OT Eminent Domain

You're right. You be the example and pay the descendants of slaves and American Indians first and then we'll all follow. Idiot.

"Shag"

Did I recommend any of those things? No. Think up, boy.

That should have been a question shouldn't it?

It is not my duty to apologize for the slavery of others. It is not my duty to give back something I don't posess.(land) It *is* my duty to respect those alive today with the respect that I expect from them.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I would think it would become apparent after a few centuries, that all poeple who want more than they have, are just plain greedy if they are not willing to work for it.

No harm in working hard and smart to have more than you were given to begin with. I am currently doing better than I was. Not better than Koffee Anon though..........It pays to be a crooked bastard too I suppose..........kinda. I just don't have that part in me.

My parents and grandparents left me pretty much naught. A pocket watch, a Phot or two, things of that nature. I have what I have (albeit little) because I discovered that I was able and willing to and had the opportunity to have more than I was left by ancestry. I think we could all do some of that. I plan on leaving my daughter very little in the way of possession. But MUCH in the way of guidance and confidence to achieve. That should be plenty. It's gonna take some time, but I'm fairly determined that it is her that should make of herself what she can. Not me or her mother.

Nuff said?????

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been cancelled due to a conflict.

A very grown-up approach.

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been cancelled due to a conflict.

Not at all related to eminent domain, but related to a social memory. I was reading somewhere that is still looked very much down upon in China to drive a vehicle made in Japan because because Japan invaded China (to get more land) back in the 1930's It was a brutal invasion. If interested in reading on the subject, do a Google search on the subject "The Rape of Nanking".

EXACTLY! Three of the five justices were appointed by Republicans. Now, you can spin it anyway your right wing mind wants to. But, as usual, you are wrong. The whole idea was started by a Republican governor as well. The beneficiaries will be right wing developers. Even you should be able to do the math on this.

I think when he says liberal, he means non-conservative (big government-ites). I don't think republicans are conservative, these days at least (Barry Goldwater anybody?). They were for bigger government. Liberals are for bigger government, and thats the way we're headed. This kind of s*it needs to stay out of the courts, these are issues for local legislators to decide. Then at least the people can fight back by voting them out. This was not a question of law, it was a question of whether or not something should have been law. It shouldn't have gone to the courts in the first place. This is what bench legislation gets you, which the left (and a lot of the right) is so strong for. Such a blatant disregard for individual property (rather the individuals that don't matter, to be more accurate) disgusts me.

-Kevin

Keep thinking like that. Ignorance is bliss. Most democrats dont want more government, they think independantly. So they are classified as such, instead of following the republican status quo.

Thats why China is buying US, German, and Korean cars.

whoops, not intended to be aimed at CCR, " i love that band" :)), but Neil who said more liberals than repubs voted for it.

Change they were for bigger government to they are for bigger government.

It is also to do with the fact that the Japanese government have never apologised about it, and even now do not mention it in their school textbooks...

It is also to do with the fact that the Japanese government have never apologised about it, and even now do not mention it in their school textbooks...

Folks, the Supremes' decision is one of those things that transcends the Democrat and Republican tendencies. We have to look deep into the constitutional legal reasoning to figure this one out.

So let's not go beating each other up. Neither R or D like it.

Something else is going on here.

The rea; problem here as I see it isn't going to be with the big boys like walmart. It will be with the small buisness that will reap these rewards. For Example,...

My home is in a Comercial zone,... And around the corner is one of those Mini marts / gas stations owned by Sunoco. They have been trying to buy up the property that abuts theirs for the last 5 years but no one will sell to them. Out of the 3 properties 2 of them are Residential homes even though they are in a Comercial Zone. This law gives them the right to "Force" me to sell to them. All they have to do is prove that by expanding their store they will have to hire a few more people,.. even though the new hires will only be Part time, Minumum wage earners.

I dissagree with this ruling in a very big way. It is not for "Public" use if a company uses it to reap more profit!

Ken

It's Corporate V Private I think.............I am pretty sure you are on the mark that it's not devided on party lines

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been cancelled due to a conflict.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:35:04 -0500, "johnboy" scribbled this interesting note:

And dwelling on what Alexander the Great did in Persia has gotten any of them exactly where?

It isn't the memory that is the problem, it is what is taught within the cultural context of that memory.

-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

Okay, now let's move to Israel and get that behind us, eh? Why do we send them billions of dollars every year? Isn't it time they stood on their own two-feet and get off the welfare wagon?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:14:07 -0500, "Lorem Ipsum" scribbled this interesting note:

Yes.

-- John Willis (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)