|
|
Show Posts
|
Pages: [1]
|
3
|
General / Open Discussion / Re: Pitbulls!
|
on: April 04, 2007, 01:43:58 PM
|
I feel your pain man.I had a beautiful American Bulldog.My home owners Ins. company sent me a letter cancelling my policy cause they said,"Bulldogs and related dogs were a risk.I gave him to SD4wheelin who lives in Avon Park. He was playful and gentle to all kids and protective when needed and was trained very well cause they are so intelligent.Good luck !!
I have had no problems with my home insurance with my american bulldogs. I also have a long line on AKC paperwork on their parents incase i ever have to prove they are Bulldogs. They are in no relation to the pitbull. Before that we had a Catahoula, that we had to prove was not a pitbull for insurance reasons. Pitbulls are not legal to have in the tri-county area of Southern Florida, and when they made that "reward" type program. Report a pit bull and get $50 or something like that, they became to much of a hassle to own.
|
|
|
4
|
General / Open Discussion / Re: "Confederate Heritage" license plate?
|
on: February 08, 2007, 01:09:06 PM
|
Here's a bonus question... Anyone know what the civil war was about? (Hint......slavery was only a small part.)
didn't it have something to do with cotton? In a round about way....yes. The population in the north was growing at an exponential pace compared to that of the South. In addition, the North relied upon the south to support it's textile industry with raw materials. The South had very little say or influence in the newly formed centralized federal government which was now taxing the South, attempting to mandate the manner in which the South did business and how it governed itself on a state by state basis. Don't forget, the South was made up more of recent immigration to North America than the North. The majority of the South's population came here to avoid an overburdensome rule by a centralized federal government/ruler. The Southern population saw the overreaching northern federal government as a continuation of the oppression they faced in Europe. Basically, the North favored a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution. They wanted to grant the federal government increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to the individual states. The North also wanted internal improvements designed to primarily assist the north, sponsored by the federal government. This was more roads, railroads, and canals. The South, on the other hand, did not want these projects to be done at all if they only helped the North. Also the North wanted to develop a tariff. With a high tariff, it protected the Northern manufacturer. It was bad for the South because a high tariff would not let the south trade its cotton for foreign goods. The North also wanted a different banking and currency system and federal subsidies for shipping and internal improvements primarily aimed at benefitting Northern interests. The South felt these were discriminatory and that they favored Northern commercial interests. Concerning slavery, it was definitely an issue and a heated one at that. However, the majority of the South was made up of people who were too poor to own slaves. Granted, the cotton industry was born on the backs of slaves but, the majority of the Southern slave owners realized slavery was on its way out by virtue of ongoing technological developments in agriculture. What's ironic is that many of the Northern industrialists had vast holdings in the expanding west, primarily in timber. Originally most of the harvesting was done via slavery. However, once technology caught up, these former (now extremely wealthy and empowered) northern slave owners jumped onto the emancipation band wagon. Obviously, the south saw this as but another slap in the face by hippocritical northern industrialists. Anoriginal, that had to be one of the best cliff-note summaries I have ever read. It was wonderfully written, thank you for the explanation. And also, Jewbacca, I understand what your saying, It is very hard to distinguish between jokes, sarcasm, or passion in forums. Which might lead to how this discussion over a license plate has gone in so many directions.
|
|
|
5
|
General / Open Discussion / Re: SWFL is just out of control !
|
on: January 23, 2007, 04:32:18 PM
|
Just like you said Chino, we need a good cat 4 to hit this area. You say that now.. It'll suck if it happened. The problem is punks, not treading lightly with their Segway's, leaving ruts in pea rock drive ways and riding past the keep off the grass signs. Its these Segway users that are going to ruin it for everyone!!!!
|
|
|
11
|
General / Open Discussion / Re: What will this mean for us?
|
on: December 11, 2006, 10:10:50 AM
|
Its a hard fight, but everytime you have an opportunity to voice your opinion about out-of-control development you need to speak up.
In Miami-Dade developers are fighting to move the UDB Line (Urban Developement Border) farther west.
Also, in Cutler Bay (Cutler Ridge) the residents are fighting to stop a developement of 700+ ZERO lot line homes on land that is part of the phase 1 everglades restoration plan. How this can happen I don't know, but they know the right people, but the money in the right hands, whatever. So unless people, the communities speak up, it goes through unnoticed until after the areas are re-zoned.
|
|
|
13
|
General / Open Discussion / Re: Emminent Domain - Florida Election Result
|
on: November 10, 2006, 01:29:05 PM
|
My family lost a Marina in Coconut Grove (Miami) to Emminent Domain. The county claimed it would be better suited as a park. This was in the late 70's early 80's. They let the land sit there dormant for 7 or so years, until it fell out of the court systems. Then sold it to Monty Trainer (now known as Monty's Bar and Grill) who had the city commisioners in his pocket from the get go.
I do not have any faith in the systems to protect your private land from the state.
|
|
|
|
Loading...
| |