archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The people paid for the civil war, the people have paid for the constitutional amendment banning slavery, the people paid for the creation of laws providing civil liberties. The riots and rebellions convinced the government to spend our money to do this, but the riots and rebellions did not provide us with the actual slavery ban and civil rights. YOu have strayed from the original arguement: the gov't does not do something when asked. We have now allowed for two pressures: violence and money. You are now argueing my point for me. Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) I can't believe you are holding up anti-slavery and civil rights as instances where public pressure won over government interference. If you look at it from the white southerners' perspective these are two of the greatest examples of massive government interference. The government was actively involved with these issues long before people stood up and fought against them. A quick example: the first time Congress ever overrode a presidential veto was for the 1866 Civil Rights Act, passed by Republicans over the wishes of Andrew Johnson. Okay, I can't stop at one: To oppose the 1964 Civil Rights bill, Senators mounted the longest filibuster in the US history. Edited June 23, 2005 by archenemy Quote
chucK Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 With respect to the topic of this thread, I would love to see Peter Puget's beloved Republican leadership stand up for the our rights by probiting the sale of public property (acquired through eminent domain) to private investors! Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 With respect to the topic of this thread, I would love to see Peter Puget's beloved Republican leadership stand up for the our rights by probiting the sale of public property (acquired through eminent domain) to private investors! That's obvious and consistant with the political platform. Statism is a Republican value. Quote
chucK Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) So is privatization ...and what do you call the federal contradiction of state MJ and right to die laws? Those are obvious denunciations of state's rights championed by republicans. Edited June 23, 2005 by chucK Quote
mec Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The people paid for the civil war, the people have paid for the constitutional amendment banning slavery, the people paid for the creation of laws providing civil liberties. The riots and rebellions convinced the government to spend our money to do this, but the riots and rebellions did not provide us with the actual slavery ban and civil rights. YOu have strayed from the original arguement: the gov't does not do something when asked. We have now allowed for two pressures: violence and money. You are now argueing my point for me. Yes, I will agree that for big issues the goverment does not do something when asked, and they need a bit more convincing like riots, rebellions, protests, etc. However with the smaller issues, the government varies. The Darrington access road was fixed when a group of people asked which was my counterpoint to you saying the government 'never' does anything when asked Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Yes Chuck, but the theft of people's homes is to benefit private companies. Still no rift. Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The people paid for the civil war, the people have paid for the constitutional amendment banning slavery, the people paid for the creation of laws providing civil liberties. The riots and rebellions convinced the government to spend our money to do this, but the riots and rebellions did not provide us with the actual slavery ban and civil rights. YOu have strayed from the original arguement: the gov't does not do something when asked. We have now allowed for two pressures: violence and money. You are now argueing my point for me. Yes, I will agree that for big issues the goverment does not do something when asked, and they need a bit more convincing like riots, rebellions, protests, etc. However with the smaller issues, the government varies. The Darrington access road was fixed when a group of people asked which was my counterpoint to you saying the government 'never' does anything when asked No--they were PAID 8 million bucks for this! Quote
chucK Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) The theft of people's homes by the government is not the republican agenda. The selling of government owned homes (stolen from citizens) is part of the republican agenda. Maybe you misread my former post, I was asking that republicans prohibit selling of public property to private companies. I would think the Republicans would be against this. Edited June 23, 2005 by chucK Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The theft of people's homes by the government is not the republican agenda. The selling of government owned homes (stolen from citizens) is part of the republican agenda. I'm slow, so you'll have to clarify for me the difference between these two things (as if I were a homeowner). Quote
chucK Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 ummm... The first is the government turning private property into state property. The second is the government turning state property into private property. Quote
mec Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 No--they were PAID 8 million bucks for this! I think I am even slower, but the way I see it the government spent 8 million bucks to have someone drive a backhoe and a bulldozer down the Darrington road to fix it. How is that any different than the government paying congressmen to make a law providing for civil rights, banning slavery, then paying courts and police officers to enfore them. 8 million bucks out of our pocket is 8 million bucks, some of it goes to fixing roads, some of it goes to making and enforcing laws. Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 No--they were PAID 8 million bucks for this! I think I am even slower, but the way I see it the government spent 8 million bucks to have someone drive a backhoe and a bulldozer down the Darrington road to fix it. How is that any different than the government paying congressmen to make a law providing for civil rights, banning slavery, then paying courts and police officers to enfore them. 8 million bucks out of our pocket is 8 million bucks, some of it goes to fixing roads, some of it goes to making and enforcing laws. I'm going to strangle you. The laws they were enforcing with our money were against our (changing) wishes. They wouldn't change them when we "asked". Then we had to force them to. I am signing off now, I'll check back with you later. I know you will have figured it out by then--you have an MBA for gods sake. Quote
mec Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 I know the original laws were against our wished. But then the laws changed per our wishes after the rebellion calmed down, and that cost money. the enforcement of these new laws cost money. That is what my MBA is saying, the government costs money no matter what we do (asking for change like fixing a road or forcing change through rebellion). I should sign out myself and get some work done... Quote
billcoe Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Well, it might be counter productive, but if anybody wants to read the ruling, as opposed to argueing that somebody here heard that somebody else said blah blah.... http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf BTW: the eminant domain policy will not change for @ 44 of the states out there, only a few will see a change: like Washington State, which seems happy to sit idle and watch while the builders turn Seattle into a LA style strip-mall shit-hole anyway. BTW, I might be reading the thing upside down, and getting confused: but this case means eminate domain policy still provides for overview, and they still MUST pay for property, and may only exercise eminate domain to transfer to a private party if it benefits the public. Perhaps a small point. Perhaps not. Theft of property is NOT allowed. Paid for with fair pricing, after an ellaborate process to deternime and asses need and direction, and a method with checks and balances for that process is allowed. Quote
slothrop Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 The theft of people's homes by the government is not the republican agenda. The selling of government owned homes (stolen from citizens) is part of the republican agenda. So the second one is really free trade: the government engaging in the commercial real estate market (via theft). Peter should be all for it. Redistribution of wealth is OK as long as it moves up, not down, the class ladder! Quote
slothrop Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Corporations have been arguing for years that they ARE "the public," so making the next leap is not difficult. Quote
archenemy Posted June 23, 2005 Posted June 23, 2005 Corporations have been arguing for years that they ARE "the public," so making the next leap is not difficult. The whole premise of the corporate charter from the very first one was that the corporation is its own entity under the law. Although it has claim to protections equivalent to people, it is not part of the "public" per se. A corporate charter can create either a public or a private corporation, but the only difference is whether that corporation can be owned by a few or is open to anyone to purchase. Either way, it is not part of the public (i.e. no voting rights, etc). But with the money they have, they run shit--that's for sure. Quote
Fairweather Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 I can't believe this! The beginning of the end for our free nation. The darkest supreme court ruling issued in my lifetime. (...and yes, this is the reason we need to replace any liberal supreme court retirees with strict constructionists.) Attention farm owners, elderly homeowners with views, churches, or anyone who doesn't "produce" enough tax revenue for a municipality.....WALMART can now buy your local politician outright. Emminent Domain for public projects I can understand, but condemnation of private property with the goal of transferring it to developers is an outrage. And from what I understand, they need only pay assessed value, which is almost always far below market value - insult to injury. ...I would like to apologize in advance to local law enforcement saddled with the implementation of this ruling. I will morally support a homeowner's right to defend their land from this affront to freedom in all cases. Quote
Chaps Posted June 24, 2005 Posted June 24, 2005 Where is my tinfoil hat? This fucking country is going down the toilet, mainly because of you LIBERAL Northwest people. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.