This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Supreme Court Ruling — Brooklynian

Supreme Court Ruling

anonymous
edited November -1 in Prospect Heights
Jun 23, 10:50 AM (ET)

By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
«1

Comments

  • Thre goes the neighborhood!! This really, really sucks!!!
  • Subject: Liberals done in by Liberal Justices.........

    Notice is was the more liberal justices who voted in favor not the more conservative justices. Somehow George Bush will be blamed for this. HAHAHA.
  • Yes, this is almost certainly the first time I've found myself agreeing with Scalia and Thomas. What a weird world we live in! Sigh.
  • read Kennedy's majority concurring opinion. it describes the ratner project to a T.
  • I'm posting this reply in this message board because I see it fitting with rights being removed in the microcosm.
    I posted something on a board regarding the Union Temple and half of my message was removed because these pseudo-liberals thought it was inappropriate. It’s inappropriate to you because you don't agree with it. Boo-hoo move somewhere to Billings Montana where your feeling s are never hurt.
    They are trying to protect the sensitive members and create a utopian society. Earth to moderators and hallway proctors, this is exactly what the Republican agenda that I often remark and favor is doing. They are silencing PBS, the Supreme Court and everything else related to freedom of speech. They initiated it in this city with the removal of the disgusting porn on 42nd street.
    You are fitting in exactly like the republicans you often bash you hypocrites. You are no better than those Communists who removed the cabarets in the early 20th century.
  • Well, being a moderator, I can say I didn't remove your post and as a loose consensus, we don't delete any posts due to opinion whether you believe that or not. Physical threats, egregious libel, racial slurs or anything universally abusive and inappropriate, yes, I for one will delete such posts and so will, I believe, the other moderators. I will also notify you and tell you why, assuming you've registered and I have a means to contact you.

    Now, understand that I've never seen your particular post, I've no interest in your political leanings, pro or con, so I don't know what you said, if in fact you were deleted or perhaps a PHP hiccup occurred (it happens).
    Perhaps if you registered and provided a way for moderators to contact you if there is a problem, this would not occur. If you insist on not registering, I suppose, if you feel a post of your has been deleted, you can email me the gist of it, or the actual text preferably and I will check it out, confer with the other moderators and get back to you with a real answer. You can select "PM" to private message me. Please don't abuse this offer as I will quickly ignore you. However if you sincerely wish to know why a post was deleted or censured and would like to constructively argue why it should not be so, while I'd prefer to remain impartial, I would be willing to advocate your behalf and get you an honest answer. My last point, i can't stress enough that registering takes a lot of this trouble away, but as of now, that is optional.
  • Yes, I deleted your post. I deleted it because it was a childish and off-topic (and anonymous) attack. Feel free to twist this into a "free speech" issue if it makes you feel better.

    Bottom line: Unless you register and post with a username, you have no rights on this board. Goodbye!
  • Then why debate and statistically ask the members if you should remove the guest preferance. It seems like your autocratic stance speaks loudly.
    Turn off the guest option so that you liberal idiots can agree on your ideologies and make plans on meeting @ our favorite hang-outs. I'm no spin doctor, but you'd make me into one to justify your speech censorship
  • And by the way, a rule you apply on this board should be allowed to be interpretted differently by others, ie. In Europe, as children, we played hide and seek differently than the folks in the states.
    Why is this forum any different than that game?
    And please, simple opinions only as you've lost me in the past with you liberal vernacular.
    "Why is a conservative answer better? Because it's an honest one." GWB
    Long live the chief
  • Anonymous wrote: Then why debate and statistically ask the members if you should remove the guest preferance. It seems like your autocratic stance speaks loudly.
    Turn off the guest option so that you liberal idiots can agree on your ideologies and make plans on meeting @ our favorite hang-outs. I'm no spin doctor, but you'd make me into one to justify your speech censorship
    The vote clearly showed that most people are in favor of removing guest posting. No one is restricting your speech. You can keep posting the same asinine things you have been, and even do so anonymously- you just have to log in first.
  • Why, so that you can monitor my every move. Boy, if this isn't along the same parameters of Guantanamo Bay I don't know what is
  • "We will monitor their every move and destroy their secret cells." Former Attorney General Aschcroft.

    [edited for abuse (daveb)]
    [note: original text deleted. daveb reportedly edited out the word dikes, used as a slur to refer to users of this board. The anonymous guest who posted this is invited to clarify or defend the comment. (dailyheights)]

    Sincerely,
    The Spin Doctor
    (There, are you happy I have an alias)
  • I think, other than playing nicely and realizing that when you call someone a liberal idiot, conservative asshole..etc... that person no longer really cares what you have to say (at least personally speaking, I don't.), the overuling factor is that this is not a free site. Dailyheights dude pays for this website. Bottom line is, it's his sandbox, we just play in it. There's no rules restricting him as far as what he is willing to allow or disallow. If he wanted to close this forum to six-fingered albino midgets in favor of instituting a monarchy, well, that'd be that. As it stands, he's been very tolerant about letting people post about whatever they want. But, I think in "Guest's" situation, you're not really debating or offering opinions more than you're dishing up non-relevant abuse for the sake of being nasty. Just check your tone and the name-calling and keep your posts at least semi relevant to the thread and I think you'll find that no one is going to be deleting you. If there's an issue you want to bring up and i feel like you do certainly have issues, why not create a separate thread here, that way it's not off-topic and attention can be devoted to what you think. Again, becoming a registered user, it's only going to help. Since we (the moderators_ can plainly see your IP address, you're not any more anonymous that you would be by registering, except that we take you much less seriously. I hope that makes sense.
  • Loud and clear
  • When asked nicely to please register, The Spin Doctor said:
    Anonymous wrote: Why, so that you can monitor my every move. Boy, if this isn't along the same parameters of Guantanamo Bay I don't know what is
    Spin Doctor:

    I haven't banned you. This is because I think you are capable of arguing your points in an intelligent and well-thought-out way. However, I'm pretty much done monitoring your insults and taunts that have been unfortunately very common in your 20+ posts in these boards. I really would like to see you stick around and argue your points intelligently. But if you continue hurling insults, taunts and racial slurs, then yes, it is possible for me to autocratically configure this site so you can't access it anymore.

    Also, this is not a political board, so it would be helpful if we would not frame every single issue in a "liberals versus conservatives" mindset, OK?

    Thanks.

    "Democracy is messy." -Donald Rumsfeld
  • In my defense, i'll admit to insulting all liberals, but I've never used a racial slur on this website.
    My post was edited to create a Hollywood atmosphere on this website. It's similar to any politically partisan propoganda. You wanted others to know that I was JUST advising on the issue of the tree chopping, but I had additional comments that were negated. How uncool was that.
    If a republican agenda removes the Buster episode about a gay family and you all are opposed to it, then why I should feel any different about your censorship.
    The Buster episode offended a conservative party because they perceived it as offensive (Whether you think its right or not), as you did with my post
  • The lights are on, but nobodies home. Respect.
  • i find it hilarious you are bashing the liberals on the board, and bringing up the same tiresome conservative v. liberal bullshit in a thread where i would imagine many of the DH board liberals sided with the conservative dissenting opinion.
  • Ees eet okay eef at the table I meke a smell?
    -Borat
  • Anonymous wrote: In my defense, i'll admit to insulting all liberals, but I've never used a racial slur on this website. My post was edited to create a Hollywood atmosphere on this website.
    Sadly, the moderator deleted your post without saving it, but they told me you used the words "dykes" and "chinks". Is this true or not?

    [UPDATE: Anonymous reportedly did use "dikes" (sic) as a slur (see edits above), but the term chinks was used by somebody else replying to Anonymous.]
    Anonymous wrote: You wanted others to know that I was JUST advising on the issue of the tree chopping, but I had additional comments that were negated. How uncool was that.
    OK. OK. That's the last time I delete insulting and inflammatory material without saving it for future reference. I hope this makes you happy:

    From memory, your post basically said something like this: "the city will make the condo people put up new trees, but they will delay it until the last minute. Naturally, all the Prospect Heights tree-huggers, young and old, will bitch and complain constantly until the trees are put back. Hey, you unemployed liberals, don't you realize that you are polluting the world when you turn on your radios to listen to NPR?" I forget the rest, if you care to recreate the rest of your attack below, then feel free.
  • Hey, you unemployed liberals, don't you realize that you are polluting the world when you turn on your radios to listen to NPR?
    I really wanted to speak to that point. Thank you for being a man and putting it back.
  • THAT'S BULLSHIT AND I'M FUCKIN FED UP WITH THE LIES SO THAT YOU PSEUDO-LIBERALS USE ON THIS WEBSITE.
    THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT REPRESENT PROSPECT HTS. THE HTS I'M FAMILIAR WITH DOES NOT INCLUDE HYPOCRITES THAT LIE FOR THEIR SELF-GRATIFICATION.
    THIS WEBSITE WAS FORMED TO FEED OFF EACH OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL BULLSHIT AND PRETEND THAT THE OUTSIDE ISSUES DON'T EXIST. NO TO THE STADIUM, YEA TO THE ALTERNATE PLAN; yOU CAN SAY FUCK RATNER, BUT I CAN'T SAY LAZY LIBERALS.
    ALL I SAID IN THE PREVIOUS POST WAS THAT TODAY YOU'LL COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TREES, TOMORROW IT'S ABOUT THE SIDEWALK THAT THE CONSTRUCTION CREW WILL BLOCK OFF AND THEN YOU'LL BE INCONVENIENCED WHEN USING THE ALTERNATE SIDE.
    LIARS, ONCE AGAIN IT'S YOU WHO HAVE TWISTED THIS ENTIRE ISSUE AND HAVE MADE IT BIGGER THAN WHAT IT IS
  • Feel free to start your own board at your own expense. I'm sure people will flock there to read your informative, witty postings.
  • The website should be listed as OurDailyHeights.com and ostracize all that do not agree with your sandbox rules or have an opposite healthy opinion to express
  • 96 posts and counting Emily, maybe 97 will have relevance
  • Guest, if you hate this site so much, why must you continue wasting all of our time with your inane postings?
  • pseudoliberals.com is available.
    realdealheights.com is available.
    realheights.com is available.

    Just helpin' you move on your way..
  • Carnivore, you're wasting your own time and don't attempt to blame me. What's the matter Plato, you don't believe in willing yourself to reading and posting to my replies.
    I'm a better target for your insults not RBG because I represent the polar opposite of what you believe. There's a debate in that, but you'll inform me otherwise
  • Quig,
    It's just fitting that you get involved in this after your buddies have exhausted this issue and their conservative statistical approach to resolving it.
    Now I wish that dog walker punched you in the face
  • Anonymous wrote: THAT'S BULLSHIT AND I'M FUCKIN FED UP WITH THE LIES SO THAT YOU PSEUDO-LIBERALS USE ON THIS WEBSITE.
    THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT REPRESENT PROSPECT HTS. THE HTS I'M FAMILIAR WITH DOES NOT INCLUDE HYPOCRITES THAT LIE FOR THEIR SELF-GRATIFICATION.
    THIS WEBSITE WAS FORMED TO FEED OFF EACH OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL BULLSHIT AND PRETEND THAT THE OUTSIDE ISSUES DON'T EXIST. NO TO THE STADIUM, YEA TO THE ALTERNATE PLAN; yOU CAN SAY FUCK RATNER, BUT I CAN'T SAY LAZY LIBERALS.
    ALL I SAID IN THE PREVIOUS POST WAS THAT TODAY YOU'LL COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TREES, TOMORROW IT'S ABOUT THE SIDEWALK THAT THE CONSTRUCTION CREW WILL BLOCK OFF AND THEN YOU'LL BE INCONVENIENCED WHEN USING THE ALTERNATE SIDE.
    whoa...easy there killer, no need to get your tighty whiteys in a twist.
    LIARS, ONCE AGAIN IT'S YOU WHO HAVE TWISTED THIS ENTIRE ISSUE AND HAVE MADE IT BIGGER THAN WHAT IT IS
    i like that part the best. it RULZ. why not just drink the damn koolaid and register already. come on, you KNOW you want to. one of us! one of us! one of us!
Sign In or Register to comment.