We have to see this as an oppurtunity. If you can prove you can do something more tax generating with the land then it can be yours! Think of all the prime real estate that churches own in this country that they are paying little if any tax on; then youll just need to be buddy buddy with the mayor and it can be yours at fair market value.
One the US runs out of natural resources say goodbye to canada and hello to the 51st and second states. Eminant domain and all we need the space and trees =P.
The Supreme court needs an overhaul, they have been making horrible decisions durin the what 3 months that they actually work.
this is one of the worst decisions i've ever seen made by
the supreme court. it's very scary what could happen over
the next four years with a supreme court that could be
replacing four or so justices under this administration.
i mean a hotel and a health club? this makes me sick to
my stomach. the fact that individual citizens have very
little in the way of effecting supreme court nominations
is equally as scary.
i also hope that all the red staters that voted for bush
can now happily live in their houses knowing that
they can now be easily supplanted in their home
by a walmart parking lot.
lars this has nothing to do with "red state" america, if i recall the only dissenters to this opinion were renquist, scalia, thomas, and o'conner...all "evil" conservatives
Jrocc - have you been to Canada lately? Where do you think all the Canadian soft wood is going? How about the energy up there in Alberta sand? The USA is already out of natural resources and is quickly gobbling up the Canadian ones. I have very little respect for the Canadians that are all too willing to rape their own natural resources just for the almighty American dollar.
This court decision is sad indeed. Not what I'd consider American, in a country that was basically founded on a principle of property rights. Yeah, the city officials know best. I'm sure that's what they said about new-urbanism.
On the contrairian side though, do you really think it isn't like that in the rest of the world. People in Europe, Asia, even Canada don't have more property rights than in the USA. If anything we are just becoming more in-line with global standards now. Goodbye liberties.
"In theory, I fully agree with the decision. A federal court should not have wholesale power or control over limiting local development."
that's ridiculous. this isn't about limiting local private development. this is about increasing private development while decreasing the rights of individuals. this says if you have money, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
fair enough caleb...i was being reactionary i admit
it's just that after starting my career working for
developers and seeing the awful buildings/everything
they create...i just can imagine how eliminiating one
more hurdle in the process is going to effect the
buildings that get built in the next few years.
a
you do bring up a good point...
just think if you lived in that valley in china that
is being flooded to make use of their new dam.
some villages that were there
far before the US even existed. And i believe in
Norway there's really no such thing as 'private property'
(not a 100% on that)
I am shocked at how the decision was split. Normally I am on the side of Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg but this one leaves me scratching my head. What the hell were they thinking? I can't beleive I am on the same side as Scalia and Thomas.
JG, i think the justices u normally sided w/saw it as helping the "greater good"/society by being able to collect greater property taxes from the developer who used your former house and property to developing mutliple luxury condos and spas. all the while undermining individual citizens and our right to property w/out seizure.
the clause they might state if you are niave enought to beleive it is "seizerre with just compensation"....the govt. has never given fair compensation
On a very basic level, why would you even own property anymore? This just doesn't make any sense.
And as far as sides go, we're on the same level as Scalia but Thomas doesn't have a brain. Scalia's actually fairly reasonable when you look at his approach to constitutional law. This is so strange.
in pdf format if anyone is interested in reading it.
The 14th ammendment only says “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.†The only argument is whether or not the case qualifies as "public use."
The opinions are pretty much in line w/the Justices normal thinking. Liberal judges aren't considered liberal because they side w/liberal causes. They are considered liberal because of how they interpret the wording of the constitution.
A good example is w/the 4th ammendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
A liberal judge would read "searches and seizures" and consider wire tapping to be unconstitutional because of the way the 4th ammendment because a protection of our inherent right to privacy. (dissenting opinion of Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S.)
A conservative judge would reply that "unless there has been an official search and seizure of his person or such a seizure of his papers or his tangible material effects or an actual physical invasion of his house 'or curtilage' for the purpose of making a seizure. (majority opinion Olmstead v. U.S.)
That is one of the reasons for a split on what constitutes "public use" between the liberal and conservative justices.
my main question would be...at one point does a
private development enter into the area where seizing
property is allowed? every development in some ways
helps the community, at least in the short term (new
construction jobs at the very least)...and if they have any
form of retail they're going to attract business and
again add new jobs. Even apartments or condos will
add tax revenue. is there a dollar figure at which seizure
is okay or is it all in how well connected you are/ what
kind of kickbacks you offer? hopefully the definition will
call for a fairly high benefit to the community..even though
this promises that only the most meglomaniacal companies/
developers will get through.
one glimmer of positive spin - i suppose that the appeals process would put the kabosh on most privately-funded eminent domain actions except for those projects that are large enough to absorb that process.
Which gets me wondering - these actions would seem to be the kiss of death for most elected officials right? Especially if the appeals process were lengthy enough to coincide with their re-election campaigns.
hehehe.. it is somewhat ironical though. The main story in the press today isn't this ruling or on the vote for funding public broadcasting, but rather more stuff on that disappearance in Aruba. This is a bit pathetic if you think about it:-- the media and hence the America public is obsessing about intoxicated pretty girls getting kidnapped in foreign countries while the powers that be just took away their property rights :p
this may seem ticky-tacky but...
it's actually the 5th amendment [not the 14th] that states:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
this is very different from saying "nor shall private property be taken EXCEPT for public use..."
it's written into our constitution that the government may take any property it wants for whatever reason it wants as long as it gives fair compensation. "individual property rights", which many seem to be calling upon, has never actually existed in this country [how do you think this place was settled?]
not saying it's right or that i agree...just trying to set the record straight.
Urbanist- u hit it on the head...not too sound to cold but i don't care about anyone on aruba..it is nothing but a huge distraction..."give them bread and circuses"
“…we (USA) are just becoming more in-line with global standards now. Goodbye liberties.â€
A – that may well be the case however, UK Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) can reasonable be invoked through due planning process (public enquiry etc).
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
This decision enrages me to no end. which Amendment will be the next to fall?
This is a link to the group who acted as defense for the homeowners: http://www.ij.org/
Please do yourselves a favor and read the dissent written by O'Connor and Thomas, pages 27-end. Therein lies a plain and simple history of E.D. via judicial decision throughout US history and the shock and awe felt by both justices is clear and apparent. Your Consitution is for sale everyone...your Constitution is for sale.
fyi it is actually much more liberal than conservative to support such a decision.
i don't know if this is really going to be that big of a deal though. zoning will be more of a determinant in terms of what goes where, unless you live in houston. i don't think wal-mart or meijer's would be all that interested in paying for hundreds of tiny little homes just so they can demolish them, or that such practice would in anyway seem favorable to the general public that supports them. i think that this decision will primarily affect people who live in areas that are desperate to get certain industries, and at a minimal rate. while i don't condone wealthy pharmacuetical companies like phizer [who have the nicest industrial buildings in michigan but that's beside the point] just coming in and carpet bombing neighborhoods to further their agenda, the increases in potential jobs and the ability to bring a relatively clean, high tech and well paying industry to a city might actually be to the benefit of the common good, and worth moving a couple families over. remember, local governments are vulnerable to the woes of voting taxpayers decisions as well, and the decision to acquire the land ultimately lies with them and thus their constituents, not your big evil corporations. each and every one of us has used a freeway or an airport runway or used power from an electrical line that meant the destruction of someone's home for its construction, supposedly for the common good. whether it is for a public utility or a business, i doubt if the deposed really feel all that much different about having their dreams torn down. these people's lives will go on, and they will be fairly compensated for the acquisition of their property. it would be interesting to know exactly how many homeowners will be relocated in this case.
No it soes not, but we are at a point in history where we are experiencing a dramatic expansion and downward penetration of governmental authority into the lives of individuals... for one brief moment, during Reagan, the Republicans stood for resistance against this trend, but now their party has become as great as proponents for the concept as the Dems are... and they advocate doing so without the Dem's (relatively) characteristic compassion. I'm glad to see that a few conservative justices are sticking to their philosophical guns, as demonstrated by their well-written dissent in this case.
I do disagree with LeBossman about the impact of this ruling. Walmart doesn't do the land assembly.. powerful municipal redevelopment authorities do, and they are quite good at it and quite willing to so to do. Walmart would only step in as a tenant, subtenant or subsequent purchaser of the assembled land. The redev authority's ability and willingness to seize and assemble parcels would be limited only by its own political mandate (the power given to it by the voters, city councils, mayors and state governments), by its bonding/financing capacity and by the prospect of judicial intervention, which the present ruling has drastically reduced the likelihood of that. Ultimately, the authorities are accountable to voters, but only indirectly, and remember, the people affected by the land seizure will seldom comprise a majority or an influential voting block by themselves.. Other voters, not directly impacted, may very well be quite happy about the whole thing (they get the benefit of the increased tax revenues). In cities that have grown by suburban annexation, this means that wealthier people living far away would gain increased ability to make life even more horrendous for inner city people.
There is also the issue of corruption. The directors of redev authorities are often themselves developers, and they may now be in a better position to interject their own interests into condemnation decisions. There was a case in southern ca a couple years back where, in a very questionable deal, a major city school system made an arrangement with Home Depot (the principals were relativesl I think) to condemn a piece of land for a school facility, which, upon condemnation, was immediately found (mysteriously) to have not been needed and the condemned land was sold to Home Depot at a sweetheart price. Under the present ruling, they wouldn't even need to justify the taking by saying that they need to build a school. Now, they can do so using a purely economic argument.
The only silver lining I can see is that they may accelerate some positive downtown redevelopment efforts and, heck, more commissions for designers will result...
e-
"that's ridiculous. this isn't about limiting local private development. this is about increasing private development while decreasing the rights of individuals. this says if you have money, you can do whatever the fuck you want."
No it doesn't. What this ruling says is that it's not within the federal court's jurisdiction for these 9 people to be telling a city how it should or should not develop itself in order to best meet its needs and the needs of its citizens. The rest (i.e. making sure that emminent domain isn't abused) is up to the locals who elect a city's governing body, the city itself in balancing how and what kind of development takes place, and the state to develop a more specific body of law.
This ruling can be bad and in some instances it definitely will be, but it doesn't have to be. It's that simple.
driftwood, of course it won't have to be bad, but you better believe this power will be abused. as a home owner myself, i find it appalling that a developer or other private person will be able to scratch the back of some city offical to take my home and personally profit from it.
this is very bad for individuals especially individuals who do not have money. if you have money, they won't try to pull this stunt your neighborhood, but if you don't, you face a much higher risk for this type of abuse nor will you have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it.
fortunately for me, washington state laws are stronger than the federal laws when it comes to this issue. this still opens the door now for washington state to adjust their laws to fit federal laws.
yeah, i heard about that one K. gawd, how would you like the military calling your 16 yr old? i heard a story on the news the other day about a recruiter calling a girl about enlisting. this recruiter kept calling and calling even though the girl is very firm in saying no. finally, the recruiter called yet one more time. the girl finally cursed him out, and he did not call again. i guess the military has difficultly in understanding that no means no.
ANOTHER REASON TO ADD TO THE 'WHY AMERICA SUCKS' LIST
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
yeah, that is fucked up. just what the rich need, more power. where are the rights of the home owners?
Screw the historic and the poor!
Let's build those mini-malls and starbucks! Mush! Mush!
I'm w/ Crumpets...........LET'S MAKE SOME MONEY!!!!!!!!! FU@K EM ALL. I WANT THE MONEY!!!! Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
im going to make my $$$ selling Constitution toliet paper..then I'm going to buy all you houses and make more $$$
yuck.
this was a terrible decision
We have to see this as an oppurtunity. If you can prove you can do something more tax generating with the land then it can be yours! Think of all the prime real estate that churches own in this country that they are paying little if any tax on; then youll just need to be buddy buddy with the mayor and it can be yours at fair market value.
opportunity? huh?
One the US runs out of natural resources say goodbye to canada and hello to the 51st and second states. Eminant domain and all we need the space and trees =P.
The Supreme court needs an overhaul, they have been making horrible decisions durin the what 3 months that they actually work.
this is one of the worst decisions i've ever seen made by
the supreme court. it's very scary what could happen over
the next four years with a supreme court that could be
replacing four or so justices under this administration.
i mean a hotel and a health club? this makes me sick to
my stomach. the fact that individual citizens have very
little in the way of effecting supreme court nominations
is equally as scary.
i also hope that all the red staters that voted for bush
can now happily live in their houses knowing that
they can now be easily supplanted in their home
by a walmart parking lot.
this is a trampleing of the basis of the constitution...individual rights....a pillar of which is individual property rights
lars this has nothing to do with "red state" america, if i recall the only dissenters to this opinion were renquist, scalia, thomas, and o'conner...all "evil" conservatives
Jrocc - have you been to Canada lately? Where do you think all the Canadian soft wood is going? How about the energy up there in Alberta sand? The USA is already out of natural resources and is quickly gobbling up the Canadian ones. I have very little respect for the Canadians that are all too willing to rape their own natural resources just for the almighty American dollar.
This court decision is sad indeed. Not what I'd consider American, in a country that was basically founded on a principle of property rights. Yeah, the city officials know best. I'm sure that's what they said about new-urbanism.
On the contrairian side though, do you really think it isn't like that in the rest of the world. People in Europe, Asia, even Canada don't have more property rights than in the USA. If anything we are just becoming more in-line with global standards now. Goodbye liberties.
In theory, I fully agree with the decision. A federal court should not have wholesale power or control over limiting local development.
In practice, this will most likely make it much easier for those with money and power to dispose those without it for their own gain.
"In theory, I fully agree with the decision. A federal court should not have wholesale power or control over limiting local development."
that's ridiculous. this isn't about limiting local private development. this is about increasing private development while decreasing the rights of individuals. this says if you have money, you can do whatever the fuck you want.
my op-ed.... pissed I am....
our government already thinks it is fine to take human life for personal financial gain...
fair enough caleb...i was being reactionary i admit
it's just that after starting my career working for
developers and seeing the awful buildings/everything
they create...i just can imagine how eliminiating one
more hurdle in the process is going to effect the
buildings that get built in the next few years.
a
you do bring up a good point...
just think if you lived in that valley in china that
is being flooded to make use of their new dam.
some villages that were there
far before the US even existed. And i believe in
Norway there's really no such thing as 'private property'
(not a 100% on that)
I am shocked at how the decision was split. Normally I am on the side of Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg but this one leaves me scratching my head. What the hell were they thinking? I can't beleive I am on the same side as Scalia and Thomas.
JG, i think the justices u normally sided w/saw it as helping the "greater good"/society by being able to collect greater property taxes from the developer who used your former house and property to developing mutliple luxury condos and spas. all the while undermining individual citizens and our right to property w/out seizure.
the clause they might state if you are niave enought to beleive it is "seizerre with just compensation"....the govt. has never given fair compensation
On a very basic level, why would you even own property anymore? This just doesn't make any sense.
And as far as sides go, we're on the same level as Scalia but Thomas doesn't have a brain. Scalia's actually fairly reasonable when you look at his approach to constitutional law. This is so strange.
in pdf format if anyone is interested in reading it.
The 14th ammendment only says “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.†The only argument is whether or not the case qualifies as "public use."
The opinions are pretty much in line w/the Justices normal thinking. Liberal judges aren't considered liberal because they side w/liberal causes. They are considered liberal because of how they interpret the wording of the constitution.
A good example is w/the 4th ammendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
A liberal judge would read "searches and seizures" and consider wire tapping to be unconstitutional because of the way the 4th ammendment because a protection of our inherent right to privacy. (dissenting opinion of Brandeis in Olmstead v. U.S.)
A conservative judge would reply that "unless there has been an official search and seizure of his person or such a seizure of his papers or his tangible material effects or an actual physical invasion of his house 'or curtilage' for the purpose of making a seizure. (majority opinion Olmstead v. U.S.)
That is one of the reasons for a split on what constitutes "public use" between the liberal and conservative justices.
my main question would be...at one point does a
private development enter into the area where seizing
property is allowed? every development in some ways
helps the community, at least in the short term (new
construction jobs at the very least)...and if they have any
form of retail they're going to attract business and
again add new jobs. Even apartments or condos will
add tax revenue. is there a dollar figure at which seizure
is okay or is it all in how well connected you are/ what
kind of kickbacks you offer? hopefully the definition will
call for a fairly high benefit to the community..even though
this promises that only the most meglomaniacal companies/
developers will get through.
"On a very basic level, why would you even own property anymore? This just doesn't make any sense."
so who do you propose own all the property?
am I the only one that dreams of moving out of the burbs to get my own piece of land to build what ever I want?
Interestingly, the most conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas etc) dissented.
individual rights is a capstone of conservative philosophy, on the flipside "social" rights for liberals
one glimmer of positive spin - i suppose that the appeals process would put the kabosh on most privately-funded eminent domain actions except for those projects that are large enough to absorb that process.
Which gets me wondering - these actions would seem to be the kiss of death for most elected officials right? Especially if the appeals process were lengthy enough to coincide with their re-election campaigns.
hehehe.. it is somewhat ironical though. The main story in the press today isn't this ruling or on the vote for funding public broadcasting, but rather more stuff on that disappearance in Aruba. This is a bit pathetic if you think about it:-- the media and hence the America public is obsessing about intoxicated pretty girls getting kidnapped in foreign countries while the powers that be just took away their property rights :p
so much for shrub's "ownership society"
Which means what? THEY own us? :)
this may seem ticky-tacky but...
it's actually the 5th amendment [not the 14th] that states:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
this is very different from saying "nor shall private property be taken EXCEPT for public use..."
it's written into our constitution that the government may take any property it wants for whatever reason it wants as long as it gives fair compensation. "individual property rights", which many seem to be calling upon, has never actually existed in this country [how do you think this place was settled?]
not saying it's right or that i agree...just trying to set the record straight.
Urbanist- u hit it on the head...not too sound to cold but i don't care about anyone on aruba..it is nothing but a huge distraction..."give them bread and circuses"
Urbanist. stop watching CNN. aruba doesn't even show up on the NYtimes', BBC News' front page.
True, but most of the Republic is watching CNN (well, actually, Fox).
“…we (USA) are just becoming more in-line with global standards now. Goodbye liberties.â€
A – that may well be the case however, UK Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) can reasonable be invoked through due planning process (public enquiry etc).
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
This decision enrages me to no end. which Amendment will be the next to fall?
This is a link to the group who acted as defense for the homeowners:
http://www.ij.org/
Please do yourselves a favor and read the dissent written by O'Connor and Thomas, pages 27-end. Therein lies a plain and simple history of E.D. via judicial decision throughout US history and the shock and awe felt by both justices is clear and apparent. Your Consitution is for sale everyone...your Constitution is for sale.
fyi it is actually much more liberal than conservative to support such a decision.
i don't know if this is really going to be that big of a deal though. zoning will be more of a determinant in terms of what goes where, unless you live in houston. i don't think wal-mart or meijer's would be all that interested in paying for hundreds of tiny little homes just so they can demolish them, or that such practice would in anyway seem favorable to the general public that supports them. i think that this decision will primarily affect people who live in areas that are desperate to get certain industries, and at a minimal rate. while i don't condone wealthy pharmacuetical companies like phizer [who have the nicest industrial buildings in michigan but that's beside the point] just coming in and carpet bombing neighborhoods to further their agenda, the increases in potential jobs and the ability to bring a relatively clean, high tech and well paying industry to a city might actually be to the benefit of the common good, and worth moving a couple families over. remember, local governments are vulnerable to the woes of voting taxpayers decisions as well, and the decision to acquire the land ultimately lies with them and thus their constituents, not your big evil corporations. each and every one of us has used a freeway or an airport runway or used power from an electrical line that meant the destruction of someone's home for its construction, supposedly for the common good. whether it is for a public utility or a business, i doubt if the deposed really feel all that much different about having their dreams torn down. these people's lives will go on, and they will be fairly compensated for the acquisition of their property. it would be interesting to know exactly how many homeowners will be relocated in this case.
by the way, america doesn't suck
No it soes not, but we are at a point in history where we are experiencing a dramatic expansion and downward penetration of governmental authority into the lives of individuals... for one brief moment, during Reagan, the Republicans stood for resistance against this trend, but now their party has become as great as proponents for the concept as the Dems are... and they advocate doing so without the Dem's (relatively) characteristic compassion. I'm glad to see that a few conservative justices are sticking to their philosophical guns, as demonstrated by their well-written dissent in this case.
I do disagree with LeBossman about the impact of this ruling. Walmart doesn't do the land assembly.. powerful municipal redevelopment authorities do, and they are quite good at it and quite willing to so to do. Walmart would only step in as a tenant, subtenant or subsequent purchaser of the assembled land. The redev authority's ability and willingness to seize and assemble parcels would be limited only by its own political mandate (the power given to it by the voters, city councils, mayors and state governments), by its bonding/financing capacity and by the prospect of judicial intervention, which the present ruling has drastically reduced the likelihood of that. Ultimately, the authorities are accountable to voters, but only indirectly, and remember, the people affected by the land seizure will seldom comprise a majority or an influential voting block by themselves.. Other voters, not directly impacted, may very well be quite happy about the whole thing (they get the benefit of the increased tax revenues). In cities that have grown by suburban annexation, this means that wealthier people living far away would gain increased ability to make life even more horrendous for inner city people.
There is also the issue of corruption. The directors of redev authorities are often themselves developers, and they may now be in a better position to interject their own interests into condemnation decisions. There was a case in southern ca a couple years back where, in a very questionable deal, a major city school system made an arrangement with Home Depot (the principals were relativesl I think) to condemn a piece of land for a school facility, which, upon condemnation, was immediately found (mysteriously) to have not been needed and the condemned land was sold to Home Depot at a sweetheart price. Under the present ruling, they wouldn't even need to justify the taking by saying that they need to build a school. Now, they can do so using a purely economic argument.
The only silver lining I can see is that they may accelerate some positive downtown redevelopment efforts and, heck, more commissions for designers will result...
Ouch.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/23/poll.america.ap/index.html
I found this to be reasonably pertinent to the whole "things that are wrong with this country" debate.
yes america sucks in many ways.. . but you all should be greatful you aren't living in a country where a whole bunch of freedom we enjoy are denied.
i have experience.
posession of Peyote is illegal.
doesn't that suck?
those beautiful cacti.
"that's ridiculous. this isn't about limiting local private development. this is about increasing private development while decreasing the rights of individuals. this says if you have money, you can do whatever the fuck you want."
No it doesn't. What this ruling says is that it's not within the federal court's jurisdiction for these 9 people to be telling a city how it should or should not develop itself in order to best meet its needs and the needs of its citizens. The rest (i.e. making sure that emminent domain isn't abused) is up to the locals who elect a city's governing body, the city itself in balancing how and what kind of development takes place, and the state to develop a more specific body of law.
This ruling can be bad and in some instances it definitely will be, but it doesn't have to be. It's that simple.
Good news just keeps piling up. (sarcasm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8322795/
I found this to be equally terrifying, if not more so, than the bit about the supreme court.
stupid liberal judges, reinterpeting the constution. More Proof for strict constrictionsit.
driftwood, of course it won't have to be bad, but you better believe this power will be abused. as a home owner myself, i find it appalling that a developer or other private person will be able to scratch the back of some city offical to take my home and personally profit from it.
this is very bad for individuals especially individuals who do not have money. if you have money, they won't try to pull this stunt your neighborhood, but if you don't, you face a much higher risk for this type of abuse nor will you have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it.
fortunately for me, washington state laws are stronger than the federal laws when it comes to this issue. this still opens the door now for washington state to adjust their laws to fit federal laws.
yeah, i heard about that one K. gawd, how would you like the military calling your 16 yr old? i heard a story on the news the other day about a recruiter calling a girl about enlisting. this recruiter kept calling and calling even though the girl is very firm in saying no. finally, the recruiter called yet one more time. the girl finally cursed him out, and he did not call again. i guess the military has difficultly in understanding that no means no.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.