Woman Sues City of Tulsa For Cutting Down Her Edible Garden, page 7

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Furbs

---

They were not a majority by a long shot. Their bank accounts were though. They could afford commercials on TV and radio, a whole lot easier to get elected that way, don't you say? Their money drounded out most local people, and when I served on the board, I found that out. I was a fluke, and was treated as such by me "peers'.

That is why we drive out new rich that make a fuss about how we live now. No damned way I am going to allow this town to go the way of my old one.

Got a problem with tilling at 7AM, then you better leave. Etc.

So then the town wasn't 'overrun' with wealthy, the wealthy were merely using their influence which is their right.. unless you are against the First Amendment. Are you against the First Amendment?

reply to post by Legion2024

---

You are far ahead of the USA in this NWO thing with your semiautomatic guns taken away from you .

reply to post by Furbs

---

I'm sure you were quite ... mature for your age.

reply to post by Furbs

---

That town was taken over by the wealthy. People that lived there in only the summer, and maybe every other weekend made the rules. Does that seem fair to you? The town was only allowed to work when it was convenient for the people that didn't live there every day. People that can afford multiple houses were dictating the life of those that actually lived there. That doesn't seem right to me. What does the first have to do with buying elections? Then again that is how america works now eh? If you got the money behind you, then it is all good. Don't expect me to buy into it though.

reply to post by Unity_99

---

by why was it illegal. why is growing lemons and garlic illegal.

and what about the neighbour who filed the complaint. why does the neighbour care that someone is growing vegetables in their front or backyard.

if i saw a neighbour growing potatoes, i'd say good for them. it wouldn't bother me so much that i have to call authorities. it shouldn't bother you or a normal human being at all.

if anything i'd offer to buy some off her, because fresh potatoes and vegetables are tasty.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Furbs

---

I'm sure you were quite ... mature for your age.

Maturity had nothing to do with it. Having 106 people willing to vote for me and winning by 4 votes is why I won.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Furbs

---

That town was taken over by the wealthy. People that lived there in only the summer, and maybe every other weekend made the rules. Does that seem fair to you? The town was only allowed to work when it was convenient for the people that didn't live there every day. People that can afford multiple houses were dictating the life of those that actually lived there. That doesn't seem right to me. What does the first have to do with buying elections? Then again that is how america works now eh? If you got the money behind you, then it is all good. Don't expect me to buy into it though.

edit on Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:12:21 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Doesn't matter if it 'seems' right, your fellow citizens allowed it to be that way.

en.wikipedia.org...

Read this, it will help you understand current campain law and how money is considered free speech. Do I agree with it? Not at all, actually I hate it. However, as I said, it is the law of the land.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Unity_99

---

by why was it illegal. why is growing lemons and garlic illegal.

It is illegal because a group of citizens were elected to the city board and drew up statutes for what can and cannot happen within the city limits of Tulsa. For whatever reasons (reasons I dont agree with.. hence why I live in Portland) the city council decided that lawns need to be a certain way. If the citizens didn't want it to be that way, they could elect officials to change it, or petition their officials currently in office to change it, and if the current officials want to be reelected, they would do so, if they though doing so would keep them in their positions.

That's how it works.

reply to post by Furbs

---

No, it is not the law of the land. It is the statutes gone wild of the land. Law has very little to do with our lives. Statutes and ordinances are not law, but they are cleverly disguised as such. Too bad most people are brainwashed by the school systems to believe it.

reply to post by Furbs

---

because they don't want it is not a valid reason. a valid reason would be safety, or to protect someone's life or property.

and who gave the tulsa city council authority to ban vegetables. i don't think they ran on an anti vegetable platform, vowing to wipe out vegetables in their city.

if she didn't vote for them, they don't have her authority to ban her vegetables. plain and simple. that's why voting is the worst thing you can do in this current model of the democratic process.

you give strangers the power to do what ever they want, whether you like it or not.

we regulate everything, except the most important thing, democracy. it should be tightly controlled and it's politicians on the shortest leash possible to do their job effectively.

banning vegetables is not democratic or in the spirit of freedom, regardless of whether someone took 45 seconds to go around a table and say "nay" or "yay".

i pretty sure hitler held votes too. all in favour of gassing say "yay" all in favour of firing squad and starvation say "nay".

reply to post by RealSpoke

The real problem is that it's the people who make the cities what they are... and when they try to move out here, they typically bring their slicker ways with them. So all they have done is change locations, not change the circumstances.

It's country people who make the country what it is, and city people who make the city what it is. There are more guns within 2 miles of me than exist in New York City... and take a guess which one has more shootings. As long as the slickers come out here to be part of us, there's no problem... but that is a very rare thing. They usually prefer to try and tell those around them how to live, what to grow, etc., because that's what they are used to.

I wouldn't mind this lady living next door to me, but her neighbors? Nah, there'd be trouble real quick.

---

reply to post by muzzleflash

Oh, it's terrible out here! We got mosquitoes big enough to have landing lights, spiders the size of dinner plates, and rattlesnakes!

Yeah, you're right muzzleflash... I don't want the slickers out here, and tbh they really don't want to be here. Maybe they think they do, until they realize the guy up the road can target shoot whenever he wants and they can't do anything about it, and that prize poodle is liable to hook up with the mutt next door and there's no leash law against it. I've seen it happen over and over in my life, and it always winds up with the slickers moving back to their city.

Me? 'Skeeters don't like smokers, spiders can be squashed, and rattlesnake is tasty.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Furbs

---

No, it is not the law of the land. It is the statutes gone wild of the land. Law has very little to do with our lives. Statutes and ordinances are not law, but they are cleverly disguised as such. Too bad most people are brainwashed by the school systems to believe it.

Stop posting stupidity.

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can plainly see in plain English, a statute is a law according to the United States Code.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by Furbs

---

because they don't want it is not a valid reason. a valid reason would be safety, or to protect someone's life or property.

and who gave the tulsa city council authority to ban vegetables. i don't think they ran on an anti vegetable platform, vowing to wipe out vegetables in their city.

if she didn't vote for them, they don't have her authority to ban her vegetables. plain and simple. that's why voting is the worst thing you can do.

you give strangers the power to do what ever they want, whether you like it or not.

Nope. Laws can be made for purely arbitrary reasons as someone not liking something.

It doesn't matter if she voted for them or not. Just because some of us didn't vote for Obama doesn't make his executive orders less binding. To say that is to speak from a position of ignorance.

reply to post by Furbs

---

I hope you will oneday grow out of your stupor.
I hope the general public will someday stop propping up the liars, and elevating them to priest class bull#. Law should not speak another language, yet they do. Are you a liar?

reply to post by randomname

if she didn't vote for them, they don't have her authority to...

Er, yes they do.

Laws and regulations affect everyone. That's why it is so important to get informed on who is running for office and vote your conscience. Forget the Presidency; the President has little actual legal power compared to your governor, mayor, city council, county commission, and school board.

The only way to stop this kind of disgraceful and unjust action is to vote out those who don't do a good job and vote in those who will. Your vote counts at the local level, much more than at the Federal level.

Not voting is an implicit agreement to go along with what everyone else wants.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Furbs

---

I hope you will oneday grow out of your stupor.
I hope the general public will someday stop propping up the liars, and elevating them to priest class bull#. Law should not speak another language, yet they do. Are you a liar?

Nice reply.

You can't argue against my point so you simply toss out an ad hominem.

reply to post by Furbs

---

It was an uncomfortable comparison of "the Law of the Land" and apparently it struck a nerve since you're so supportive of this one.

Yeah sure, they're only eliminating peppermint and asparagus this time around but the comparison of how some people put stupid laws and policies above the people is appropriate.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Furbs

---

It was an uncomfortable comparison of "the Law of the Land" and apparently it struck a nerve since you're so supportive of this one.

It struck a nerve because you played the "Nazi Card" because someone doesn't agree with your position. Really? REALLY? I'm a Nazi because I feel that city government has the right to govern because they are lawfully elected representatives of their cities? You seriously need to gain some cultural perspective.

Yeah sure, they're only eliminating peppermint and asparagus this time around but the comparison of how some people put stupid laws and policies above the people is appropriate.

Yeah.. They came for her lemons but I didn't speak up because I didn't have any lemons..

How is comparing murder to weedwhacking appropriate?

A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags

Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags

Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags

Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags

Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags

The United States has collapsed economically, socially, politically, legally, constitutionally, and
  Posted 15 days ago with 44 member flags

A Perfect Example Of How America Is Turning Into A Police State? Look At Tampa Bay
  Posted 18 days ago with 41 member flags

Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: