And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it. Carried to extremes, every time the Repubs
lose power, some Democratic developer can roll into Naples and get the
government to condemn properties belonging to local Republicans,
(thereby weakening the opposition's political base). You'd have to wait
until the R's got back in power again before you could pressure the new
government to yank property back from the usurping D's. Very, very bad
system.

Eisenhower looks smarter all the time- "Beware the military/industrial
complex." I think of those words every time I read something more about
Haliburton and Iraq. He should also have said, "Beware the rapacious
government, private developer complex."

FUBAR government is FUBAR government, regardless of the party at fault.

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

But for the sake of 4 liberal justices and 1 conservative justice the
*issue* would be moot. So it *is* about how these justices voted.


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who
apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away
from us.

wrote in message
oups.com...

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?




This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect
more in property taxes.




Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

I agree. And if you and I agree on a topic, then passing a bipartisan bill
in Congress should be easy as pie.

"*JimH*" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
And I knew you guys would be a little shocked to learn that it was the
liberal Supreme Court justices who supported it!


**********

How many of the mega-huge private development corporations that will
*benefit* from the ruling
are likely run by "liberals"?

The issue isn't whether the ruling was voted for by liberal or
conservative justices, the issue is that the government now says its OK
for a private developer to pressure local politicians to boot you out
of your home or business, and that doing so is OK if the politician can
make a case that the private developer's use of your land would be
better for the "public good."

But for the sake of 4 liberal justices and 1 conservative justice the
*issue* would be moot. So it *is* about how these justices voted.


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

Glad to hear you say that, even though 4 of the 5 are liberal justices who
apparently want to rewrite the Constitution and take all our rights away
from us.

MSNBC poll has people voting 98% opposed to the ruling, and 2% supporting
it.

The political party that jumps on this ruling first can sure stand to gain a
lot in the next election.

I think I'll send an email to Karl Rove.

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?

**********

I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling
people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing
folks without trial.


************


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.



No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals
from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to
collect
more in property taxes.

*******

In the long run, there is no greater "harm" than the abridgement of
rights.
"People who will trade freedom for security deserve to be neither
secure nor free."

wrote:

I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling
people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing
folks without trial.



Pathetic.....

I thought your #2 democratic leader just apologized for making such
idiotic uneducated statements.

________


Anyway the liberals screwed up this one big time.
With a new supreme justice being named soon, people will be less
sympathetic about the screams coming from the left when Bush nominates
his choice for SC judge.

No one wants a judge that is going to just ignore the constitution and
take his or her property rights away

wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?

**********

I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling
people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing
folks without trial.


************


This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.



No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals
from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to
collect
more in property taxes.

*******

In the long run, there is no greater "harm" than the abridgement of
rights.
"People who will trade freedom for security deserve to be neither
secure nor free."

In Mr. Franklin's time, there was not much concern about people smuggling
nukes into major US cities.

"Mule" wrote in message
oups.com...


wrote:

I don't think so, but it has long been the justification for hauling
people off to gulags and concentration camps and holding or punishing
folks without trial.



Pathetic.....

I thought your #2 democratic leader just apologized for making such
idiotic uneducated statements.

I was actually glad Durbin said it. I really believe he and Dean are
deep-cover operatives for the Republican party.



________


Anyway the liberals screwed up this one big time.
With a new supreme justice being named soon, people will be less
sympathetic about the screams coming from the left when Bush nominates
his choice for SC judge.

No one wants a judge that is going to just ignore the constitution and
take his or her property rights away

This is a terrific political issue to be seized upon. I hope the
Republicans are first to the punch.

NOYB wrote:

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?

Kind of like we went to war with Iraq for public good? We formed
Homeland Security for public good.




This is consistent with the erosion of rights in all areas of society
during the last several years.

No it's not. Erosion of private rights in order to protect individuals from
harm is a lot different from erosion of private rights in order to collect
more in property taxes.

Have to agree with that! The actions we are talking about are nothing
but another way to make revenue.

Condeming private property for the purpose of awarding it to another
private owner is pure BS regardless of the political bent of he
justices that supported it.

I agree. And if you and I agree on a topic, then passing a bipartisan bill
in Congress should be easy as pie.

Nah, politicians are a different lot.

wrote:
NOYB wrote:

Isn't the "public good" a rallying cry for socialists and communists?

Kind of like we went to war with Iraq for public good? We formed
Homeland Security for public good.
Again pathetic...
This sounds like...
If all else fails just blame bush or the republicans for something!


Please don't confuse public good with public safety. They are two very
different things. One is nice to have and the other is needed to live.


Chris