OT Eminent Domain

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



"Funkie" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> "ccr" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Neil" > wrote in message
> > news:1120084071.930c20187f27a20a123c1a8900508257@t eranews...
> > >
> > > "ccr" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >> Liberal my ass. The case was started because of the Republican
governor
> > >> of Connecticutt. This same "liberal" court elected Bush in 2000.
> > >>
> > >> And who will this decision benefit? Rich, right wing developers. They
> > >> aren't usually liberals.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Let's see how the vote went down:
> > >
> > > In favor:
> > > John Paul Stevens - appointed by a Republican (Ford, I think), voted
> > > conservative to begin with, but in the last 15 years has leaned more
and
> > > more to the liberal side.
> > > Anthony Kennedy - Republican appointee (Reagan) usually votes with the
> > > conservative, but is a swing vote
> > > David H. Souter - Bush #41 appointee, but has always voted liberal
> > > Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton appointee, always liberal
> > > Stephen G. Breyer - same as Ginsberg
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> > "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
> > conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
> being
> > fixed around the policy." - Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British
> > intelligence (from memo describing meeting with Prime Minister Tony
Blair
> on
> > July 23, 2002)
> > --
> >
> > > I heard something yesterday that applies to this. Up to the time a
> person
> > > is 30, they are usually a Democrat because they have nothing and want
> some
> > > of what others have. After 30, they start to acquire things, and turn
> > > Republican because they've worked for what they have and want to keep
it
> > > for themselves.
> >
> > If you believe bull**** like this, you are dumber than I thought.
> >
> >
>
>

Kevin Holzer wrote:
> johnboy wrote:
>
>> You are so off target it's pathetic.
>
>
> 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 **** 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
Change they were for bigger government to they are for bigger government.

On 29 Jun 2005 19:06:03 -0700, "Bill Berckman"
> wrote:


>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".

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...

--
Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe
1962 Austin Mini Deluxe
1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe
http://www.howard81.co.uk/ (cars on website)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:30:00 -0400, "Funkie" >
wrote:

>>
>> 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".

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...

http://www.backchina.com/news/2005-04-10/53245.html

--
Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe
1962 Austin Mini Deluxe
1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe
http://www.howard81.co.uk/ (cars on website)

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

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:06:58 -0500, "johnboy" >
wrote:

>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.

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®

http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sster...IN%20PAGE.html

If A Quiz is Quizical,
What is a test?

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:

>"MUADIB®" > wrote
>
>> Dennis, not to be disrespectful or anything like it, but we(the
>> current living american citizens) are not the ones who "stole" the
>> land from the indians, [...]
>
>Some civilizations have a social memory of a thousands of years. We
>late-breaking American invaders have an attention span of five minutes. Nuff
>said.
>

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)

"John Willis" > wrote in message
...

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

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:

>"John Willis" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>> And dwelling on what Alexander the Great did in Persia has gotten any
>> of them exactly where?
>
>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?
>

Yes.

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