Free Republic

Well actually I liked the hackers version of that poem better. When I say hackers I don't mean the hackers as in the ones that break into your computers, but the ones that used to look for ingenious uncommon solutions to problems.

Given that I was feeling lazy, I didn't bother to try to find that one, but the general idea that people probably shouldn't wait for others to stand up to injustices that in the future could be them just because it isn't them now was what I was trying to convey. I think you understood that, I hope others do as well.

Nope, simply saying if you replace the words with some of the current events, it makes a compelling case to stand up and be heard instead of sitting back and not doing anything about the things we see that we believe are wrong.

I figured you all were smart enought to change the words and understand the basic meaning.

Heres a copy of an email received back from the city manager:

Don't believe everything you read in the paper. I have copied a reply that I have sent earlier because I have received so many responses.





I too was very upset with the article. My wife said it made me sound evil and I agree. I can only say that when you have the power as a reporter to cut and paste words you can make people say anything. I did say Mrs. Hodge was stupid for acting as her own attorney, but it was in a totally different context. The reporter forgot to say that we have had numerous discussions with Mrs. Hodge and how we begged her to get professional advice. The reporter forgot to mention that the Hodges are planning on moving and have been looking for a “country estate” for two years. The reporter forgot to mention that Wintergreen Road will expand and the road will be 12 feet from their front door. The Hodges will then have the ability to sue us for rendering their property unusable.





The reporter said she did not understand condemnation and I explained the process to her. That is how she came up with the “they don’t have the option to say no” quote. I was speaking in general terms in an explanation of the process. When property is condemned, the owner does not have the right to say no. That is all I was saying. I did say it was stupid to turn down $653,000 on a piece of property that was bought for $110,000 only ten years ago. I did say it was stupid to hold onto property that will only diminish in value when it is blocked off from the surrounding development. Would you want to live on a piece of property with a four lane road 12 feet from your front door? The back and side yard will be a busy parking lot. Mrs. Hodge is simply playing a game and thinks she can force the City to pay $2 million dollars for her property.





I am embarrassed about the article and the way it makes Duncanville look. It is my fault that I spoke frankly with a reporter that had been very trustworthy in the past. The reporter took some very isolated quotes out of a 15 minute conversation. She described Mrs. Hodge in the most disparaging terms and called her a weepy stupid woman. I was obviously set up and it is my fault for not sensing what was happening.





Thank you for your correspondence and I hope you understand that this issue is much more complicated than the paper would lead you to believe.







Kent Cagle

You know, unfortunatly what you, and people that share your opinion don't realize, is that when something like this succesfully takes place, it sets a precedent making it easier next time.

There is a poem I once heard, that although was focused towards religions, it comes to mind when things like this happen. Just subtitute some of the words in it as approprate, and it relates quite nicely.

"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
-Martin Niemoeller German Lutheran Pastor

1) Dispute the debt with the credit reporting agency. They are required to contact the company who then must provide proof the debt is yours. If they fail to do that the debt must be removed, although it can be re-reported by the company.

2) If you feel your rights under the fair debt collection practices act has been violated, you may file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission who has enforcement powers over this act. They will investigate.

3) File a complaint with your state collection agency board, usually at the state atty generals office. This generally gets their attention real quick.

4) If all else fails, you have the right to include a comment along with the entry on the credit report explaining yourself.

Good Luck

Your "RUN" box has been disabled through either the local machine or network security policy. If you have network admin priviliges for your local machine, and it is a local policy, you can go in and re-enable the "RUN" box through the security policy editor. If you do not, then you need to request this from your sys admin.

There isn't any other easy ways to do what you want without access to a dos prompt.

You may be able to find a 3rd party freeware utility that would do this for you, but there again you still need admin privilages on a local machine to install.

Why don't you take a long walk off a short pier. Meantime let me know when you have something of substance to say.

If Iraq is such a "low-priority adventure", why are the terrorists and socialists so eager to disrupt us there? Ummm...because they live there maybe and don't care for our ways? I wouldn't help/support a foreign county that came to liberate me. I don't support everything our govt does, but helping a foreigner take over my country is certainly out of the question. So why is it so hard to believe that the Iraqis may be patriotic to their country as well (however misguided)?

I'm not referring to the poor mexican, I'm referring to the mexican border as an example.

As another example, if drugs can come into this country from foreign territory, so can nukes, and 87 billion to Iraq isn't going to stop, or help that.

Prevention needs to be here, at our borders, not there, because the terrorists can come from anywhere, but intead of increasing fundng for that, were laying off border patrol agents (canada and mexico). Seen that in the news last week.

The illegal mexican immigrant isn't the one that scares me. I haven't been out to that part of the desert so maybe you can enlighten me, is there regulatory signs that say "if you are a terrorist and not a mexican immigrant please do not illegally cross this border"?

If they, the immigrants can cross the border, do you seriously think the terrorists cannot?

I'm not confusing any issue.

What about the story not long ago in the press about a truck crossing the border possibly carrying biological weapons? There was a little fear generated from that.

Sounds like your ignoring the issue.

And how will our budget deficit look if we spend 87 billion AND a few psychos set of a couple nukes in this country? I don't have a short memory, the reality is that stopping terrorism is like spitting in the ocean and expecting it to make a difference.

Spending 87 billion on Iraq will have no affect on the guy that worms his way through the mexican desert, drinking water from the water stations we have graciously placed there, and crossing our border illegally, and doing whatever damage he has come to do.

Okay, so I have a question maybe somone can answer, I have no clue. It is said that:

The Pentagon estimates it is costing $3.9 billion a month to keep the roughly 150,000 troops now in Iraq, where they make up 90 percent of the peacekeeping forces

How is this different from what it costs to keep the same soldiers stateside? They get paid the same, with the exception of maybe some hazardous duty pay, equipment upkeep still has to be done stateside, they spend un-godly amounts of money transporting unit equipment for field training excercises which is about 50% of stateside time. So is the $3.9 billion on top of what it would cost to keep these units stateside?

"Read this troll "

Nothing like resorting to name calling when you disagree with an opinion, huh! See, I thought the whole idea of the forumn was to share opinions and look at other views. I kind of like people explaining to me why my opinions may be wrong and that helps me decide if they really are wrong. Name calling don't seem particularly productive though.

Just because they are gay does not mean they are pedophiles. Just because I like women doesn't mean the neighbors daughter is in danger if she spends the night with my daughter. I know a lesbian who works in child care, and I'd certainly trust her with my children. I really don't care about their preference as long as they know to keep their hands off the kids. And since we are on that subject, I don't trust people who are straight to keep their hands off the kids.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight....

The BSA used a particular argument in court to say they are a private organization and can exclude those they don't believe fit thier values. They won.

Now, they want to use property and funds that those groups they exluded help pay for, and now because doors are closing thats a problem?

Not long ago someone on Free Republic said choices have consequences, or at least they used to. Seems to me those choices still have consequences. I'm only sorry that it is the kids that have to pay the price of the consequences.

No sh!t - but thats why I have been told I shouldn't run for office, & I'm a way better person than most of these damn politicians - the worst I've ever done was get a bit "under the weather" & get amorous with a barmaid (in my younger days)

So, your going to let what someone told you prevent you from running for office if you want to? You wanna run, run, the people will decide and thats that. If you got the $3500 and 65 signatures as I understand the requirements to be, throw your hat in.

I don't care if a person is democrat or republican, I want to know where they stand on issues, and I'm going to vote for the person that most represents my interests. I also don't particularly care about their past, unless it is criminal. People live everday, they make mistakes, they learn from them. If they made the mistake, sure I'd like to know they learned from it, and if they did, why hold it against them. Will I know that? Maybe, maybe not, all goes into the decision of who to vote for. Also need to consider the support they give to other people that hold differing values.

When they can forcast weather and related phenomonon with 100% accuracy and show me they have total understanding of what is happening, I might believe in the global warming thing. Until then, I think they are reaching in the dark and basing their information on incomplete data.

"With more and more people getting laid off and or taking mininum wage jobs, who is paying taxes?"

Well, I don't know about you, but I pay tax on just about everything I buy, every bill I pay has a dozen different kind of taxes on it, and then theres the 50% worth of tax on every gallon of gas I buy, not to mention the outragous sin tax I pay to buy a 6 pack of cheap beer. I think a lot of people forget about these kinds of taxes.

"....because there is an increase in demand for $4.95 Xmas tree lights."

And theres in increase in demand for $4.95 christmas lights because the cost of basic services (food, electricity, gas, water, sewer, Phone) and property/other taxes keep rising and business are cutting hours/wages/benefits and it's all people can afford, if even that.