Live in HUD housing?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: her209

"We used to have a sign outside that said, 'Jesus is the reason for the season,' but we can't anymore," she told WND. "We're all very unhappy about that."

Not it isn't!

Then put a sign under hers saying so!

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: her209

"We used to have a sign outside that said, 'Jesus is the reason for the season,' but we can't anymore," she told WND. "We're all very unhappy about that."

Not it isn't!

Then put a sign under hers saying so!

That would be vandalism?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, not if it's a sign. If you want to carve it in with a chain saw, that would constitute vandalism in a court of law in most jurisdictions.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster

It has everything to do with left-wing nutjobs and their front groups and organizations infiltrating and lobbying all these departments.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

But I was told Liberal ideals were about "choice". Hardly seems like much a "choice" is given for CHRISTmas decorations.

not to disturb your rantings, but isn't the department of housing and urban development under the purview of the executive branch / President George W. Bush?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The tree would be her property on the outside of her apartment as your car presumably would be, in a government owned parking space. You haven't examine the board carefully. Your next response could be that she can keep her tree off government property. I respond you can't bring your car on it either.

She has permission to put her car in the parking lot. She has no permission to put her religious symbols outside of her apartment. Those are the rules of her apartment.

So the government could tell her that she couldn't have a car on the premises at all, and that would be fine. It could tell you that you must wear a dress in public as well, as long as it's in writing. The government owns the property and you must obey or leave, or so you say.

How about making some logical arguments for a change? Maybe if the government told you to make some sense, we'd be better off.

 

[Vic]

He's making plenty of sense. The noble ideal behind collective ownership is to eliminate the problem of "he who owns a thing, controls a thing." Obviously, that ideal has not been achieved, and HUD is behaving just like any other prick landlord.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The tree would be her property on the outside of her apartment as your car presumably would be, in a government owned parking space. You haven't examine the board carefully. Your next response could be that she can keep her tree off government property. I respond you can't bring your car on it either.

She has permission to put her car in the parking lot. She has no permission to put her religious symbols outside of her apartment. Those are the rules of her apartment.

So the government could tell her that she couldn't have a car on the premises at all, and that would be fine. It could tell you that you must wear a dress in public as well, as long as it's in writing. The government owns the property and you must obey or leave, or so you say.

How about making some logical arguments for a change? Maybe if the government told you to make some sense, we'd be better off.

Maybe you just need to work on your reading comprehension. Hayabusa Rider is making a very logical argument, you just fail at addressing his points.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp
Talk about a nonissue red herring. They can have Jesus all they want inside their apartments, just not in the common areas.

So someone puts a tree outside their door. Can they have an angel on it or not?

No. That is a public area, not inside their apartment. The operator of the building gets to decide what you can put in public areas. Don't like living by government rules, don't live in government housing.

So if the owners says that you can only have Republican supporting bumper stickers on your car, then you are ok with that too. Check.

I wouldn't be, but since that's not what they are doing, what the heck does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with the government being used to enforce one's sensibilities. If the originator of this said "no political expression allowed" I would be against this as invasive and obtrusive. If you want to put an "Athiest Tree" up (which would offend people as well), I'd say no to saying no to that as well. It's about using the government to keep someone from being "offended". It's about government suppression of reasonable (and show me where an angel on a tree has ever harmed anyone in fact) expressions of whatever, be it religion, politics or favorite restaurants. That's what it's about. Traditional and accepted freedom of speech. Not urging someone to go out and kill another, or support the rape of children.

If you don't understand that, then as Sam Johnson said, I have found you an explanation, I am not obliged to find you an understanding.

Well that's great, but that wasn't my objection to your comparison. You're bumper sticker analogy suggests they were promoting specific religious displays over other religious displays rather than banning them all outright, which is different. Both might still be objectionable, but don't argue as if they were identical just because it makes your argument easier.

But you are right, this is a reasonable expression of free speech and it's silly to ban it. That said, I'd be more likely to say something if I thought anyone in this thread would care so much about free speech if it wasn't some old Christian grandmother. Say, if it was a 25 year old Muslim putting up religious decorations...somehow I think the opinions in this thread would look quite a bit different. I think you might be the exception, but I'm tired of this hypocritical arguing for "free speech" with religion when all a lot of people REALLY care about is pro-Christian speech.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic
He's making plenty of sense. The noble ideal behind collective ownership is to eliminate the problem of "he who owns a thing, controls a thing." Obviously, that ideal has not been achieved, and HUD is behaving just like any other prick landlord.

It's not collective ownership, the tenants don't own the housing complex, the US government does. You aren't making any sense either. Yeah, HUD is behaving like a landlord, because it is.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The tree would be her property on the outside of her apartment as your car presumably would be, in a government owned parking space. You haven't examine the board carefully. Your next response could be that she can keep her tree off government property. I respond you can't bring your car on it either.

She has permission to put her car in the parking lot. She has no permission to put her religious symbols outside of her apartment. Those are the rules of her apartment.

So the government could tell her that she couldn't have a car on the premises at all, and that would be fine. It could tell you that you must wear a dress in public as well, as long as it's in writing. The government owns the property and you must obey or leave, or so you say.

How about making some logical arguments for a change? Maybe if the government told you to make some sense, we'd be better off.

Maybe you just need to work on your reading comprehension. Hayabusa Rider is making a very logical argument, you just fail at addressing his points.

He's putting up a strawman argument, which is not making any sense. Your clothes and your car are your property, the apartment building's common grounds aren't.

 

[mordantmonkey]

o don't understand the problem. why didn't she put it up in her own apartment/house?
not sure i get why she wanted to put it up in the common area.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
o don't understand the problem. why didn't she put it up in her own apartment/house?
not sure i get why she wanted to put it up in the common area.

Because it just isn't Christmas unless you push your religion on others.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The tree would be her property on the outside of her apartment as your car presumably would be, in a government owned parking space. You haven't examine the board carefully. Your next response could be that she can keep her tree off government property. I respond you can't bring your car on it either.

She has permission to put her car in the parking lot. She has no permission to put her religious symbols outside of her apartment. Those are the rules of her apartment.

So the government could tell her that she couldn't have a car on the premises at all, and that would be fine. It could tell you that you must wear a dress in public as well, as long as it's in writing. The government owns the property and you must obey or leave, or so you say.

How about making some logical arguments for a change? Maybe if the government told you to make some sense, we'd be better off.

Maybe you just need to work on your reading comprehension. Hayabusa Rider is making a very logical argument, you just fail at addressing his points.

He's putting up a strawman argument, which is not making any sense. Your clothes and your car are your property, the apartment building's common grounds aren't.

I think I'll let you hang yourself with this one, at least for now.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The tree would be her property on the outside of her apartment as your car presumably would be, in a government owned parking space. You haven't examine the board carefully. Your next response could be that she can keep her tree off government property. I respond you can't bring your car on it either.

She has permission to put her car in the parking lot. She has no permission to put her religious symbols outside of her apartment. Those are the rules of her apartment.

So the government could tell her that she couldn't have a car on the premises at all, and that would be fine. It could tell you that you must wear a dress in public as well, as long as it's in writing. The government owns the property and you must obey or leave, or so you say.

How about making some logical arguments for a change? Maybe if the government told you to make some sense, we'd be better off.

Maybe you just need to work on your reading comprehension. Hayabusa Rider is making a very logical argument, you just fail at addressing his points.

He's putting up a strawman argument, which is not making any sense. Your clothes and your car are your property, the apartment building's common grounds aren't.

I think I'll let you hang yourself with this one, at least for now.

Ran out of strawmen?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
o don't understand the problem. why didn't she put it up in her own apartment/house?
not sure i get why she wanted to put it up in the common area.

Because it just isn't Christmas unless you push your religion on others.

At last we have it. Took a little longer than I expected.

Like setting up a little display is "pushing" her religion on you. :roll:

Rather than you having to be an adult and ignoring it , you embrace the government to silence her public freedom of speech. It "offends" you. You want freedom just as much as the Neocons do. What you really want is for someone else to obey your sensibilities.

Congrats, you have just proven yourself a child.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
o don't understand the problem. why didn't she put it up in her own apartment/house?
not sure i get why she wanted to put it up in the common area.

Because it just isn't Christmas unless you push your religion on others.

At last we have it. Took a little longer than I expected.

Like setting up a little display is "pushing" her religion on you. :roll:

Rather than you having to be an adult and ignoring it , you embrace the government to silence her public freedom of speech. It "offends" you. You want freedom just as much as the Neocons do. What you really want is for someone else to obey your sensibilities.

Congrats, you have just proven yourself a child.

Really, should i be able to graffiti profanities in common areas too, since it's my freedom of speech? It's not her property, what part of that don't you get? You have just proven yourself an idiot who can't understand a simple concept. If she doesn't like HUD's rules, she should move.

 

[nonameo]

IMO, if they can't decorate the outside of their apartment with what they want, then they don't need to be decorating at all. All or nothing. If they want, they could specify a personal space outside the apartment for whatever the tenant wants(as long as it is not obscene. Difference between offensive and obscene). I think that could work.

Now if this is truly a common area(like a club house) then I say no to the displays. It'll eventually turn into a battle royale for display space.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: mordantmonkey
o don't understand the problem. why didn't she put it up in her own apartment/house?
not sure i get why she wanted to put it up in the common area.

Because it just isn't Christmas unless you push your religion on others.

At last we have it. Took a little longer than I expected.

Like setting up a little display is "pushing" her religion on you. :roll:

Rather than you having to be an adult and ignoring it , you embrace the government to silence her public freedom of speech. It "offends" you. You want freedom just as much as the Neocons do. What you really want is for someone else to obey your sensibilities.

Congrats, you have just proven yourself a child.

Really, should i be able to graffiti profanities in common areas too, since it's my freedom of speech? It's not her property, what part of that don't you get? You have just proven yourself an idiot who can't understand a simple concept. If she doesn't like HUD's rules, she should move.

Last time I looked vandalism wasn't considered freedom of speech. If you wan't to put up a little tree with "this space vacant", be my guest. You see I would support your objection to her, however I don't support your suppression of her. That is a simple concept beyond your wisdom.

My point has been made and if you don't get it others did. You obviously want her censored. Fair enough.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
He's making plenty of sense. The noble ideal behind collective ownership is to eliminate the problem of "he who owns a thing, controls a thing." Obviously, that ideal has not been achieved, and HUD is behaving just like any other prick landlord.

It's not collective ownership, the tenants don't own the housing complex, the US government does. You aren't making any sense either. Yeah, HUD is behaving like a landlord, because it is.

Who owns the US government?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
He's making plenty of sense. The noble ideal behind collective ownership is to eliminate the problem of "he who owns a thing, controls a thing." Obviously, that ideal has not been achieved, and HUD is behaving just like any other prick landlord.

It's not collective ownership, the tenants don't own the housing complex, the US government does. You aren't making any sense either. Yeah, HUD is behaving like a landlord, because it is.

Who owns the US government?

The rich.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
He's making plenty of sense. The noble ideal behind collective ownership is to eliminate the problem of "he who owns a thing, controls a thing." Obviously, that ideal has not been achieved, and HUD is behaving just like any other prick landlord.

It's not collective ownership, the tenants don't own the housing complex, the US government does. You aren't making any sense either. Yeah, HUD is behaving like a landlord, because it is.

Who owns the US government?

The rich.

Then you and senseamp obviously support the oppression of the rich over the poor. Should there be a picture to venerate your "Great Leader" in the common space where the old lady would have put her holiday decoration?

 

[StageLeft]

Should there be a picture to venerate your "Great Leader" in the common space where the old lady would have put her holiday decoration?

You watch yourself. I have seen the gulags in North Dakota and they are not getting heating this year except that afforded by all the sweat from hard labor.