| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Do you agree with the US Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. New London |
| Yes, it is acceptable for government to give one person's property to another person. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No, a government's taking of property from one person to give to another person ought to be illegal. |
|
100% |
[ 11 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 11 |
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
My argument for electing judges is not based on how they rule politically, but how they adhere to law and the Constitution, and this being the basis for a challenger to keep them on track or replace them. I would like a "more constitutional then thou" type of candidacy every 5 years, and it would be the only way these people could be held accountable for what they do. Who would be a stronger candidate, "I follow the Constitution" or "I make Law from the Bench"?
Right now, they arent accountable for anything they do in any way, they rule with impunity and nothing can theoretically ever happen to them unless they are impeached for a criminal offense of some sort. Besides that, theyre lifers. If the justices that ruled in this preposterous case were all thrown off the bench next election cycle because of opponents who ran heavy against them on that basis, and how their opponent trashed the Constitution, I think it would have the next justices taking a closer look at their pocket Constitutions. There has to be some method for dealing with this Darrius, anyone can sit here and point out the potential political flaws in such a method, but whats the alternative?
Nothing? Sorry, Id rather take the chance.
And along those same lines, the congressional veto if you will, of Supreme Court rulings jeopardizing the "minority" seems to me, to take on that same characteristic of no solution being the only solution because "what might happen". Minority this, and minority that, what about the Majority? Time and time again, it seems now that the majority are the ones being ignored here, and all anyone cares about is the minority. Maybe minority opinion will get the shaft sometimes, its called winning, influencing people to your side. And couldnt they theoretically filibuster til the cows come home anyway? And all were doing is overturning outrageous verdicts with a majority, and sending it back to the courts to sit there for another year til it's heard again, and possibly decided by new justices. Take the scenario again, this time Congress fires out a super-majority vote that overturns this verdict. This would cause the elected representatives in Congress that have sworn to uphold the Constitution to put up or shut up, and it would also be a consequence for these justices to be slapped down and denied their attempt at this farce. In fact, knowing that, they might not even attempt it at all, further immunizing us from their tyranny. You want accountability, I see a whole lot of govt officials being held accountable there.
The people need some sort of input in all this, otherwise all our voting is for naught if some judge can come along and nullify anything and everything we vote on, or toss our founding documents by the wayside. I dont believe in sitting around gazing at our navels complaining about it while our Republic is at stake, because this splinter opinion or that splinter opinion might get burned.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:06 pm |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
Oh my god, Val! That's AWESOME! I can only hope to god that the hotel is allowed but I fear that the rich will uphold the rich and dismiss the idea.
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:17 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
What about the majority?
That's a joke, right. The majority doesn't need taking care of. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves. It always the majority that is looking to infringe on the rights of others and has to be pulled into check by political action. 'Not winning' is different from losing. The minority often loses, the worst the majority can suffer is 'not winning'. It's called being born in a place where most of the people are like you.
Your opinion of how the judges adhere to law and Constitution is a political opinion. Justices do rule with impunity and that's not an accident. Careful consideration from lots of people smarter than you or I went into that decision. If justices had to consider how the public would 'like' their opinion it would compromise their decisions and allow the government to trample the rights of the people even faster. We can't afford to have judges who lie like congressmen.
Allowing congress to reverse rulings they don't like would effectively remove any check and balance on Congress. They could pass laws against the Constitution, suspend elections, etc. because there would be no one to appeal to; they would have the final decision.
As for alternatives, suppose you had elections and a simple one-term limit. You campaign to all the people based on your merits; then you serve for 10, 15, or 20 years and you're done. That would turn the bench over quicker, and make the public less vunerable to one or two insane judges. It would also let the average person know what kind of philisophies the justice has before he becomes a justice.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:48 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
If you want to feel better by saying "didnt win" instead of "lost", thats fine, but it doesnt somehow change what happens when you lose. Winning the majority comes about by persuading others to join your cause, in one way or another. If it was solely some factor as region of birth or skin color as you seem to think, we wouldnt have 2 parties battling over a country that changes reins of power back and forth all the time. It just seems that when Democrats lose and are in the minority, suddenly the minority is a sacred arbiter of all things, a necessary check and balancing force for truth and justice. When Republicans lose, the minority party can go take a walk, they lost, after all 
"Careful consideration by lots of people smarter than you or I" set up a representative republic, not a judicial fiefdom. What is this thread itself about?
As far as removing that Court vs Congress "check", Congress can amend the Constitution itself independent of the Supreme Court as it is, changing the game itself. The Constitution also gives the Legislative branch the authority to determine the scope of the Judiciary's jurisdiction as well. And in all actuality, Congress can already overturn Supreme Court rulings as it is, but it's difficult as amending the Constitution itself. Congress's ultimate "check" is us, and it always has been.
I'd like to see it a little more streamlined, but regulated. Noone wants to give Congress unchecked power. Im not saying make it just some blanket "anything goes" type of situation, you know, if that was the case every single verdict fresh outta the court would be argued in Congress. Limit what Congress could redress. But in circumstances of fundamental Constitutional issues such as private property and political speech, I would like to see the power back in the hands of the people, or the closest things, their elected representatives. That "checks and balances" is not only to ensure that one branch of government doesnt become supreme, but that the people would always ultimately be in charge of their government, and not the other way around. It just seems that more and more this is being reversed, and it's court decisions such as this that point that out quite starkly.
In any case, Im glad we can agree on electing the yahoos and term limits. That is the option I could most see actually happening ='.'=
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:51 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
What gets me is I've always been against eminent domain. If I own property I dont give a damn about public benefit. When ever I bring this up to anyone, conservative, liberal, dem, rep, all slowly explain the benefits of highways, and fancy this and that.
And then the SC makes a ruling that is blatantly correct. The public of the town and whole county benefit from this through higher employment rates, increased population, and higher tax revenue. No ifs and or buts, the public benefits. The many will be rewarded as the 15 people get shafted. The SC ruled the right way.
Where was everyone when this was happening in cities and towns all around you? No one said a goddamn thing. Now that a corp will come and actually benefit a community everyone's panties are in a bunch.
All highways do is increase congestion, waste gas, and allow people to live a lot farther from their work than would otherwise be economically viable. The big dig really helped out Boston, huh? No, it does nothing but allow for more traffic, casuing more congestion, and wasting more gas, and letting people move farther and farther away from where they should live (or work farther away than where they should work).
That being said, if someone offered me enough mmoney their isnt a house in the world I wouldnt sell, but if anyone told me I had to move, because the State has a right to take my house for the betterment of the State I would use my right to bear arms to protect my property that I own.
Eminent domain should have never been allowed in any case, at any time. But if a highway is a good enough reason to do it, why isn't a business that produces real economic profit for the citizenry?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:07 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
p.s. The pole upstop is wrong. The gov isn't giving it to another person, they are giving it to publicly traded companies that will benefit the people.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:13 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
The Constitution allows the government to take your property with ample compensation if they're going to build a road or a park or something. But it does not allow one group of private citizens to take your private property for another group of private citizens, let alone based on the assumption (and that's what it is) that the government can profit with a higher tax base. Thereby of course "helping us all". Yeah, when govt gets more pocket change we all benefit, weve seen that happen right? And like I said, this is based on an assumption that if A + B happens, we will get this result of a huge tax boom, which will in turn be given back to the people in one form or another. Increased revenue, increased jobs, increased this and that and the other thing which are all assumed. Meanwhile, the house and land that has been in my family for generations is gone, whether this actually pans out or not.
Something stinks when one group of people can go to the government and have somebody else's property taken from them, for themselves. I dont care how you finesse it, that just stinks. It's not the government taking it, it's a private corporation, and the government's only interest is increased tax revenue.
It's not the dramatic "family home to a corporation" scenario of this that needs to be looked at, for one, it sets a dangerous precedent for anyone who owns private land. And it's the principle of it as well, one of this nations cornerstones has always been private property rights of it's citizens, and the respect thereof.
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:52 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
You skip over the long traditional use of eminent domain, which your argument would seem to go against. "And it's the principle of it as well, one of this nations cornerstones has always been private property rights of it's citizens, and the respect thereof."
Is forcing someone out of their home for a highway, park, or other nonsense justifiable? I dont think so. So either eminent domain needs to go totally away, or we at least realize that the SC ruled correctly in accourdance with the only way you could interperate public benefit.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:09 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by Korplem
Oh my god, Val! That's AWESOME! I can only hope to god that the hotel is allowed but I fear that the rich will uphold the rich and dismiss the idea.
One can only hope they get their just desserts.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:36 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I'm not talking protecting minority parties. Those aren't real minorities. People change political parties all the time. I'm talking about people in real minority positions, i.e, Blacks, Gays, Muslims, etc, people who are in weaker political positions simply because of the circumstances they were born to. They can lose. People in majority postions at worst "don't win."
When the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were not people but rather were property. Those slaves lost everything.
When the Supreme Court forced integration, the majority didn't lose anything, they simply didn't win.
When the Supreme Court ruled that you couldn't post the ten commandments inside the the courtroom, the majority didn't lose any thing, they simply didn't win.
We are talking about basic rights here. The job of the Supreme Court is to protect the rights of the people even when those rights are politically unpopular. The majority is almost always in the position of seeking to limit the rights of others. The majority has almost never been in danger of losing their own rights, until now.
I never said that Dems or Repubs are arbiters of all things. They both do everything in their power to get their way and to obstruct the other. That isn't new. But it also isn't something I wanted to bring up because I consider it irrelevant what party you like when the government is taking your property. But the simple fact that Sam began accusing and complaining about Democrats in this topic is an example of why I don't want Congress overruling the court.
We are talking about the government taking people property to give to someone else. Somehow the current partisan struggle comes into discussion. Partisan politics should not be in the discussion when people are deciding our basic rights. If congress could overrule the Supreme Court every unpopular becomes another pawn in the partisan games.
Congress can't change the Constitution without the approval of 3/4's of the states. Exactly how can Congress overrule the Supreme Court as it is now?
quote:
By Roqua
So either eminent domain needs to go totally away, or we at least realize that the SC ruled correctly in accourdance with the only way you could interperate public benefit.
The Constitution doesn't say public "benefit", it says public "use." The Supreme Court said public benefit, which is a philisophy they made up somewhere along the way. That's why we're P'O'ed at them because they used a made up concept to allow the rights of the people to be taken away.
If we are to apply the public benefit standard then anyone can simply promise the government a cash payment for specified land. If I want your house, I go to your city government and say, "If you sell me this house, I will create 10 jobs for butlers, maids, etc., and I will donate 10 million dollars to the city." That would satisfy their public benefit standard. Lunacy!!!
However, some eminent domain is necessary. Every so often their comes one piece of land that the public just can not do with using. Land ownership is an abstract that only exists because the masses use their combined might to enforce it. Think about the person who sold you your house, who gave them the right to sell it? Does God like that person so much that he gave the ground to that person alone and gave the next man nothing. He owned that property because the strength of the masses said he did. Why should one man be allowed to use the power of the masses against the masses?
But this ruling is not the masses taking land because they must. This is about the government robbing the masses, one at a time.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:01 pm |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
@Darrius- I thought you were talking the minority parties in Congress. I think political affiliation is a factor in all this, ex-ACLU liberals such as Ruth Ginsberg are going to rule far differently then conservative Scalia, just look at their rulings. But still, the "doesnt lose" thing you present doesnt jive. "The Majority" lose all the time, whether it's a religious monument that has stood as a symbol of the countries religious heritage for 50 years, or a ban on a traditional organization or tradition that's just as old, or whether its our tax money being given away to illegal aliens. We lost when a judge throws our ballot initiatives which cost us time, money and effort, on everything from the aforementioned throwing money at illegal invaders, to preserving our traditions as theyve always been. We lost political speech (ads) 60 days before an election, something which the 1st Amendment was written to specifically protect. We lose when affirmative action gets upheld, and costs a lower class white janitor's son getting aced out for the son of a wealthy black individual, simply because of his race. I dont believe in "reverse-racism", discrimination and racism is what it is no matter whos doing it. This isnt just a one way street, where you can toss out the race card and it suddenly goes only one way. "Basic rights" are an issue of the past, this isnt the 1950s anymore, minorities arent so minor anymore.
We are losing quite a bit, theres people in this country whose sole purpose is to completely destroy any heritage we have, religious or otherwise, and theyre doing a great job at it thru the courts. Every day our culture and heritage is under a relentless assault by lawyers and judges (ill let you guess the political affiliations), and were losing more and more of it as time goes on because of it. You may not think that's a great "loss" to us lucky majority types who supposedly get everything we want handed to us on a silver platter and can never truly lose, but I, and anyone else in the who cares about it sure do consider it a loss. Can we even still call it Christmas anymore? Can the Boy Scouts still meet on public land? Is the Pledge still allowed? Can we even walk off the designated trails at our national parks anymore? Give them time and they'll get around to banning even that. Were losing plenty, just that were all a bunch of frogs in a pot of boiling water, and until stuff like this comes down the pike, we dont realize were being cooked.
In my comment about Congress being already able to reverse the All Supremes, it was sort of a redundant statement in that I meant they have the ability to do it, but it means it comes down to amending the Constitution itself. It was a sentence I forgot to delete when I re-typed it in the beginning of the paragraph, which was one long one before I split it into two. i was tired! = ]
@Roqua - Although I dont approve of eminent domain, I accept that it can be necessary at times, and Constitutional. I make alot of my posts on the sly at work, so I might not get all I can or should in some of them or the editing might be kinda rough. Emminent domain not something that I like, but roads and what have you are a necessary thing, no matter how ugly or tragic they may be. But we're talking two diff issues here, land development for public use by the government, and them deciding that one citizen's use of his own property would be best utilized by another citizen for "the better of all", basically. I hate to beat it to death, and Ive said just about all I'm gonna say on this one, but theres a difference between a govt developer seeing his road running thru peoples front yard and having the state buy out the property, and someone walking into city hall with a bag of money and pointing around town to different people's land he wants and it being given to him. Yikes!
@Val- If something's too good to be true, it probably is ='.'=
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain
Last edited by xSamhainx on Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:20 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:14 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
The way it has been historically interpreted was public use that provided a benefit. If you read the original writing a definite benefit motif is apparent. The rest is up to perspective. A man in need of employment, and gets that through phizer sees much more of a benefit in this than in a park. The people that live there, especially that old lady, I’m sure don’t care one iota if they are being forced out of their property for a highway, park, or business venture.
So again, we are back at square one, why is it okay for the State to take property for public benefit by way of highways and parks, but not for employment?
“However, some eminent domain is necessary. Every so often their comes one piece of land that the public just can not do with using. Land ownership is an abstract that only exists because the masses use their combined might to enforce it. Think about the person who sold you your house, who gave them the right to sell it? Does God like that person so much that he gave the ground to that person alone and gave the next man nothing. He owned that property because the strength of the masses said he did. Why should one man be allowed to use the power of the masses against the masses?”
So you are saying if one man holds land that can benefit the masses he should be forced to give it up? How much of a mass? A mass like a local population that wants new jobs, stimulated local economy, and higher tax revenue that everyone benefits from? Or a mass of people that need a new area to throw their Frisbees at their dogs?
I can’t think of one instance in which “Every so often their comes one piece of land that the public just can not do with using.” Please elaborate with examples and why this piece of land was so necessary that the government needed to force people off of it?
“But this ruling is not the masses taking land because they must. This is about the government robbing the masses, one at a time.”
The government robs the masses every time the individuals in the masses get paid or buy something. And again, the masses never must take land. Give an example of this please. And I really can’t see the difference in the gov taking land for a park, highway, or the far more beneficial business, besides the business is far more beneficial.
This is our argument boiled down. I’m saying down with eminent domain. You are saying down with eminent domain you don’t agree with, but not the other instances of the government “robbing” (which is a hard sell since they get paid for it in all cases, but I agree if you force a person off their land for any reason it is robbing them of their right to private property and to tell the gov to shove it up their ass) people in which you do agree.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:16 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
The "Race Card"...?
Is that your way of dismissing the realities of racial and social discrimination in the US? You say simply say, "that's the race card" and suddenly Black people don't make 70% of what white people make at the same gender, and level of education. You can simply say, "you can't just toss out the race card" and suddenly the unemployment rate for minorities doesn't rise faster and fall slower than that of whites. This is already somewhate off-topic so I won't analyze but only mention, conviction rates, execution rates, health care levels at the same income level, and congressional representation, all of which work against minorities. Not erecting a religious monument inside a courthouse is not a loss. How would you like to be a Arab accused of a crime while there is a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in the courtroom across from the jury box? What you are calling "losing" is only a slight relaxing of discrimination in favor of the majority. The fact is, its already going one way. But it's going against minorities?
This is about basic rights, this is about the right to own and keep your property, against an unintended misuse of eminent domain. That is a very basic right.
But still, there are many people out there taking positions that are completely hair-brained and just plain stupid. In some instance these people have gone further than accertaining their right to their own opinion and have begun encroaching on the rights of others.
Roqua,
I will be as hyperbolic as possible to illustrate the need for the concept.
Suppose no one in the world wanted to farm and all the land in the world was owned by someone. We would be forced to acquire some land in order to farm so that we could grow food.
A small city with no hospital is across the river from a large city with a hospital, but there is no bridge and all the costal land is owned. For the sake a saving many lives the city would be virtually forced to take a piece of land on the river for the sake of building a bridge to get to the hospital.
The public is not using the land in this case another private owner will be using it.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Thu Jun 30, 2005 5:32 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
The "Race Card"...?
Is that your way of dismissing the realities of racial and social discrimination in the US? You say simply say, "that's the race card" and suddenly Black people don't make 70% of what white people make at the same gender, and level of education. You can simply say, "you can't just toss out the race card" and suddenly the unemployment rate for minorities doesn't rise faster and fall slower than that of whites. This is already somewhate off-topic so I won't analyze but only mention, conviction rates, execution rates, health care levels at the same income level, and congressional representation, all of which work against minorities. Not erecting a religious monument inside a courthouse is not a loss. How would you like to be a Arab accused of a crime while there is a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in the courtroom across from the jury box? What you are calling "losing" is only a slight relaxing of discrimination in favor of the majority. The fact is, its already going one way. But it's going against minorities?
This is about basic rights, this is about the right to own and keep your property, against an unintended misuse of eminent domain. That is a very basic right.
But still, there are many people out there taking positions that are completely hair-brained and just plain stupid. In some instance these people have gone further than accertaining their right to their own opinion and have begun encroaching on the rights of others.
Roqua,
I will be as hyperbolic as possible to illustrate the need for the concept.
Suppose no one in the world wanted to farm and all the land in the world was owned by someone. We would be forced to acquire some land in order to farm so that we could grow food.
A small city with no hospital is across the river from a large city with a hospital, but there is no bridge and all the costal land is owned. For the sake a saving many lives the city would be virtually forced to take a piece of land on the river for the sake of building a bridge to get to the hospital.
The public is not using the land in this case another private owner will be using it.
"How would you like to be a Arab accused of a crime while there is a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in the courtroom across from the jury box?" Well, if the Arab was Christian, Jewish, or somewhat tolerant I'm sure he wouldn't care. I like how you talk about racial injustice but throw in a racial sterotype. How would you like to be a black man accused of a crime while the clerk distracted you by eating fried chicken.
I'm part black, I grew up in a pretty bad ghetto (Brockton, MA), I'm the son of poor, uneducated immigrants, and I disagree with almost every point you made. Tolerance means being accepting and open-minded, not being filled with rage and masking the real problems with one sided discourse and vengeance masked as equality. Its funny that racism is the only problem I can think of that would go away if everyone ignored it.
As to this, "Suppose no one in the world wanted to farm and all the land in the world was owned by someone. We would be forced to acquire some land in order to farm so that we could grow food."
Huh? If no one wanted to farm how would you grow food? Force someone to give up his land and then force more people to farm? Wouldn't the guy that owned all the land also want food? And doesn't this totally go against any type of reality or plausibility making this not hyberbolic?
"A small city with no hospital is across the river from a large city with a hospital, but there is no bridge and all the costal land is owned. For the sake a saving many lives the city would be virtually forced to take a piece of land on the river for the sake of building a bridge to get to the hospital."
This also goes against any type of reality. In no situation would a small town near a large city not have multiple routes to that city. And how would forcing someone out of their home be a better situation than negotiation? Shouldn't you treat all parties with dignity, respect, and prove that citizens in a somewhat free domocratic country have autonomy? If asked nicely, with some respect, and given a decent offer someone would move. This counters the need to force people out of their house and seems a whole lot more civil to me.
If your hyperbolic examples are so easily shot down, just think how easily any real life exaples would be. Besides the fact kicking a couple of crackers out of their beach front property to open a job creating, tax revenue generating business could help elieviate all those racial injusticies that you talked about.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:15 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:35 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
