DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Supreme Court:: Cities May Seize Your Home!
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 123, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/26/2005 07:38:23 PM · #76
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Maybe they respect the constitution more. Or maybe they have a shred of decency left in them; what nearly all of our politicians lack today. You would have to ask them.

What I do know is those judges who voted for this DO NOT represent me or any other liberal person I know in this matter. They should be removed as judges for ruling against the constitution and against the rights of we the people.


I agree, but how is the removal of property from the hands of the individual and putting it in either the hands of the government (socialism) or the hands of other private individuals (welfare anyone?) NOT a liberal agenda?

This decision removes property from one and gives to another. THAT is why FDR and LBJ brought in the New Deal and the Great Society. Wasn't Republicans. How is this different?
 06/26/2005 08:18:05 PM · #77
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Maybe they respect the constitution more. Or maybe they have a shred of decency left in them; what nearly all of our politicians lack today. You would have to ask them.

What I do know is those judges who voted for this DO NOT represent me or any other liberal person I know in this matter. They should be removed as judges for ruling against the constitution and against the rights of we the people.


I agree, but how is the removal of property from the hands of the individual and putting it in either the hands of the government (socialism) or the hands of other private individuals (welfare anyone?) NOT a liberal agenda?

This decision removes property from one and gives to another. THAT is why FDR and LBJ brought in the New Deal and the Great Society. Wasn't Republicans. How is this different?


My friend, there is a big difference between wanting to share some of the wealth and forcefully taking away one mans land against his will and giving it to another man just to make a buck.

It̢۪s unconstitutional.
 06/26/2005 08:27:24 PM · #78
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
It̢۪s unconstitutional.

I agree, so do the Court conservatives. Someone tell Ginsburg and Breyer.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
My friend, there is a big difference between wanting to share some of the wealth and forcefully taking away one mans land against his will and giving it to another man just to make a buck.

This is semantics. "Share some of the wealth" means taking money from the rich to give to the welfare.

Forget land vs. money - the Constitution says "property" and in that means money, land, assets, goods, and all the such things that make someone "wealthy." You can't tell me money isn't included in "property." Why does "land" matter more than money?

If it doesn't matter more, then we're back at square one - the court has taken someone's "property" (Constitutional, not real estate) and given it to another private individual. Again, tell me specifically how this is not equivalent (in theory, in the Constitution) to welfare?

M
 06/26/2005 08:29:30 PM · #79
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
It̢۪s unconstitutional.

I agree, so do the Court conservatives. Someone tell Ginsburg and Breyer.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
My friend, there is a big difference between wanting to share some of the wealth and forcefully taking away one mans land against his will and giving it to another man just to make a buck.

This is semantics. "Share some of the wealth" means taking money from the rich to give to the welfare.

Forget land vs. money - the Constitution says "property" and in that means money, land, assets, goods, and all the such things that make someone "wealthy." You can't tell me money isn't included in "property." Why does "land" matter more than money?

If it doesn't matter more, then we're back at square one - the court has taken someone's "property" (Constitutional, not real estate) and given it to another private individual. Again, tell me specifically how this is not equivalent (in theory, in the Constitution) to welfare?

M


Welfare does not take all of a persons assets and give it to another. This does.
 06/26/2005 08:32:40 PM · #80
Actually, it doesn't. These people get "just compensation." They aren't actually in the "negative" on their bank account. Do you really want to have this argument or not? Don't be simplistic.

Welfare is the removal of my tax dollars from me, to be given to another without recompense to me.
Eminent domain is the removal of my physical property from me, to be given to another WITH just compensation.

Which is worse monetarily? And "all" of their assets? Ok, so I have 4 studios, one gets closed down by Eminent Domain. I have 3 left. Now, I've been "taxed" 25% and it was given to another, but I get my 25% back.

Now?
 06/26/2005 08:34:35 PM · #81
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It is amazing how ignorant Liberals are.


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
In reality, this is a big boost for liberals because they believe the State should own everything.


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Remember, liberals want to level the playing field in everything.


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
But of course, Liberals do not see a pending war.


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
You can go on the Liberal rampage of hate America


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The Liberals want no big corporations,


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Liberals is the feel good philosophy but not really attached to the reality of life.


Originally posted by graphicfunk:
There is a fuzzy concept to waht a Liberal is. A liberal wants no wars, period.


You my friend, as you have demostrated above, have no idea what a liberal is or what we want. Let me refresh your memory a little; Per dictionary.com:

-Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
-Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
-Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
-Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
-Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
To conclude: show me one Liberal who is against this court ruling.

Right here pal and every "liberal" I know.

An old saying once told to me by a wise old man;

"The problem with the world is that ignorant and bigoted people are so sure of themselves, and thoughtful people are so full of doubts."


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Strange how you proceed, without missing a beat, to explain everything with such dead certainty. Let us go to the basics:

Are you saying that Liberals are for a capitalist society?
Of course not. Before you go into the candy coated aspirations address the business engine. Capitalist or socialist?

About that other crap of broadminded: read your own post and tell me where you display these traits? And why would a Liberal be more broadminded, is it something they are born with or is it simply a rash belief that Liberals know better.

Before you get into the details first explain on what economic engine you expect your ideal society to run on. You will find a socialist leaning. Need I explain socialism?
 06/26/2005 08:41:02 PM · #82
Originally posted by mavrik:
Actually, it doesn't. These people get "just compensation." They aren't actually in the "negative" on their bank account. Do you really want to have this argument or not? Don't be simplistic.

Welfare is the removal of my tax dollars from me, to be given to another without recompense to me.
Eminent domain is the removal of my physical property from me, to be given to another WITH just compensation.

Which is worse monetarily? And "all" of their assets? Ok, so I have 4 studios, one gets closed down by Eminent Domain. I have 3 left. Now, I've been "taxed" 25% and it was given to another, but I get my 25% back.

Now?


You make good points. But as you said, it̢۪s not a simple issue. A lifetime of memories and history cannot be replaced by cash.

Tell the 80 year old Connecticut couple whose home has been in their family over 100 years that it will be ok; that they will be "justly compensated".

This law does not just take some of your money (like the taxes out of your check). It can take your life̢۪s work and your memories too. And for what? To help less fortunate people or something else more just? No, so some rich land owner can make more money.
06/26/2005 08:45:57 PM · #83
Graphicfunk out of respect, I refuse to debate this with you further.

Your posts are written as if your word is the only word and filled with gross generalizations, insults and arrogance; and nothing good will come from me engaging you in it further.
06/26/2005 09:01:45 PM · #84
unfortunitely this just goes to show that the sheeple will not see what is truly going on with our gov until it's too late...history does repeat itself : (
 06/26/2005 09:08:05 PM · #85
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
as you said, it̢۪s not a simple issue.

On the contrary, as we agree, it's unconstitutional. It's pretty simple - but we're outvoted 5 to we don't count.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Tell the 80 year old Connecticut couple whose home has been in their family over 100 years that it will be ok; that they will be "justly compensated".

That's definitely not my point for sure. I agree that this was unconstitutional, I agree that it was a terrible travesty of justice by the Justices. Where we disagree is that I definitely ascribe it to the liberal point of view (though not graphicfunk's "liberal mentality.")

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This law does not just take some of your money (like the taxes out of your check). It can take your life̢۪s work and your memories too. And for what? To help less fortunate people or something else more just? No, so some rich land owner can make more money.

Again, as we're speaking about specifics, you are correct - it's NOT a perfect metaphor. BUT the liberal idea is to equalize and help the less wealthy at the expense of the more wealthy.

This issue is fraught with emotional attachments - houses, homes...where people LIVE. That's emotional. But remove that emotion and what are we left with?

The court thinks it IS helping less fortunate people. The jobless will have jobs. The city-goers will have a prettier city. Those who cannot do for themselves will have the city do for them. I don't know that we're going to get to the bottom of this in this specific case, but is this NOT the liberal philosophy? To let the city decide what's best for the whole town?
 06/26/2005 09:08:24 PM · #86
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Graphicfunk out of respect, I refuse to debate this with you further.

Your posts are written as if your word is the only word and filled with gross generalizations, insults and arrogance; and nothing good will come from me engaging you in it further.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, I do thank you for your kind understanding. However, I do believe that you do misunderstand me. No, I am very dumb and backwards, so there is nothing that you can learn from me. I have studied the world and their governments but as you can see I simply remain dumb.

By observing your post, I see a scintillating intellectual who knows well how to apply the laws of logic. Your flair with your propositions even intimidates me.

Most impressive is the casual manner in which you go off on a tangent when asked the simple question of what economic engine is prefered by liberals.

Best to avoid these threads because sometimes people who think may respond and break up this bubble of self satisfaction.

06/26/2005 09:15:25 PM · #87
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Please, someone explain to me how this is a liberal decision.

Who are the court conservatives? Come on. If you profess knowledge over the rest, do not profess ignorance over this just because it doesn't fit. Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor, IN THAT ORDER, are the most conservative Justices. The other 5 are the 5 MORE liberal. You know this. I repeat it for those who don't.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, this is the farthest thing from socialism that I could imagine. ...the land that will be confiscated will be given over to big business corporations

This time. Come ON, Olyuzi, I have to wonder if you don't see it or if you don't WANT to see it. Play out the next step, play it out in a different case. The city government is now FREE to LEGALLY take anyone's land and do anything constructive they want with it as long as it serves more economic use than a home. Do you NOT get that? The government can take the ENTIRETY of the private land in the US and define in detail what we may and may not do with it, because it will be of greater economic good to have it dictated.

*sigh* Ok, tell me what part of that you don't follow or agree with?

Message edited by author 2005-06-26 21:15:53.
 06/26/2005 11:14:35 PM · #88
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Graphicfunk out of respect, I refuse to debate this with you further.

Your posts are written as if your word is the only word and filled with gross generalizations, insults and arrogance; and nothing good will come from me engaging you in it further.


You are describing your own posts, not the other guy's...............
 06/26/2005 11:22:16 PM · #89
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Graphicfunk out of respect, I refuse to debate this with you further.

Your posts are written as if your word is the only word and filled with gross generalizations, insults and arrogance; and nothing good will come from me engaging you in it further.


You are describing your own posts, not the other guy's...............


With my apologies, I humbly disagree even tho I agree with graphic about the issue itself.
 06/26/2005 11:38:00 PM · #90
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Please, someone explain to me how this is a liberal decision.


Who are the court conservatives? Come on. If you profess knowledge over the rest, do not profess ignorance over this just because it doesn't fit. Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor, IN THAT ORDER, are the most conservative Justices. The other 5 are the 5 MORE liberal. You know this. I repeat it for those who don't.

Conservative/liberal as per whom? I think your division of the SC justices into liberal/conservative camps is a bit too simplistic. O'Connor has made both pro liberal and pro conservative decisions as has Kennedy. O'Connor, whom you've deemed to be conservative, has upheld campaign finance reform and affirmative action programs. Kennedy, whom you've deemed to be liberal has done the opposite. Breyer is a moderate. Stevens has played both sides of the fence regarding affirmative action. Scalia has upheld the right to burn the flag. So you see, while some of the members of the SC may have leanings one way or the other, they are not 100%. Mavrik: "The other 5 are the MORE liberal." You could have just as easily said that the other 5 were less conservative, because it's all relative, but by no means do these justices hold, for the most part, "liberal" viewspoints. You are defining these terms (liberal/conservative) in very narrow terms. Democrats on the whole, may be seen as more liberal than conservatives, but that does not mean they hold liberal views.

On a continuum, Republicans would be at the far right, and democrats at the center right, but neither holding liberal ideas. I didn't support Clinton and haven't supported most democrats. Despite numerous pronouncements those in the conservative camp would love to believe that the democrats represent liberal ideas, but they don't. They are in bed with the same forces that the Republicans are, but it's easier for the conservatives to present a black and white presentation of politics in America.

I REPEAT...THIS DISGUSTING RULING IN FAVOR OF EMMINENT DOMAIN IS NOT A LIBERAL ONE.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, this is the farthest thing from socialism that I could imagine. ...the land that will be confiscated will be given over to big business corporations


This time. Come ON, Olyuzi, I have to wonder if you don't see it or if you don't WANT to see it. Play out the next step, play it out in a different case. The city government is now FREE to LEGALLY take anyone's land and do anything constructive they want with it as long as it serves more economic use than a home. Do you NOT get that? The government can take the ENTIRETY of the private land in the US and define in detail what we may and may not do with it, because it will be of greater economic good to have it dictated.

*sigh* Ok, tell me what part of that you don't follow or agree with?


Well, at least you agree that the land confiscated will go to big business interests now. I say forever. Why would municipalities (mayors) take land away from a constituency when doing so may jeapordize their bid for reelection or other interests the mayor wants to push through? The answer to that is that politicians now answer to a higher authority in this country, not to the people that elect them. Their constituency is really the business interests that finance their campaigns, get them elected, and then the politicians promote those programs and legislation that are of interest to these business interests. The common man/woman do not have the resources of the giant corporations to have the same clout. It takes megabucks to get elected in the US and for that the politicians go to big business. Just look at how much was spent by Bush in the previous presidential election. Other campaigns around the country are breaking records for monies spent around the country. This is corporate welfare and will not benefit the population on the whole, just the few and powerful rich who will be getting richer and more powerful by this decision. Corporate welfare are many programs of conservatives, not liberals.
 06/26/2005 11:40:43 PM · #91
WHY has this discussion degenerated into baiting-of-the-party-not-of-your-choice, instead of focusing on the pros and cons of the court decision? Who CARES if it's liberal or conservative? The issue is, is it sensible or ridiculous? Is it The End Of Democracy As We Know It or a harbinger of better things to come? Is it reasonable that municipalities should have such broad rights of seizure, or not? There are many things we could be discussing, but we're just spouting off and BLAMING people based on presumptive labels, as if the label somehow defines the thing?

I'm a liberal, and I disapprove. I don't care if you're a liberal or not, I want to know if you approve or disapprove, and I want to learn from you if you have anything sensible to teach.

Robt.
 06/26/2005 11:45:41 PM · #92
Damn, this thread almost like an election afoot. :0

06/26/2005 11:47:42 PM · #93
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Probably because I don̢۪t really know what to do about this. Other than try and organize people to get in the streets and protest, but that doesn̢۪t really work anymore with the "free speech zones" and what not. We could try and boycott the businesses we don̢۪t agree with but that does not work; most Americans are too distracted and don't care enough to follow through

I do know that I can try and make as many people aware of this issue as possible. The more people who are aware, the more chance for change.


Find out wherre the Justices live, and then have a plan to put their property to a 'better use' than it is now...and take their homes using the decision they just rendered!
 06/26/2005 11:54:46 PM · #94
I think Jewellian suggested that a few posts back...
06/27/2005 12:01:02 AM · #95
(from a personal voice)
Robt., to answer your question -- I am probably about as far right as anyone in this forum, AND, I totally disagree with this decision.

As far as I can see, this is the one area where "liberal" and "conservative" should be able to stand up together, but I honestly think some of you like to argue, just for the sake of arguments.

As I posted earlier -- "judicial tyranny."

Based on my elementary knowledge of our government, it was established with a series of checks and
balances to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. Now, however, it seems to me that the judicial branch can pretty much decide what they want to do and do it, and if anyone argues with them, or tries to stop them, well, that's just too &*(% bad. I have been watching some of the decisions coming off the "hill" for some time, though my interest is "casual" compared to some of you, and it doesn't seem that this is the first time the judges have had their way in some issue or other. I think the biggest difference is that it has enraged both sides of the fence, whereas other decisions made some happy and others not.

Just my opinion.

(And from a SC voice -- please refrain from personal attacks and gross generalities about either side. Thank you and have a nice day.)
 06/27/2005 12:12:50 AM · #96
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These responses are all air. All administrations, have wasted or redistrubuted Social Security Funds. No need to blame Bush. But of course, Liberals do not see a pending war. So there is no point in expounding about the spread of freedom to defuse the caldron of hatred towards the western men of which you are one.

Now about the crap that Liberals walk a higher moral ground because they care. This is all self delusional. Erase the past history and you will not be talking because you would not be here. The ways of the world and the evolution and movement of societies is not a subject that you nor anybody can easily grasp. The best we can all do is to make corrections and this we are doing. You can go on the Liberal rampage of hate America, but America has done more than any other nation on the face of the earth to advance civilization.

You can go into your fetal position and bang your chest that we have wronged so terrible that there is no forgiveness, but not all see the world so bleak. Best to look ahead and make it a better world not by castigating or showing open hatred for your country and your countrymen but by becoming involved in protecting individula rights.

Your guilt is what gives you the belief that we should be destroyed by our enemy because we are no good. In any evolution there is waste and there is life and death and no one man or group or nation can control a design that is being weaved by providence.

To conclude: show me one Liberal who is against this court ruling. There is a fuzzy concept to waht a Liberal is. A liberal wants no wars, period. Idealistic but very naive. There are designs in the making from the start of the human drama to dominate over another. The Liberals want no big corporations, think of what your life would be without these giants. In short, a Liberal is against capitalism which means he prefers socialism as the lessor evil and look around the world as these paradign of socialism fail.

Again, when you climb the pulpit to say how much better you are, do you really feel good at the false sense of superioty? Do you not think that you are overplaying your hand, like who made you better then the rest of us. Liberals is the feel good philosophy but not really attached to the reality of life.


If ALL administrations (republicans and democrats, I presume you to mean) have redistributed social security funds, then why did YOU bring it up in the first place? YOu made it sound like it was just Democrats, but then when pushed you back down and agree state the obvious.

I do not hate this country! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY as much as any man/woman, conservative/liberal living here. What I don't like is money/power/land grabbing greedy bastards who do it in the name of democracy, but anything could be farther from the truth. Pending war??? With whom? What state? Please specify.

I would say that yes, America has certainly done lots to advance civilization, but at the present moment in time, I would say the current Bush administration is doing its utmost to destroy our good name for the purpose of regression of civilization. You have some nerve, Graphicfunk, to claim that I believe this country should be destroyed because it's no good. I have never said that and do not believe that. I want you to retract your statement and apologize.

Do you want war, Graphicfunk? Do you like war? Do you like destruction and human suffering and castastrophe?

I never said I want no big corporations, just don't want corrupt ones that pollute.

You make assumptions about liberals that are totally off base. Liberals have differing opinions about capitalism and socialism, but one thing we can all agree on is we do not like pollution or corrupt politicians or business leaders.

Tell me how you've protected individuals' rights please.

So again, please tell me what you think about how the US government has upheld the property rights of the Native Americans. You are for reperations, aren't you? How about African Americans, them too, no doubt?

Message edited by author 2005-06-27 01:34:23.
 06/27/2005 06:24:38 PM · #97
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These responses are all air. All administrations, have wasted or redistrubuted Social Security Funds. No need to blame Bush. But of course, Liberals do not see a pending war. So there is no point in expounding about the spread of freedom to defuse the caldron of hatred towards the western men of which you are one.

Now about the crap that Liberals walk a higher moral ground because they care. This is all self delusional. Erase the past history and you will not be talking because you would not be here. The ways of the world and the evolution and movement of societies is not a subject that you nor anybody can easily grasp. The best we can all do is to make corrections and this we are doing. You can go on the Liberal rampage of hate America, but America has done more than any other nation on the face of the earth to advance civilization.

You can go into your fetal position and bang your chest that we have wronged so terrible that there is no forgiveness, but not all see the world so bleak. Best to look ahead and make it a better world not by castigating or showing open hatred for your country and your countrymen but by becoming involved in protecting individula rights.

Your guilt is what gives you the belief that we should be destroyed by our enemy because we are no good. In any evolution there is waste and there is life and death and no one man or group or nation can control a design that is being weaved by providence.

To conclude: show me one Liberal who is against this court ruling. There is a fuzzy concept to waht a Liberal is. A liberal wants no wars, period. Idealistic but very naive. There are designs in the making from the start of the human drama to dominate over another. The Liberals want no big corporations, think of what your life would be without these giants. In short, a Liberal is against capitalism which means he prefers socialism as the lessor evil and look around the world as these paradign of socialism fail.

Again, when you climb the pulpit to say how much better you are, do you really feel good at the false sense of superioty? Do you not think that you are overplaying your hand, like who made you better then the rest of us. Liberals is the feel good philosophy but not really attached to the reality of life.


If ALL administrations (republicans and democrats, I presume you to mean) have redistributed social security funds, then why did YOU bring it up in the first place? YOu made it sound like it was just Democrats, but then when pushed you back down and agree state the obvious.

I do not hate this country! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY as much as any man/woman, conservative/liberal living here. What I don't like is money/power/land grabbing greedy bastards who do it in the name of democracy, but anything could be farther from the truth. Pending war??? With whom? What state? Please specify.

I would say that yes, America has certainly done lots to advance civilization, but at the present moment in time, I would say the current Bush administration is doing its utmost to destroy our good name for the purpose of regression of civilization. You have some nerve, Graphicfunk, to claim that I believe this country should be destroyed because it's no good. I have never said that and do not believe that. I want you to retract your statement and apologize.

Do you want war, Graphicfunk? Do you like war? Do you like destruction and human suffering and castastrophe?

I never said I want no big corporations, just don't want corrupt ones that pollute.

You make assumptions about liberals that are totally off base. Liberals have differing opinions about capitalism and socialism, but one thing we can all agree on is we do not like pollution or corrupt politicians or business leaders.

Tell me how you've protected individuals' rights please.

So again, please tell me what you think about how the US government has upheld the property rights of the Native Americans. You are for reperations, aren't you? How about African Americans, them too, no doubt?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all, I do not retract nor apologize for speaking or presententing ideas. According to you, if America shaped up to your aspirations then all would be well. Is this not self deceit, for why are your aspirations better then mine or of anybody else. I do not ask you or anybody to think like I do so why would you ask me to think like you.

You are clouding the issue with historical mistakes. There is only one way that we can repair the number of mistakes that we have made. You are not at all impressed with the advancement we have made. To please you we should all kill ourselves and lay the US barren so that the Indians can reclaim their land. Stupid solution right? How else can you fixed that error. The harm has been done and like I said earlier, read your history and you will find a blind force guiding mankind and as it moves it brings joy, sadness, death and rebirth. Are you suggesting that you know how to control the collective epic movement of civilization? I do not think so.

Now, you liberals are bad liberals because you do not even know when your bread is being buttered. I am talking here about the main subject of this thread. Confused liberals are saying that they do not know anyone on their side which agrees with the Supreme court ruling.

Okay, let me help you: Liberals want to assuage the pain in humanity. They want to help with other's people money. If there is a hand in your pocket, you know it is that of a Liberal. Now, all the money in the world will fall short but they want to collect it anyway and get on with their programs. The most effective way is to tax. Being socialist, they are fair here, everyone according to their ability.

So, think of this ruling not in its macrocosm form but its microcosm. A city with an overabundance of Liberals at the helm can say, if we confiscate this strip of property which yields a low sum of taxes and then give it to a developer we will be able to raise the tax base on that strip so that we can then give the money to the underprivileged.

The ruling also has the twist that the power to own and to dictate where you can or can not live. Most important more power is transfered to the state. Can you not see it?

You also say there is no enemy. The 9/11 victums can not agree with you.

The recent contest for best American put Reagan as number one and Bush as 6th. Does this not tell you something?

Nothing personal, but your viewpoint is very machinistic. You are trapped with talking points that represent the losing part of these arguments. Your viewpoint is almost morbid.

I believe that America is great and while mistakes have been made, we are moving in the right direction. The world is not a simple place, right now there is a lot brewing and many dangers are ahead. No, I do not want war, nor do any reponsible human being want war, but other powers want us dead. The price of freedom is not cheap. I know, liberals want freedom for nothing, but in real life this is impossible.
06/28/2005 12:27:25 AM · #98
Originally posted by bear_music:
WHY has this discussion degenerated into baiting-of-the-party-not-of-your-choice, instead of focusing on the pros and cons of the court decision? Who CARES if it's liberal or conservative? The issue is, is it sensible or ridiculous? Is it The End Of Democracy As We Know It or a harbinger of better things to come? Is it reasonable that municipalities should have such broad rights of seizure, or not? There are many things we could be discussing, but we're just spouting off and BLAMING people based on presumptive labels, as if the label somehow defines the thing?

I'm a liberal, and I disapprove. I don't care if you're a liberal or not, I want to know if you approve or disapprove, and I want to learn from you if you have anything sensible to teach.

Robt.


I'm far left of most Democrats, and I disapprove of this decision too. Unfortunately, this SC ruling is being used by the right-wingers to bash anyone who is politically left of far-right simply because of the perceived political sympathies of the Justices who sided with New London. The fact is that this kind of so-called "urban development" has been occurring for decades, and it has predominantly hurt poor people, minorities and the elderly. Pardon me for expressing my cynicism with regard to why now so many people are upset by this particular ruling. And to all you left bashers out there, many "liberal" groups, such as the NAACP, filed amicus briefs siding with the property owners.

As for what to do about it, you have to be aware of what your local governments are planning and be willing to spend time actually organizing and educating the people around you. This decision only makes it easier for municipalities to ATTEMPT such things; it's not a fait accompli. Vote the buggers out of office!
06/28/2005 05:09:42 PM · #99
Maybe here is how we solve the problem. :)

read me
 06/28/2005 05:26:09 PM · #100
that's really funny. good for him.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 02:29:15 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/23/2025 02:29:15 AM EDT.