Cool. Now citizens can't own property

[jrkarp]

It's not naive at all. I am very much aware of the corporate influence in politics. I am also aware that most of the people who elect these officials are not involved with the corporations, and that given the hysteria that this court ruling has generated, politicians that use this power are going to be on very thin ice.

Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.

Where do you think that the money comes from that pays for services like education, health care, police, snow removal, etc? From taxes. So yeah the government is in the business of making money so that they can provide services for the people.

/karp

[jrkarp]

Or when Dubya himself gets busted for cocaine ends up president of the United States.

BTW Bush never got arrested for cocaine.

He got a DWI.

/karp

[jrkarp]

In TN and Texas I believe it is legal to use deadly force in order to remove a trespasser from your property. Back at my parents house which is way off the road. All we'd have to do is let the dogs on them and if they came back and messed with the dogs well then they'd be messing with the "persuader" and he doesn't listen to much bull ****.

In all honestly if some smart ass corporate guy came out and after I tell him no your not getting my house and then the show up with a bull dozer. Some body will die plain and simple and then I will use my life savings to declare my inocence to the jury, which I am sure they could relate. Just my .02cc's not as an educated answer to the problem but it sure as hell would make a much louder outcry to the twisted government, politicians, courts, and corporations.

Once again the condemnation comes from the local government, not a "corporate guy." It still has to comport with requirements of procedural due process, meaning a notice and an opportunity to be heard.

If there was going to be a problem it would be police, not corporate types, who were removing you from your property. And shooting police officers most certainly does not go over well in Tennesee or Texas.

/karp

[jrkarp]

People, what I'm saying here is not that this ruling is a good thing.

What I am saying is that the media is turning it into this huge thing and a lot of people are going off half cocked without knowing what it really means or even what it really says. You can't trust the media to lay it all out for you.

/karp

[BigVrunga]

BTW Bush never got arrested for cocaine.

He got a DWI.

Yeah that statement was in error...

he was "allegedly arrested for cocaine use"

BV

[jrkarp]

AFAIK that never even happened. I never read anything about even an alleged cocaine bust, but I could be wrong. Where have you read that?

/karp

[CDB]

This ruling is far less significant than many people are making it out to be. There is not suddenly going to be a rush of people losing their homes. And use of eminent domain still requires a court to rule on the taking of land.

My posts above were to try to get people to calm down instead of going off half cocked.

/karp

No good. I'm always half cocked.

[BigVrunga]

AFAIK that never even happened. I never read anything about even an alleged cocaine bust, but I could be wrong. Where have you read that?

/karp

Do a google search on 'George Bush Cocaine" and a bunch of stuff comes up. Most if it is all heresay and speculation though.

[CDB]

"The new shopping/housing will generate ten times more tax revenue for the city than before." Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.

And of course no one thinks of the issue from this angle: why is it such a good thing for the state to get more money? They do nothing but waste most of the money they have, they'll do no different with any more money that comes in. What, generate more tax revenue for them so they can have another year or two of of hearings on whether or not we should be able to buy creatine? Plus such 'plans' always end up backfiring and costing taxpayers more than planned because the new malls/stadiums/whatevers always get a healthy government subsidy and always end up going way over budget and never seem to bring as much business in as they predict. Which is actually common sense, because if these plans really were going to bring in that much business private industry would have been able to fund it on their own. They wouldn't need the city to do a land grab for them. The basic premise is that a bunch of political whores know better what will be good for the economy than the people who actually make up the economy. It's central planning at its most idiotic.

[jrkarp]

Do a google search on 'George Bush Cocaine" and a bunch of stuff comes up. Most if it is all heresay and speculation though.

Yeah, I've seen all that, I was just wondering if you had seen something more concrete.

/karp

[jrkarp]

And of course no one thinks of the issue from this angle: why is it such a good thing for the state to get more money? They do nothing but waste most of the money they have, they'll do no different with any more money that comes in. What, generate more tax revenue for them so they can have another year or two of of hearings on whether or not we should be able to buy creatine? Plus such 'plans' always end up backfiring and costing taxpayers more than planned because the new malls/stadiums/whatevers always get a healthy government subsidy and always end up going way over budget and never seem to bring as much business in as they predict.

You know that your roads, schools, police, snow removal, airports, plus free clinics, public transportation, and dozens of other things are paid for by tax revenue, right?

Which is actually common sense, because if these plans really were going to bring in that much business private industry would have been able to fund it on their own. They wouldn't need the city to do a land grab for them. The basic premise is that a bunch of political whores know better what will be good for the economy than the people who actually make up the economy. It's central planning at its most idiotic.

Um, the private industry does fund it on their own. They pay the "just compensation." The problem is that they need the land, which is where the government comes in.

/karp

[Funny Monkey]

Once again the condemnation comes from the local government, not a "corporate guy." It still has to comport with requirements of procedural due process, meaning a notice and an opportunity to be heard.

If there was going to be a problem it would be police, not corporate types, who were removing you from your property. And shooting police officers most certainly does not go over well in Tennesee or Texas.

/karp

corporate guy, politician, police officer, fireman, army, old lady, little children. If they are trying to take my home just so a mall, store, or facility can go there I am going to use whatever means to protect my property and my family. I could care less if you are wearing a uniform or not.

[Funny Monkey]

All of this is simply not right. It is not ethical or moral. Politicians should have some ****ing balls and say "well these people do not want to sell so either make them a higher offer or find somewhere else". We need people to stand up no matter the cost.

[jrkarp]

I don't entirely disagree with you.

But everyone acts like this is something new.

Eminent domain condemnations have been going on since this country was founded and long before that. The constitution specifically authorizes it.

/karp

[lifted]

new jobs and increased tax revenue

Yeah right....Bush and co. keep saying that they've increased jobs and all this crap, well these are the wrong KIND of jobs. All these takenover homes are taken over so that mini malls and shooping centers can be built, nothing more. How the **** are you supposed to support yourself, nonetheless raise a family when all of these jobs pay minimum wage? So waht it boils down to is they're kicking out these families, taking away their homes, and replacing htem with minimum wage jobs....yeah, that's a GREAT way to up the economy.

All this is, is a front to try and lower the deficit....nothing more...and they threw in "increasing jobs" in order to sugar coat it.....bull**** man, this country keeps shooting itself in the foot. And I mean cmon, is it really that shocking when you got arnold ****ing schwartzenegger as gov? OR how about all these other idiots that just happen to be "popular" and run for office and the the ignorant people of this country elect them...my god...political corectness, the deficit, the war in iraq, are all examples of how this country is turning to **** and they all could have been avoided or lessened to a considerable degree with a little more thinking and a lot less greediness.

[joecski]

I don't entirely disagree with you.

But everyone acts like this is something new.

Eminent domain condemnations have been going on since this country was founded and long before that. The constitution specifically authorizes it./karp

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that eminent domain meant the government could take land for 'public use', such as a school, highways, public works, etc., and not for private development. The part of this ruling that sticks out in my mind is that the government can now take land for use by private developers. That is what is fueling the outrage.

BTW, the government used the priciple of eminent domain to take Native American land at will and eventually they took the entire southwestern US from Mexico. That wasn't exactly the moral thing to do either, but it could be said that that was natural expansion of the US for the good of the citizens. This new ruling is natural expansion of the private for the corporate benefit - at the expense of the public. I guess since the government can't take our land by force anymore they have resorted to using the law.

[jrkarp]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that eminent domain meant the government could take land for 'public use', such as a school, highways, public works, etc., and not for private development. The part of this ruling that sticks out in my mind is that the government can now take land for use by private developers. That is what is fueling the outrage.

BTW, the government used the priciple of eminent domain to take Native American land at will and eventually they took the entire southwestern US from Mexico. That wasn't exactly the moral thing to do either, but it could be said that that was natural expansion of the US for the good of the citizens. This new ruling is natural expansion of the private for the corporate benefit - at the expense of the public. I guess since the government can't take our land by force anymore they have resorted to using the law.

Read the case from the link that I posted above.

The court has NEVER held (at least not in the last 100 years) that 'public use' only meant for public works like schools or roads. They explain the history of the jurisprudence in detail.

/karp

[jrkarp]

Yeah right....Bush and co. keep saying that they've increased jobs and all this crap, well these are the wrong KIND of jobs. All these takenover homes are taken over so that mini malls and shooping centers can be built, nothing more. How the **** are you supposed to support yourself, nonetheless raise a family when all of these jobs pay minimum wage? So waht it boils down to is they're kicking out these families, taking away their homes, and replacing htem with minimum wage jobs....yeah, that's a GREAT way to up the economy.

All this is, is a front to try and lower the deficit....nothing more...and they threw in "increasing jobs" in order to sugar coat it.....bull**** man, this country keeps shooting itself in the foot. And I mean cmon, is it really that shocking when you got arnold ****ing schwartzenegger as gov? OR how about all these other idiots that just happen to be "popular" and run for office and the the ignorant people of this country elect them...my god...political corectness, the deficit, the war in iraq, are all examples of how this country is turning to **** and they all could have been avoided or lessened to a considerable degree with a little more thinking and a lot less greediness.

The really funny thing is that so many people are bitching about Bush with all this, when the liberals on the court were the ones who voted for the decision, and the biggest conservatives on the court (that is, the ones closest to Bush's political views) are the ones that voted against this ruling. This decision is very much un-republican and un-conservative.

Which is why it is weird to me that I don't completely disagree with the ruling, since I am usually a pretty hard core Republican.

And once again, it's not like there is an epidemic of this happening. This kind of thing happens vary rarely on this kind of scale. Usually, the taking is a portion of someone's land for a highway or something like that.

/karp

[lifted]

The really funny thing is that so many people are bitching about Bush with all this, when the liberals on the court were the ones who voted for the decision, and the biggest conservatives on the court (that is, the ones closest to Bush's political views) are the ones that voted against this ruling. This decision is very much un-republican and un-conservative.

Which is why it is weird to me that I don't completely disagree with the ruling, since I am usually a pretty hard core Republican.

And once again, it's not like there is an epidemic of this happening. This kind of thing happens vary rarely on this kind of scale. Usually, the taking is a portion of someone's land for a highway or something like that.

/karp

I never said it was Bush's doing. I said that bush and co. keep telling hte AMerican people that they've increased jobs, and they are the wrong kind of jobs. I don't know where you got that I said it's bush's doings.

With that said, I still think Bush is a ****face. He's made many bad decisions during his term, and continues to do so. And for the record, I cannot stand "party followers". Is it just me or is it pretty dumb for someone to vote for a republican simply becasue it's "their party?" When in reality, the average joe doesn't know a fifth of what really goes on in the gov't or what they're even about...makes no sense...

[jrkarp]

I wasn't referring specifically to you. Sorry if it came across that way.

For the record, though I identify myself as a Republican, I have voted for Democrats in the past and will probably do so again.

When I call myself a Republican, I mean the views and beliefs I hold, not who I always vote for.

/karp