Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does a private subdivision not permitting signs (political, real estate) equate to socialism?
It's enforced uniformity and conformity, with the power to compel said uniformity vested in an "association." To live in that neighborhood, one must agree to give up personal preferences and conform to the demands of the leaders. HOAs are ridiculous.
Socialism refers to central control of all facets of economic activity. Putting a lawn decoration is economic activity?
And Obama's camp is not telling the subdivision what they can and cannot do, so your analogy linking Obama to the subdivision's rule on no lawn signs is incorrect.
Socialism refers to central control of all facets of economic activity. Putting a lawn decoration is economic activity?
And Obama's camp is not telling the subdivision what they can and cannot do, so your analogy linking Obama to the subdivision's rule on no lawn signs is incorrect.
Putting up a lawn sign to indicate political preference is the right of Americans -- unless you live in a restrictive HOA neighborhood. Those people gave up their liberties for the "good of the neighborhood." It's quite likely if the HOA is that restrictive that they are told how many cars -- and what type of cars -- they can have in front of their homes, how they can use and improve their properties, and a host of other restrictions.
Obama has nothing to do with it. It's the mindset of his followers, that they are willing to give up freedoms and rights in this way and accept others telling them how they can live their daily lives.
Somehow I imagine the neighborhood being talked about would allow a Nobama sign to slip through the cracks though, but if it were a McCain sign it would be ordered down immediately.
Oh NO! Has this thread been hijacked into a HOA vs non HOA neighborhood debate? Now, WHO would do a thing like that?
The same way the George Bush minions have given up their rights blindly (Patriot Act)?
And if you think McCain followers are all intelligent and have their eyes open I would disagree. I see many instances of followers falling blindly to the rumor mill and the stoking of racist and Islamist fears, the love of an unqualified second in command, etc. Just look at CD as an example for the mindless dribble.
But we are off topic so we should allow these kind folks to go back to discussing Texas...
The same way the George Bush minions have given up their rights blindly (Patriot Act)?
I could say the same with the McCain followers -- falling blindly to the rumor mill and the stoking of racist and Islamist fears.. disgusting. Just look at CD as an example for the mindless dribble.
Actually, Americans weren't able to individually choose whether to have the Patriot Act apply to them, were they? If so, I'm sorry that I missed the opportunity to remove myself from participation. People CHOOSE to live in an HOA neighborhood, or not.
The rest of your comment isn't worth addressing. The sheer number of slimy threads by Obamaphiles proves you wrong.
Polls indicate McCain is up by 12 percent yet there haven't been any polls for Texas in a long time. Everyone assumes McCain will win, which is a pretty fair assumption in Texas. Yet I live in Houston and know of one person voting for McCain. And my crowd is pretty diverse. Also, I think Laredo, the Valley and Corpus will come out in record numbers. They are heavily Democratic. What are your thoughts?
Not to take over the thread or anything, but I gotta say something a little off subject. I'm in Michigan and I'm very happy for all of you Texans who are enjoying a good economy. We have the worst economy in the nation and it has been that way for a number of years now. Our useless Democrat Governor has the intellectual capacity of a tree squirrel. She doesn't understand that having an economy that is completely dependent on a D- domestic auto industry that cranks out crappy vehicles that don't fit the consumer's needs isn't a prescription for success. Whenever she is asked about the economy here, she immediately goes into a rant about how Bush caused our terrible economy, but she never explains how. I guess he builds substadared vehicles in his spare time, and I guess she doesn't feel it her responsibility to help lead our state into other more diverse economic endeavors. Anyways, I guess it's safer and easier to blame someone else than take a risk on being wrong, you know, the way leaders do. The UAW will always go along with some line of reasoning like that, and with our liberal base, the state most often goes blue. So here's my question, who will the left, including Granholm, blame when raising taxes and going with the classroom status quo doesn't improve our lot? I see Michigan going blue by a narrow spread. I can't imagine Texas going blue for any reason. They seem to have their act together. I wish we had that kind of common sense here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
