Supreme Court is out of control

This ruling is crazy! I had no idea about the details until now...
I think they should enact a law saying any property taken for any use
must stay owned by the govt for at least 10 years. That way shady
people can't get cheap land from the govt very fast at least.

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 10:52:57 -0700, "Bernard Farquart"
> wrote:

>
>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>news
>> The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>> will know which party is better, or less evil. The ones who can't see
>> that are not going to listen to reason. Those who can see that won't
>> change their minds easily, because they have seen the facts.
>> Interestingly enough, those people who can see, make up a decent
>> portion of both parties.
>
>It is possible for two people to come to different
>conclusions using the same facts.
>I just feel that posters who use "democRATS" are
>about as resonable as those who use "REPUGS"

I can't tell if you are repeating what I said, or just missed it. I
have to admit, the post was somewhat of a troll for idiots. I
expected you and others like you to get it. If you didn't, I have to
question whether it was too elusive, or if the subject matter
prevented people from seeing the point, or if I missed something in
trying to verbalize my thoughts.

On 26 Jun 2005 11:04:08 -0700, wrote:

>> While I see your point, sometimes people get so upset over the
>> radicals in the other party that they stoop to the same low level that
>> the radicals do.
>
>That does not make it acceptable. It's an excuse - a way to avoid
>being responsible for one's actions.

Or, wow, maybe it is just a reaction to idiots like you.

>> I hate liberalism.
>
>All that means is that you *hate.*

To an idiot who has no understanding of language, I guess that is one
way of reading it.

>Nothing more. If liberalism were everything ascribed to it by it's
>enemies, then it would have seen the dustbin of history long ago. Yet

Those who fail to study history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.
The democrats obviously failed to study history. How else can you
explain pelosi, dashcle, gephardt, dean and the clintons. Well Ok,
the clintons must have, as they are superior at disguising their
liberalism as conservatism, in order to gain the acceptance of the
masses.

>radical ideas find slow acceptance, and soon enough, the Earth is no
>longer the center of the universe, men no longer own other men in a
>free society, and people of color may vote.

Only because conservatives came to power and changed the rules to
allow free men and women to vote.

>"Some of my best friends are black."

I am happy for you. Of course, only an idiot would say something like
that, but we already know you are.

>> The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>> will know which party is better, or less evil.
>
>Except that's just your bias. We know which one *you* think is less
>evil - but that doesn't mean you arrived at that conclusion using pure
>logic.
>
>Other reasonable people come to just the opposite conclusion. But in
>your mind, they serve evil, while you serve good.

You once again prove you are an idiot. The statements:

"Those who can see that won't change their minds easily, because they
have seen the facts. Interestingly enough, those people who can see,
make up a decent portion of both parties."

clearly indicate that there are people in both parties who have seen
the facts. Are you incapable of reading, or just stupid in everything
you do.

wrote:
> This ruling is crazy! I had no idea about the details until now...
> I think they should enact a law saying any property taken for any use
> must stay owned by the govt for at least 10 years. That way shady
> people can't get cheap land from the govt very fast at least.
>

Agreed. In fact I'd write your congresscritter today and tell him what
you think. I know I will, the ruling is just plain wrong. Yet another
instance of a law (in this case, the US Constitution!) being
misinterpreted to the point that it almost means the exact opposite of
what was intended - so now we have to pass another law to break it down
into words of fewer syllables for the reading impaired...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Bernard Farquart wrote:
> "DTJ" > wrote in message
> news >
>>The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>>will know which party is better, or less evil. The ones who can't see
>>that are not going to listen to reason. Those who can see that won't
>>change their minds easily, because they have seen the facts.
>>Interestingly enough, those people who can see, make up a decent
>>portion of both parties.
>
>
> It is possible for two people to come to different
> conclusions using the same facts.
> I just feel that posters who use "democRATS" are
> about as resonable as those who use "REPUGS"
>
>

And yet, sadly, it seems that the mainstream of each party is just about
as loathsome as you would be led to believe by the propaganda of the
other side. A self-fulfilling prophecy or just good old fashioned
irony? You decide.

Overall, while I consider myself more conservative than liberal, I have
to say that *in today's political climate* the Democratic party seems to
be slightly less evil and malevolent than the Republicans - but that's
not saying a whole hell of a lot.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Dan J.S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave C." > wrote in message
> enews.net...
>>
>> "223rem" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Is their goal to crush civil liberties and
>>> stomp on the poor?
>>>
>>> Lately, they have:
>>>
>>> - Ruled to ban marijuana for cancer patients
>>>
>>> - Allowed police to use drug-sniffing dogs to check out
>>> any car they stop for a traffic violation
>>>
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGIMAVRML1.DTL
>>>
>>> - And today, they ruled that Cities May Seize Homes
>>> (of course, poor peoples' houses, not the mansions of the rich)
>>
>> Finish the story. The supreme idiots ruled that Cities may seize
>> peoples'
>> homes under 'eminent domain' for such "public" uses as condominiums,
>> beachfront resort/hotels, housing developments (never mind that they tore
>> one down to build a new one). Oh, and the ruling further states that it
>> doesn't matter what condition the seized houses are in. Buy a
>> 10-year-old
>> house in perfect condition one day, it can be seized and torn down the
>> next.
>> Of course, you will be paid 50% of it's fair market value for your
>> inconvenience. Never mind that you paid 100% of it's fair market value,
>> or
>> that you might still owe more than the city paid you for it. -Dave
>>
>
> This is a stupid ruling that should get bipartisan support in congress and
> senate to act. As someone was saying, any business will bring in more tax
> revenue than a home. We are all at risk (especially the folks that own
> homes around lakes, rivers or other scenic locales). I dont think there is
> a single democrat, republican and libertarian that would agree with this
> ruling unless they have something personal to gain by it.
>

It was the most liberal members of the high court that sided with the
interests of the "big guys". Ironically, it was the more conservative
members that sided with the "little guy" on this one.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news:1119825039.913e4ae6642458500894e598efb85095@t eranews...
> Bernard Farquart wrote:
>> "DTJ" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>>The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>>>will know which party is better, or less evil. The ones who can't see
>>>that are not going to listen to reason. Those who can see that won't
>>>change their minds easily, because they have seen the facts.
>>>Interestingly enough, those people who can see, make up a decent
>>>portion of both parties.
>>
>>
>> It is possible for two people to come to different
>> conclusions using the same facts.
>> I just feel that posters who use "democRATS" are
>> about as resonable as those who use "REPUGS"
>>
>>
>
> And yet, sadly, it seems that the mainstream of each party is just about
> as loathsome as you would be led to believe by the propaganda of the other
> side. A self-fulfilling prophecy or just good old fashioned irony? You
> decide.
>
> Overall, while I consider myself more conservative than liberal, I have to
> say that *in today's political climate* the Democratic party seems to be
> slightly less evil and malevolent than the Republicans - but that's not
> saying a whole hell of a lot.
>

How so? It was a 5-4 split decision. with the traditionally more liberal
members of the high court that voted for the big guy in this case. The
conservative members sided with the "little guy" on this one.

Sure they can...the government could lease the land to them.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> This ruling is crazy! I had no idea about the details until now...
> I think they should enact a law saying any property taken for any use
> must stay owned by the govt for at least 10 years. That way shady
> people can't get cheap land from the govt very fast at least.
>

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> news:1119825039.913e4ae6642458500894e598efb85095@t eranews...
>
>>Bernard Farquart wrote:
>>
>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>>>news >>>
>>>
>>>>The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
>>>>will know which party is better, or less evil. The ones who can't see
>>>>that are not going to listen to reason. Those who can see that won't
>>>>change their minds easily, because they have seen the facts.
>>>>Interestingly enough, those people who can see, make up a decent
>>>>portion of both parties.
>>>
>>>
>>>It is possible for two people to come to different
>>>conclusions using the same facts.
>>>I just feel that posters who use "democRATS" are
>>>about as resonable as those who use "REPUGS"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And yet, sadly, it seems that the mainstream of each party is just about
>>as loathsome as you would be led to believe by the propaganda of the other
>>side. A self-fulfilling prophecy or just good old fashioned irony? You
>>decide.
>>
>>Overall, while I consider myself more conservative than liberal, I have to
>>say that *in today's political climate* the Democratic party seems to be
>>slightly less evil and malevolent than the Republicans - but that's not
>>saying a whole hell of a lot.
>>
>
>
> How so? It was a 5-4 split decision. with the traditionally more liberal
> members of the high court that voted for the big guy in this case. The
> conservative members sided with the "little guy" on this one.
>

I meant overall that was my impression, not merely based on this one
case. In terms of this one case... well, I'm just disgusted. And of
course I don't think the "little guy" considers this near enough of a
big deal. There ought to be rioting in the streets over this one.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >, DTJ wrote:

> The fact is that anyone who wants to look at the situation objectively
> will know which party is better, or less evil. The ones who can't see
> that are not going to listen to reason. Those who can see that won't
> change their minds easily, because they have seen the facts.
> Interestingly enough, those people who can see, make up a decent
> portion of both parties.

When I see those in office, I see one party that argues between
factions about how they intend to achieve their goals and fight about
who should be in charge of it. I don't see any effective difference in
the end result, just who is in control of it.