteBegin-spacer+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (spacer)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, uh... 1: Fair enough, I don't like the US, I don't have the same rights/freedoms either, that's true. I have more. Fair point. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm glad we agree on that issue.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2: It seems to be that soon every piece of land WILL BE a consumable product, first unoccupied land already owned by people, then the land the people themselves live in.
Thanks for being looking like a fool. confused-fix.gif <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the constitution... which gives you rights other countries ignore, yes the land the US calls its territory is consumable, but somehow I don't think they just "use" the land up, most people put something on it for a purpose. It doesn't normally just "sit" there, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Last line was a small typo, I was a little annoyed you are being so... materialistic.
Sure people shouldn't become too attached to material posessions...but they should be allowed to make the decision themselves as to when to leave them behind. Things will always change over time, it's just this ruling seems like it might act as a catalyst for such changes. What about communities? Your neighbours and friends - wouldn't this break these apart as you are forced to relocate? What about the reason why you chose your home above others? How is this, in any way shape or form, the product of a country whose mantra to the masses is 'freedom'?
Is freedom losing your home against your will so more money can be pumped into the economy? If this were a case of taking peoples houses away for schools or hospitals then I could see more logic, but this is taking peoples homes away for reasons these people likely care nothing about, and who would?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->According to the constitution... which gives you rights other countries ignore, yes the land the US calls its territory is consumable, but somehow I don't think they just "use" the land up, most people put something on it for a purpose. It doesn't normally just "sit" there, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Last line was a small typo, I was a little annoyed you are being so... materialistic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you know, I was a little annoyed at you calling me a fool. WOW. We learnt that people don't nitpick your sentences to be annoying unless you annoy them first. I know there's a purpose, I'm saying removing peoples homes and putting malls on them is not very... constitutional. Or nice. Let's not forget that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 07:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 07:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thing is, it is constitutional, as the surpreme court as demostarted.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A great use would be housing for people who've had their land taken from them and had an insulting "compensation" given back to them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thing is, it is constitutional, as the surpreme court as demostarted.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem here is that people DO see a problem, the problem being what I've already talked about, then you say they're wrong and call them all vain.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thing is, it is constitutional, as the surpreme court as demostarted.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because naturally, the government is excellent at putting things to good use . . .
1. The federal government normally doesn't take land from people, since it prefers to use land people aren't using, example Nevada's desert.
2. You are complaining about local governments taking land away from people given them compensation, and yet they are protected under federal law for for this. Then again they are providing businesses with land to serve the same people with other materialistic needs/wants. Do you not see the contradiction raised here?
3. If all government is evil, then you can go and move to an island that has no government at least not a standing one.(Can and has been done before.)
4. Being overly materialistic about ones possessions is vain, as that is the definition of the word. I hate to say it, but it appears that certain people on this board are very vain. Since they are "defining themselves by their possessions" I don't see how you can't understand the inherent problem with that.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 02:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well lets go over the basics...
1. The federal government normally doesn't take land from people, since it prefers to use land people aren't using, example Nevada's desert.
2. You are complaining about local governments taking land away from people given them compensation, and yet they are protected under federal law for for this. Then again they are providing businesses with land to serve the same people with other materialistic needs/wants. Do you not see the contradiction raised here?
3. If all government is evil, then you can go and move to an island that has no government at least not a standing one.(Can and has been done before.)
4. Being overly materialistic about ones possessions is vain, as that is the definition of the word. I hate to say it, but it appears that certain people on this board are very vain. Since they are "defining themselves by their possessions" I don't see how you can't understand the inherent problem with that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Look, there is an absolutely beautiful neighborhood a couple miles away from my home. Large front yards, huge trees, 100 year old houses that have been beautfully kept up. I would drive to school every day through that neighborhood just to see it and smell it even though I had to get up earlier to do so.
A nearby shopping mall through some insidious process, got the area declared "blighted" which means that it can be eminent domained really easily. The local government was going to buy up the area for a pittance (because its "blighted" its legally worth next to nothing) and turn it in to a **king extension to an ugly as hell shopping mall!
If the government is going to force you to sell your property, it should become publically owned land. Period.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thing is, it is constitutional, as the surpreme court as demostarted.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unfortunately it comes down to trust and conflict of interest. The group that has the power to buy your property and give it to a developer can also sabotage your property value. And if you can honestly say you trust your elected representatives not to screw you over for kickbacks and the imagined good of the society, than I wish you luck with it. Of course you could always sue them, and pay 20K in lawyer's fees to get the evaluation of your property raised 10K...
Our variant of eminent domain law, and some creative accounting (read: blatant fraud), kicked a few hundred people out of their homes for peanuts. The land is now an empty, poorly maintained national park with an entrance fee. Good use my eyeballs... vive la Quebec stupide.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<a href='http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml' target='_blank'>Eminent Domain: Being Abused?</a> OMG NOT POSSIBLE!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland.
The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go."
“The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet.
“We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.”
Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.
But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.
Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.
The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.
“This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home.
The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted."
“We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.”
"The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.”
But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain.
And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air.
“This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.”
Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet.
The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council.
“That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional.
“This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.”
“It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock.
“Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son.
The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.
"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years.
Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot.
“And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out. But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.”
And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him.
“The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.”
“You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.”
So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner.
“I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey.
Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen."
But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.
The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.
“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”
But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.
Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.
Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.
“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.
In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain. But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now go back and replace the words Mayor, City of Mesa, and New York with the word King.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
edited June 2005
This forum is totally f***ing insane sometimes. Wanting to keep your home from being bulldozed so someone can build a shopping mall or an office complex is <i>not</i> excessively materialistic. Call me crazy, but I think polititians destroying a place of residence to advance their economic agenda in a community is a bit more materialistic than just trying to hold onto your house. <b>Wake the f*** up people, you sound like idiots.</b>
Edit: Thank you Spooge, evidently not everyone is insane.
Cyndane, you are not fit to debate this topic. You do not understand the underlying emotions in becoming attached to a place. So you're of a nomadic spirit - fine. But most humans are territorial. The majority of human cultures settled down instead of being nomadic. If you cannot understand the basic human need for a place to call your own, you lack the necessary knowledge to debate this topic.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Jun 23 2005, 03:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jun 23 2005, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cyndane, you are not fit to debate this topic. You do not understand the underlying emotions in becoming attached to a place. So you're of a nomadic spirit - fine. But most humans are territorial. The majority of human cultures settled down instead of being nomadic. If you cannot understand the basic human need for a place to call your own, you lack the necessary knowledge to debate this topic.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats pretty much my exact words I was going to use so I suport them
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Jun 23 2005, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Jun 23 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hate the US, if I could leave I would <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What is tying you down?
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 23 2005, 01:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 23 2005, 01:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Jun 23 2005, 03:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Jun 23 2005, 03:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hate the US, if I could leave I would <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What is tying you down? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> his job as a spy for the KGB
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Jun 23 2005, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jun 23 2005, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cyndane, you are not fit to debate this topic. You do not understand the underlying emotions in becoming attached to a place. So you're of a nomadic spirit - fine. But most humans are territorial. The majority of human cultures settled down instead of being nomadic. If you cannot understand the basic human need for a place to call your own, you lack the necessary knowledge to debate this topic.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> /applaud
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Jun 23 2005, 03:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jun 23 2005, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cyndane, you are not fit to debate this topic. You do not understand the underlying emotions in becoming attached to a place. So you're of a nomadic spirit - fine. But most humans are territorial. The majority of human cultures settled down instead of being nomadic. If you cannot understand the basic human need for a place to call your own, you lack the necessary knowledge to debate this topic.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Jun 23 2005, 03:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jun 23 2005, 03:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Cyndane, you are not fit to debate this topic. You do not understand the underlying emotions in becoming attached to a place. So you're of a nomadic spirit - fine. But most humans are territorial. The majority of human cultures settled down instead of being nomadic. If you cannot understand the basic human need for a place to call your own, you lack the necessary knowledge to debate this topic.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> amen
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited June 2005
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't stand people that have this attitude, its the same sort of people that have the "AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" bumper stickers. So i disagree with a perfectly logical argument against my private home\land being bulldozed (albeit with compensation) and made way for private business? Should i leave the US if i don't like it, or certain aspects of it? So if the government does something i don't like I just leave the country because i hate it and it feels like there's nothing i can do. That's not only servile and unamerican, but goes against the ideals this country was founded on.
Well, let's get this out of the way before things get ugly: Cyndane, feel free to start a thread about shallow materialism and how we should pay less attention to our posessions and/or "home territory" and more attention to what you think we should pay more attention to. But the fact that most of us like our homes and object to being evicted from them is a basic premise for this thread. Feel free to complain about that, but do so in a different thread. You're derailing this one.
And so am I. Continue the discussion, folks, don't mind me.
<!--QuoteBegin-minsk+Jun 23 2005, 04:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (minsk @ Jun 23 2005, 04:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our variant of eminent domain law, and some creative accounting (read: blatant fraud), kicked a few hundred people out of their homes for peanuts. The land is now an empty, poorly maintained national park with an entrance fee. Good use my eyeballs... vive la Quebec stupide.
</libertarianish-soapbox> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Are we talking about Angrinion Park or something? It's really the only park I know of in Quebec. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (Sheltered life.)
I live in Lasalle, for note. Within walking distance of the park.
Cyndane, you're completely missing the point. It should be a <b>choice</b> if you want to give up your possessions. You may not be attached to your possessions, but some people ARE. Also, it's not always easy to move, and not just because you have to leave your house.
Also, if you're against attachment to possessions, why are you agreeing with decisions that mean that people will tear down a place where people are shelthered and safe to build a mall, where <b>more</b> material possessions will be sold to people?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't have that right, what part about that don't you understand?
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Welcome to Canada, would you like nicer people with your order of freedom? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Comprox+Jun 23 2005, 04:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Comprox @ Jun 23 2005, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't have that right, what part about that don't you understand?
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Welcome to Canada, would you like nicer people with your order of freedom? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh no you don't. Don't even try. You and Swiftspear can have fun in your land of frost and moose.
<!--QuoteBegin-rottenapple+Jun 23 2005, 04:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rottenapple @ Jun 23 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Jun 23 2005, 04:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Jun 23 2005, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA, HOUSE SEIZES YOU! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Meh.
Comments
So, uh...
1: Fair enough, I don't like the US, I don't have the same rights/freedoms either, that's true. I have more. Fair point.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad we agree on that issue.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
2: It seems to be that soon every piece of land WILL BE a consumable product, first unoccupied land already owned by people, then the land the people themselves live in.
Thanks for being looking like a fool. confused-fix.gif
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the constitution... which gives you rights other countries ignore, yes the land the US calls its territory is consumable, but somehow I don't think they just "use" the land up, most people put something on it for a purpose. It doesn't normally just "sit" there, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Last line was a small typo, I was a little annoyed you are being so... materialistic.
Is freedom losing your home against your will so more money can be pumped into the economy? If this were a case of taking peoples houses away for schools or hospitals then I could see more logic, but this is taking peoples homes away for reasons these people likely care nothing about, and who would?
Last line was a small typo, I was a little annoyed you are being so... materialistic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you know, I was a little annoyed at you calling me a fool. WOW. We learnt that people don't nitpick your sentences to be annoying unless you annoy them first.
I know there's a purpose, I'm saying removing peoples homes and putting malls on them is not very... constitutional. Or nice. Let's not forget that.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A great use would be housing for people who've had their land taken from them and had an insulting "compensation" given back to them.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is that people DO see a problem, the problem being what I've already talked about, then you say they're wrong and call them all vain.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because naturally, the government is excellent at putting things to good use . . .
[rolleyes]
1. The federal government normally doesn't take land from people, since it prefers to use land people aren't using, example Nevada's desert.
2. You are complaining about local governments taking land away from people given them compensation, and yet they are protected under federal law for for this. Then again they are providing businesses with land to serve the same people with other materialistic needs/wants. Do you not see the contradiction raised here?
3. If all government is evil, then you can go and move to an island that has no government at least not a standing one.(Can and has been done before.)
4. Being overly materialistic about ones possessions is vain, as that is the definition of the word. I hate to say it, but it appears that certain people on this board are very vain. Since they are "defining themselves by their possessions" I don't see how you can't understand the inherent problem with that.
1. The federal government normally doesn't take land from people, since it prefers to use land people aren't using, example Nevada's desert.
2. You are complaining about local governments taking land away from people given them compensation, and yet they are protected under federal law for for this. Then again they are providing businesses with land to serve the same people with other materialistic needs/wants. Do you not see the contradiction raised here?
3. If all government is evil, then you can go and move to an island that has no government at least not a standing one.(Can and has been done before.)
4. Being overly materialistic about ones possessions is vain, as that is the definition of the word. I hate to say it, but it appears that certain people on this board are very vain. Since they are "defining themselves by their possessions" I don't see how you can't understand the inherent problem with that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, there is an absolutely beautiful neighborhood a couple miles away from my home. Large front yards, huge trees, 100 year old houses that have been beautfully kept up. I would drive to school every day through that neighborhood just to see it and smell it even though I had to get up earlier to do so.
A nearby shopping mall through some insidious process, got the area declared "blighted" which means that it can be eminent domained really easily. The local government was going to buy up the area for a pittance (because its "blighted" its legally worth next to nothing) and turn it in to a **king extension to an ugly as hell shopping mall!
If the government is going to force you to sell your property, it should become publically owned land. Period.
As long as the land it put to good use I see no reason to be upset. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately it comes down to trust and conflict of interest. The group that has the power to buy your property and give it to a developer can also sabotage your property value. And if you can honestly say you trust your elected representatives not to screw you over for kickbacks and the imagined good of the society, than I wish you luck with it. Of course you could always sue them, and pay 20K in lawyer's fees to get the evaluation of your property raised 10K...
Our variant of eminent domain law, and some creative accounting (read: blatant fraud), kicked a few hundred people out of their homes for peanuts. The land is now an empty, poorly maintained national park with an entrance fee. Good use my eyeballs... vive la Quebec stupide.
</libertarianish-soapbox>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland.
The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go."
“The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet.
“We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.”
Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.
But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.
Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.
The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.
“This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home.
The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted."
“We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.”
"The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.”
But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain.
And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air.
“This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.”
Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet.
The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council.
“That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional.
“This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.”
“It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock.
“Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son.
The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.
"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years.
Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot.
“And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out.
But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.”
And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him.
“The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.”
“You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.”
So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner.
“I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey.
Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen."
But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.
The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.
“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”
But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.
Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.
Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.
“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.
In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now go back and replace the words Mayor, City of Mesa, and New York with the word King.
Get the **** off my property.
Edit: Thank you Spooge, evidently not everyone is insane.
First off, most people never get as much money as their property is worth. And relocation expense is never factored in as well.
There needs to be something done about this.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you.
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats pretty much my exact words I was going to use so I suport them
What is tying you down?
What is tying you down? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
his job as a spy for the KGB
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/applaud
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT.
<!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You are a regular of the Discussions forum. Would you consider it good form to debate a topic without knowing about it? Assume a discussion about AIDS: If somebody claimed that it's completely harmless, wouldn't this be offensive to the whole discussion?
Please, do us all a favour: Either acknowledge and accept that people object to being wantonly thrown out of their homes, or stop posting in this thread. Thank you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
amen
I can't stand people that have this attitude, its the same sort of people that have the "AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" bumper stickers. So i disagree with a perfectly logical argument against my private home\land being bulldozed (albeit with compensation) and made way for private business? Should i leave the US if i don't like it, or certain aspects of it? So if the government does something i don't like I just leave the country because i hate it and it feels like there's nothing i can do. That's not only servile and unamerican, but goes against the ideals this country was founded on.
Well, let's get this out of the way before things get ugly: Cyndane, feel free to start a thread about shallow materialism and how we should pay less attention to our posessions and/or "home territory" and more attention to what you think we should pay more attention to. But the fact that most of us like our homes and object to being evicted from them is a basic premise for this thread. Feel free to complain about that, but do so in a different thread. You're derailing this one.
And so am I. Continue the discussion, folks, don't mind me.
</libertarianish-soapbox> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are we talking about Angrinion Park or something? It's really the only park I know of in Quebec. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (Sheltered life.)
I live in Lasalle, for note. Within walking distance of the park.
Cyndane, you're completely missing the point. It should be a <b>choice</b> if you want to give up your possessions. You may not be attached to your possessions, but some people ARE. Also, it's not always easy to move, and not just because you have to leave your house.
Also, if you're against attachment to possessions, why are you agreeing with decisions that mean that people will tear down a place where people are shelthered and safe to build a mall, where <b>more</b> material possessions will be sold to people?
Not funny.
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to Canada, would you like nicer people with your order of freedom? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Don't like the US, move out, easy as that... oh wait.. then you won't have the same rights and/or freedoms. Double standards are easy to name aren't they? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Welcome to Canada, would you like nicer people with your order of freedom? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh no you don't. Don't even try. You and Swiftspear can have fun in your land of frost and moose.
<!--QuoteBegin-rottenapple+Jun 23 2005, 04:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rottenapple @ Jun 23 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Jun 23 2005, 04:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Jun 23 2005, 04:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> IN COMMUNIST RUSSIA, HOUSE SEIZES YOU! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not funny.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh.