Aestu wrote:
You didn't answer my questions, though.
Aestu wrote:
This isn't a court of law.
When you can abide by your own standards, the rest of us may follow suit, so don't get peeved that someone is following your rotten example. Your 'questions' are/were merely a downward spiral of stupid-dressed-as-smart tossed up to avoid the inevitable conclusion(s): that you're not just wrong, and you're not just nowhere near as smart as you'd like to think, but that you are, in fact, dumber than most of the people on these forums you accuse of being witless rubes.
Aestu wrote:
thegodslayer wrote:
Laelia wrote:
Why can't the bank evict the squatters from foreclosed homes?
The bank in this case had closed it's doors and file bankruptcy. That left no one to claim the property, or actually once the bankruptcy court determined the new owner of the property it was already too late.
...which is exactly the reason active possession exists.
So with this new information we go back to square one: right-wing media distorted the truth to make it sound like the government bogeyman haunting a third the nation's land was hosing legit businesses through excessive regulation...when the truth is the law acted to increase productive use of land.
And you know what? Several people took those false claims at face value. They were taken for fools hook, line, and sinker and poo-pood those who knew better.
Also see, "White Elephant Syndrome".
The "right-wing media" didn't mention anything about the government's ownership of land...that was one of us (USD, if I remember correctly). I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously (and I doubt anyone here does anymore) when you can't even differentiate between a news article and something one of us said about the subject. You should probably put your tackle box away before you fling a bad cast and hook yourself through the cheek...it's not like any of us are biting anyway.
Your Pal,
Jubber