Obliteration of private property and the destruction of founding fathers fundamentals-

The latest decision by the supreme court to enable the
government to take private property and turn it over to commercial enterprises is pretty much their worst decision yet. Before it was used for the common good of the nation (roads, bridges, etc). Now it is for use commercially. So as Time magazine put- A man's house is his castle, now it soon may be a white castle.
Here is a scenario: Your house is by a lake, Hilton wants to turn the neihborhood into a hotel. So they petition the local government who declares your house dilapidated (even if it is not)and pays you a piddly amount of money and forces you to move. This is totally against the founding fathers vision of government.
I fear the failing of democracy and rising of marxist dictatorship here.
THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT TO MAKE LAWS BUT TO MAKE SURE LAWS ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION

Who else is outraged? let your voice be heard!

Originally posted by Evakian
I fear the failing of democracy and rising of marxist dictatorship here.
THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT TO MAKE LAWS BUT TO MAKE SURE LAWS ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION

Who else is outraged? let your voice be heard!

We have the right wing wacko's to blame for this. It is all about corporate profits to those numskulls. They don't give a damn about the constitution.

Originally posted by Echo2
We have the right wing wacko's to blame for this. It is all about corporate profits to those numskulls. They don't give a damn about the constitution.
You're an idiot, Echo. Do your goddamned homework before opening that partisan hack of a mouth you possess.

The dissenters of the program included Rehnquist, O'Connor, Thomas, and Scalia - the conservative heart of the court.

Notice the list of honorees, and you will see they comprise the more liberal Supreme Court Justices - surprise, surprise!!!

No, in all honesty, it's not a surprise, for socialism remains the dirty little core of the liberal mindset, the notion that there is somehow something noble about the "public good", while the conservative and libertarian believe in a public composed of one person at a time.

So as Trav would say - STFU.

They are called conservatives because they are conserving the old traditions started by the founding fathers. Liberals who want to shake things up and change things are to blame. You did not stop to think.

Sorry, but I just don't buy into the bullshit that liberals are to blame for every damn thing that is wrong with this country. My guess is that less than 10% of the U.S. congress are actually honest people with integrity. Assholes come in both political persuasions. Liars and cheaters come in both and so do sell outs.

Our president is a perfect example of a lying, scheming politician that will do anything to get his agendas met.

Ted Kennedy is a murderer, McCain is a sneak, Gingrich, well he's in a class of his own. Like I said, assholes come in BOTH political persuasians.

This country would be a lot better if we had some decent middle of the road politicians that would quite playing to special interest groups to get money and votes.

Originally posted by Echo2
This country would be a lot better if we had some decent middle of the road politicians that would quite playing to special interest groups to get money and votes.
I'll give you that all day long!

I wish we had people in office that looked out for OUR interest and not THEIRS! :mad:

Originally posted by Evakian
They are called conservatives because they are conserving the old traditions started by the founding fathers.

Exactly so.

"Old traditions" like protecting the elite group of wealthy land and business owners [IOW, the "Founding Fathers"] who were running things, and who were intent on ordering this country to be run to suit THEM and THEIR financial interests, with the dimwitted peons being magnanimously allowed to have the crumbs that fell from the table of plenty.

"Old traditions" like keeping people in slavery, disenfranchising women and black people, allowing only white land owners to vote.

.......the Founding Fathers were openly hostile to democracy, and had no intention of encompassing the freedom of women, Indians, African-American slaves, or white indentured servants. In fact, the Founding Fathers lived in mortal fear of slave revolts, for they were far outnumbered by their slaves. (To illustrate the mortal fear of the slavemasters, when Nat Turner, leader of a slave revolt in 1831, was captured and executed, his body was reduced to fat, to completely eradicate his memory, as if he never existed).

The primary concerns of the Founding Fathers revolved around the accumulation and protection of wealth, even if they were not all adept at achieving it on a personal level. The law, on the other hand, tended to perpetuate the rights of people on an equal standing, so that institutions were obliged to respect their individual rights; even the king was obliged to honor the rights of the commonest person in his realm. But this was disagreeable to the Founding Fathers, because they imagined that they could increase their profits by seceding from the British Empire. They knew that AS the government, they could set the law aside at their pleasure, and make it appear as if the very displacement of the law itself was "legal". When America's secession from the British Empire became effective, commerce came to dominate the priorities of the new Republic, and we now live at the end of a 200 year old nightmare, bearing witness to a Government that has consistently relieved industrial businesses from all legal and financial liability for polluted land, sky, rivers, water tables, oceans and landfills. American people perish from poisoning from industry, or military testing, and the Republic turns its back on the victims, even blaming them for being victims; but when corporate America's oil was threatened in Kuwait, the Republic fielded a half a million man army to protect it, for billions of dollars.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/origin.htm

Middle of the road is not a possibility, anyone who says that they are is a liar. The world is governed in opposites (light/dark, man/woman, good/evil). And as such, people cannot be in cooperation with all sides completely. Notice the completely, not that they couldn't make some decisions for different sides at different times.

and also on another note:
YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT ANY POLITICIANS ARE BAD, show me a video of kennedy murdering or giving the order, how is mccain a "sneak". What does Gingrich do that puts him in a class of his own? Emotional uprising is no match for cold hard facts

Also if you do not believe that liberals are to blame for this country's problems open your eyes...........liberals are always wrong, Conservatives are usually wrong, and other alignments have no idea what they are doing

Originally posted by Evakian
Middle of the road is not a possibility, anyone who says that they are is a liar. The world is governed in opposites (light/dark, man/woman, good/evil). And as such, people cannot be in cooperation with all sides completely. Notice the completely, not that they couldn't make some decisions for different sides at different times.

and also on another note:
YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT ANY POLITICIANS ARE BAD, show me a video of kennedy murdering or giving the order, how is mccain a "sneak". What does Gingrich do that puts him in a class of his own? Emotional uprising is no match for cold hard facts

Also if you do not believe that liberals are to blame for this country's problems open your eyes...........liberals are always wrong, Conservatives are usually wrong, and other alignments have no idea what they are doing

While there is no "proof" that Senator Teddy Kennedy murdered a young woman trapped in his car for 12 hours while he slept off his drunk and made frantic plans to leave the island, he was certainly guilty of not ading or helping the poor girl in any way, shape or form, thus resulting in her death, and thereby ruining his chances for President forever.
He is an absolute disgrace.

Originally posted by Freethinker
.......the Founding Fathers were openly hostile to democracy, and had no intention of encompassing the freedom of women, Indians, African-American slaves, or white indentured servants.
Either way, they didn't do so badly for us, did they?
Originally posted by Freethinker
The primary concerns of the Founding Fathers revolved around the accumulation and protection of wealth, even if they were not all adept at achieving it on a personal level.
And what decent businessman/land owner doesn't operate that way? Originally posted by Freethinker
and we now live at the end of a 200 year old nightmare, bearing witness to a Government that has consistently relieved industrial businesses from all legal and financial liability for polluted land, sky, rivers, water tables, oceans and landfills.
That's right - it is the end.

So don't worry - people like you have screamed about a "fair" living wage, and through your unions and the stranglehold of EPA (compared to China, by the year 2010, we'll have looked like a clean country in retrospect), we've chased all the jobs and pollution to a country that positively WON'T make us any money, and certainly doesn't give a shit about pollution. Congratulations - you guys win.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Exactly so.

"Old traditions" like protecting the elite group of wealthy land and business owners [IOW, the "Founding Fathers"] who were running things, and who were intent on ordering this country to be run to suit THEM and THEIR financial interests, with the dimwitted peons being magnanimously allowed to have the crumbs that fell from the table of plenty.

"Old traditions" like keeping people in slavery, disenfranchising women and black people, allowing only white land owners to vote.

.......the Founding Fathers were openly hostile to democracy, and had no intention of encompassing the freedom of women, Indians, African-American slaves, or white indentured servants. In fact, the Founding Fathers lived in mortal fear of slave revolts, for they were far outnumbered by their slaves. (To illustrate the mortal fear of the slavemasters, when Nat Turner, leader of a slave revolt in 1831, was captured and executed, his body was reduced to fat, to completely eradicate his memory, as if he never existed).

The primary concerns of the Founding Fathers revolved around the accumulation and protection of wealth, even if they were not all adept at achieving it on a personal level. The law, on the other hand, tended to perpetuate the rights of people on an equal standing, so that institutions were obliged to respect their individual rights; even the king was obliged to honor the rights of the commonest person in his realm. But this was disagreeable to the Founding Fathers, because they imagined that they could increase their profits by seceding from the British Empire. They knew that AS the government, they could set the law aside at their pleasure, and make it appear as if the very displacement of the law itself was "legal". When America's secession from the British Empire became effective, commerce came to dominate the priorities of the new Republic, and we now live at the end of a 200 year old nightmare, bearing witness to a Government that has consistently relieved industrial businesses from all legal and financial liability for polluted land, sky, rivers, water tables, oceans and landfills. American people perish from poisoning from industry, or military testing, and the Republic turns its back on the victims, even blaming them for being victims; but when corporate America's oil was threatened in Kuwait, the Republic fielded a half a million man army to protect it, for billions of dollars.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/origin.htm

"Founding fathers openly hostile to democracy"

It is always a mistake, Freethinker, to judge men and women outside of the times in which they lived. Even the radical freethinker and revolutionary Jefferson was not THAT advanced, where he would even consider giving women the vote. In this line of thinking, he was the same as all other men in power at that time.....Do I dislike the man because of this? or consider him an elitist pig? no, I do not.

Originally posted by Evakian
Also if you do not believe that liberals are to blame for this country's problems open your eyes...........liberals are always wrong, Conservatives are usually wrong, and other alignments have no idea what they are doing

Can you spell wachjob?

Can you?

Originally posted by Evakian
Middle of the road is not a possibility, anyone who says that they are is a liar. The world is governed in opposites (light/dark, man/woman, good/evil). And as such, people cannot be in cooperation with all sides completely. Notice the completely, not that they couldn't make some decisions for different sides at different times. It all depends on how you want to describe the political spectrum. If you divide it right down the middle then yes, everyone would be on either one side or the other with nobody in between. But such a model is highly inaccurate as it does not address the variety of political ideologies that actually exist. It other words, it sacrifices accuracy for simplicity.

Originally posted by Echo2
Can you spell wachjob? Is that how they spell it in German? :D

Good comments Jester.
I guess this thread is kinda over, Thanks for responding everyone, good thoughts, rebuttal, and support


oh and "Wachjob" is spelled W-h-a-c-k-j-o-b

Originally posted by Evakian
Here is a scenario: Your house is by a lake, Hilton wants to turn the neihborhood into a hotel. So they petition the local government who declares your house dilapidated (even if it is not)and pays you a piddly amount of money and forces you to move.

I am fortunate enough to have been born into a family that has a beautiful vacation home in northern Wisconsin. It has been in my family since the land grant was issued to an ancestor of mine during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. The land was never logged, because fortunately my ancestors believed in preserving the land.
Here is the scenario I fear. Someone might want that land for a resort. Because it is a vacation home, no one in my family even has the right to vote in the local elections. We are an easy target politically. Of course we pay property taxes on the land, and have done so since that tax was enacted. This brings to mind an important thought, "No taxation without representation." Under the current Supreme Court ruling, we would have no legal recourse if a local citizen decided they wanted to open a resort. The local government in the town, which has a population of about 500 full time residents could do whatever they wanted.
This ruling has made me consider what I might do if this scenario happened. I am not sure that I could live with myself if I just walked away. I am wondering if I have the courage to take a stand that could get me killed. I hope I never have to find out.

Originally posted by Imagineer
I am fortunate enough to have been born into a family that has a beautiful vacation home in northern Wisconsin. It has been in my family since the land grant was issued to an ancestor of mine during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. The land was never logged, because fortunately my ancestors believed in preserving the land.
Here is the scenario I fear. Someone might want that land for a resort. Because it is a vacation home, no one in my family even has the right to vote in the local elections. We are an easy target politically. Of course we pay property taxes on the land, and have done so since that tax was enacted. This brings to mind an important thought, "No taxation without representation." Under the current Supreme Court ruling, we would have no legal recourse if a local citizen decided they wanted to open a resort. The local government in the town, which has a population of about 500 full time residents could do whatever they wanted.
This ruling has made me consider what I might do if this scenario happened. I am not sure that I could live with myself if I just walked away. I am wondering if I have the courage to take a stand that could get me killed. I hope I never have to find out.

I hope things work out for you, Imagineer. Sometimes there's just no stopping greedy folks of this kind.
If they don't, maybe you can try what Scarlett O'Hara threatened to do to the men who were trying to take Tara away-

"I'll tear this place down stone by stone and sow the fields with salt before you set foot here!"

Seriously, not a bad option.

My own great grandpa, 4-year Civil War vet, Union, medal winner, at Shiloh, Chicamauga, Peach Tree Creek, who lost both an arm and a leg in the final last days of the war, returned home to what had used to be his family homestead in Indiana, only to find that his family had been sherriffed and the farm taken away, because his sickly wife couldn't pay the taxes. Grandpa's response was to burn the barns to the ground. Not caught either. Ya just don't mess with those Civil War guys!

Originally posted by Imagineer
It has been in my family since the land grant was issued to an ancestor of mine during the presidency of Benjamin Harrison.........I am not sure that I could live with myself if I just walked away. I am wondering if I have the courage to take a stand that could get me killed. I hope I never have to find out.

It is sobering to reflect and recognize that the native Americans who lived on that piece of land you talk about ---and on the rest of the land in America--- when the white man came to take it away were faced with the SAME dilemma.

More on great great grandpa--
HIS grandpa was a general in the War of 1812, serving out of North Calincky. HIS dad fought in the Revolution. And HIS granpa BOUGHT land from the Indians, who were more than willing to sell.
Seems to me that this line EARNED their land.

Originally posted by Freethinker
It is sobering to reflect and recognize that the native Americans who lived on that piece of land you talk about ---and on the rest of the land in America--- when the white man came to take it away were faced with the SAME dilemma.
How profound...