1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

for the greater good?!?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by n8dagr8, Jun 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 27, 2005 #61 of 142
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    I was almost positive they were SUPPOSED to be determining if laws fit the limits of the Constitution.

    Even THEY seem to think I'm mistaken.
     
  2. Jun 27, 2005 #62 of 142
    markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    I would say it looks more like fascism when the government acts together with business to screw the little guys. I'm not suggesting that the justices are taking bribes, but I will suggest that local officials may have an interest in furthering the business interest. Perhaps they are contributors to the local officials.

    The justices who were for this want govenment to have more power. Why they want it to have more power to enrich business does seem out of character for them. If this was about taking a house to add lanes to a freeway or if it was next to a sewage or water plant that needed to expand to provide safe water, this wouldn't be the controversy it is.

    No principle of capitalism is involved. What is involved is the practical application of capitalism. The real golden rule; he who has the gold, rules
     
  3. Jun 27, 2005 #63 of 142
    Dang The Hung

    Dang The Hung Godfather

    278
    0
    May 8, 2005
    Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States of America.

    This is really sad. My wife left her communist hell hole to get away, from - above all things government land grabbing. Now it seems that the U.S. is becoming no better.

    Its really funny how noone is Washington D.C. is whinning about this, but the local and state politicians are sweating this one. Rest assured any self-rightous developer and his paid off politician come after my land, they will be catching bullets.

    They have really backed us into a corner with this one folks.
     
  4. Jun 27, 2005 #64 of 142
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    From the posts, and from the reaction of my friends and acquantes, it sounds like general outrage over the ruling. I'm hoping it spills over to the state governments or Congress to repair. Apparently, since the ruling was based on (a misguided) interpretation of the constitution - it will have to fall to state or federal constitutional changes. And that is not an easy or fast process. But I agree - it seems this decision takes us yet another step towards socialism/communism. Funny, the countries who tried that found it absurb and are now trying to free themselves from it. Yet liberal justices who rather rule by what they want the constitution to say rather than what it actually says and plainly means, seem intent on pushing us on toward their philosophical nightmare.

    Makes one want a mandatory retirement age for SC justices. :D
     
  5. Jun 27, 2005 #65 of 142
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Actually, they are doing it for the benefit of the state. They are doing it for the increased tax base created by the new projects.
     
  6. Jun 28, 2005 #66 of 142
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well, that's the ostensive reason. But if you believe it's the real reason, the driving force behind government officials confiscating private property for condos or a mall, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn and some "waterfront" property in Florida I'd like to offer you.:contract:

    Maybe I'm jaded, but I've a feeling in many if not most of these projects there's something going on besides(and behind) "the greater good of the community". This is "insider" kapitalism at its worst, collusion between government and business to the benefit of individuals. And yes, it's much closer to fascism then socialism. Even the history of legitimate, justifiable public works projects is rife with kickbacks, bribes, payoffs and quid pro quos. This just takes it one step further. Apparently some communities have run out of public works projects to keep campaign contributing contractors busy and provide chump change to public officials.
     
  7. Jun 28, 2005 #67 of 142
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,898
    206
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Well said, Jonstad, and to think that five of the Supremes thought this was a good thing to force (and foist) upon Americans who thought we could trust in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    They want us to pledge allegiance to the flag, but who stands for us? Certainly not the government which, sadly, is no longer "...for the people".

    The future is not what it used to be. :(
     
  8. Jun 28, 2005 #68 of 142
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Sounds like something that is only somewhat more "civilized" than Mugabe (dictator of Zimbabwe) seizing all the white-owned farms to give them to his black (poverty stricken) supporters (usually veterans who fought for him).

    Zimbabwe went from being a breadbasket to a nation that now needs to import food to ward off starvation because they chased out all the farmers who knew anything about farming.
     
  9. Jun 28, 2005 #69 of 142
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    I guess it's true what they say about assumptions. :D
     
  10. Jun 28, 2005 #70 of 142
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    No, it has everything to do with both Collectivist ideologies. (Socialism and Communism). Both ideologies (Communism moreso) reject the idea of private property, and the rights of a person to control his or her property. They feel all property should belong to the State, and people are allowed to use it only by the good graces of the State. This goes further toward that end by destroying the foundation of private property rights; saying that private property can be taken by the State for any reason, and given to anyone they choose. And not just for the commonly accepted reasons like building a dam for flood control, or putting in a freeway.
     
  11. Jun 28, 2005 #71 of 142
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    The fact that the interested party involved happens to be big business is a side point, and not worth getting distracted over. They voted for it, not because it would help big business, but because it increases the power of the government over private property, and demolishes private property rights. THIS is the end that the Socialists are after, the fact that business is involved is quite irrelevant.
     
  12. Jun 28, 2005 #72 of 142
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    We're getting sidetracked on the point that the interested party was business. The goal here was to increase governmental power. It wouldn't have mattered who the party was, the ruling would have been the same.
     
  13. Jun 28, 2005 #73 of 142
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    When you assume it makes an ASS out of U and ME laughs at you? :D :hurah:
     
  14. Jun 28, 2005 #74 of 142
    markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    If it's really Socialist or Communist they wouldn't have handed the private property over to another private group. It seems that they believe in private property, the local officials thought that the citizens who owned it weren't doing as much good with the property as the private citizens they gave it to would. It sounds like you agree that a dam or road is a reasonable use for eminent domain. I don't think that the use it's put to is irrelevant.
     
  15. Jun 28, 2005 #75 of 142
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    You mean like Hitler did? *cough*nationalSOCIALISM*cough*

    If you don't like "Socialist or Communist" just say "Statist."
     
  16. Jun 28, 2005 #76 of 142
    Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    I like it:
    http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
     
  17. Jun 28, 2005 #77 of 142
    Redster

    Redster Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,185
    0
    Jan 14, 2004
    :)
     
  18. Jun 28, 2005 #78 of 142
    Timco

    Timco Woof! DBSTalk Gold Club

    964
    0
    Jun 7, 2002
    Love it!
     
  19. Jun 28, 2005 #79 of 142
    BuckeyeChris

    BuckeyeChris Icon/Supporter

    1,127
    0
    Apr 20, 2004
    From news accounts that I have read, there will be a lease of 99 years to the private developers; however the city of New London still owns the property. As I said before, they can take the property away whenever they want to, probably when tax revenues fail to meet expectations -- but first they'll go through the motions of having hearings.

    If they truly believed in private property, then they would have sided with the homeowners who have this important legal document called a deed, which represents their conveyance to the land.

    A dam or road at least is a tangible thing that has clear and almost always immediate benefits for the public. The same cannot be said for this case. Taxes are what they want. And there is no good certainty that they'll get the higher tax base that they seek. But that's irrelevant to them. They need that money to fund all the government programs that they believe will benefit us. You see, their attitude is that they (government) know better than you or I what is best for us.
     
  20. Jun 29, 2005 #80 of 142
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    I intend to make it my business to know exactly what companies will be using the land owned by these good people, and not do business with them ever.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page