Why Eminent Domain is bullshit

It's the 17th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

Post Reply
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Why Eminent Domain is bullshit

Post by Risa »

yeah, i know, it's the moonie paper (washington times) but still.... somebody has to report on this. and how horrible if it's true.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... 5584/posts

this is seriously fucked up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -2136r.htm

Florida city considers eminent domain
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 3, 2005


Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.
"Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections," Mr. Brown said. "But if we don't use this power, cities will die."
Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.
"This is a very [racially] mixed area that's also very stable," she said. "But no one seems to care ... Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there's got to be another way."
In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.
Dana Berliner, senior lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case, said "pie in the sky" expectations like those expressed by Mr. Brown are routine in all these cases.
"They always think economic redevelopment will bring more joy than what is there now," she said. "Once someone can be replaced so something more expensive can go where they were, every home and business in the country is subject to taking by someone else."
Last week, the Riviera Beach City Council tapped the New Jersey-based Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC to oversee the mammoth 400-acre redevelopment project.
"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.


Viking spokesman Peter Frederiksen said the plan "is to create a working waterfront," adding that the project could take 15 years and that "we would only use condemnation as a last resort."
Viking has said it will pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys.
Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach wants to highlight its waterfront.
"We have the best beach and the most attractive redevelopment property anywhere in the United States," he said.
Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "And we want to develop a charter school for development of marine trades."
Mr. Brown and others said this could be one of the biggest eminent-domain actions ever. A report in the Palm Beach Post said it is the biggest since 1954, when 5,000 residents of Washington were displaced for eventual development of the Southwest D.C. waterfront, L'Enfant Plaza, and the less-than-successful Waterside Mall.
The fact that Riviera Beach is so financially downtrodden may seem ironic because as Mr. Brown notes "it sits right across the inlet from Palm Beach," one of the nation's wealthiest areas.
"Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.
Instead of helping people get out of poverty, it's about evicting people so that the rich can have more private property to play around with.

where will all these people go?

how will evicting them from their homes benefit anyone except for the PRIVATE developers who have developed a taste for PRIVATE land that doesn't belong to them?
on a short leash, apparently.
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

I doubt they will. Money talks.
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Bizzarofelice
I wanna be a bear
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by Bizzarofelice »

Eminent domain benefits big corporations and destroys small businesses.

Eminent domain sucks.
why is my neighborhood on fire
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

mvscal wrote:You can thank the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for establishing the precedent.

Hopefully the Roberts court will be able to take a crack at this blatantly unconstitutional usurpation.
You guys keep acting as if this is something new. The precedent was already there years ago. The SCOTUS just removed the last thin layer of respectability from the process.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Instead of helping people get out of poverty...
By doing what, cutting them a check? Why don't they help themselves out of poverty? With few exceptions, those who live in poverty in this country do so because of continuous past or present poor life choices.
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

Variable wrote:
Instead of helping people get out of poverty...
With few exceptions, those who live in poverty in this country do so because of continuous past or present poor life choices.
I don't buy that.

Look the bottom line is, in this country, you have the RIGHT to move between economic class. You don't have RIGHTS to having people help you do that.

But it takes money to make money and even the richest among us get a hand up now and again.
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

mvscal wrote:What a load of horseshit, Tom.

If you can't make a decent living in this country, you fucking suck. Straight up. It just isn't that hard.
I didn't contest that fact at all.

All I said is that I'm not sold that the vast majority of the poor are poor because of poor life choices and the like. I know those exist, but I also know many exist who have:

1. The ability to move from poverty. Some guys the best they can do is deliver pizza.

2. The resources. Some people don't have the resources, while they have the ability, they do not have the resources.

3. Just plain old got screwed. Really, laid off at the age of 50, 2 or three years from retirement ? Oh and the Gubmint, absolves the corporation from having to PAY the full retirement the man put away for .... for 30 years.

So my only point is that you can't generalize and look at the poor and say "It's all their fault". Because reality gets in the way. Some, it's their fault, others, it's not.
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
User avatar
Bizzarofelice
I wanna be a bear
Posts: 10216
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Post by Bizzarofelice »

Variable wrote:With few exceptions, those who live in poverty in this country do so because of continuous past or present poor life choices.
Sadly true. Cognitive therapists for the poor!!!
why is my neighborhood on fire
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

Tom In VA wrote:
mvscal wrote:What a load of horseshit, Tom.

If you can't make a decent living in this country, you fucking suck. Straight up. It just isn't that hard.
I didn't contest that fact at all.

All I said is that I'm not sold that the vast majority of the poor are poor because of poor life choices and the like. I know those exist, but I also know many exist who have:

1. The ability to move from poverty. Some guys the best they can do is deliver pizza.

2. The resources. Some people don't have the resources, while they have the ability, they do not have the resources.

3. Just plain old got screwed. Really, laid off at the age of 50, 2 or three years from retirement ? Oh and the Gubmint, absolves the corporation from having to PAY the full retirement the man put away for .... for 30 years.

So my only point is that you can't generalize and look at the poor and say "It's all their fault". Because reality gets in the way. Some, it's their fault, others, it's not.
Let's take the pizza driver as an example. There are plenty of ways to move up from there. You could parlay that into work as a delivery driver for UPS. Those guys make a decent wage. You could also get a second job, save up some $$, go to a tech school like DeVry or whatever and pick up a job skill. Most of those types of schools have financial aid for the poor where the government picks up some or most of the tab.

You're thinking of people with bad fortune as the norm, and it's complete bullshit. Most of the people who are poor are those who placed zero emphasis on education, getting D's and F's all through school and in many cases not bothering to graduate. Or they got knocked up (or knocked someone up) at age 15, so they had to drop out of school and get an unskilled job. Even still, if they applied themselves and tried to improve and pick up a new skill here or there, they STILL had a decent chance to succeed if they went back and got their diploma. Bottom line: If you are poor and working a minimum wage job in your 30's or later, it's your own damn fault. Unless you're just stupid and incabable of something as simple as alpha-numeric filing, there is zero excuse for not having a marketable skill that late in life.
User avatar
See You Next Wednesday
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:34 pm

Post by See You Next Wednesday »

Shockingly, I agree with mvscal.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
User avatar
Tom In VA
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:04 am
Location: In Va. near D.C.

Post by Tom In VA »

Variable wrote:
You're thinking of people with bad fortune as the norm
No I'm stating that not all people without fortune, lack said fortune, because of their own unfortunate choices and decisions.

Fortunately for you, me, and others were blessed with a work ethic and and a willingness to sacrifice certain things to learn a skill or a trade that would pay off in the future, putting us in a lower to upper middle class income level or better. But we also had access, time, and abilities we had nothing to do with having. Sure, we might have developed our talents, but for every person with a talent developed there are countless others that failed .. and not for lack of trying.

Not to mention, cultural influences and the misguidance it breeds. But heaven forbid we say it has an effect.

So, no, I don't quickly disregard the people that choose drugs, "easy money" schemes, and other lifestyle choices that ensure a lifecycle of poverty. I'm just equally not as ready to disregard those who have literally been screwed. Either by genetics, cultural norms, or out and out scandal perpertrated on them by corporations and such.

Corporations, aren't "BAD", but sometimes they do "BAD" things. Not always for the benefit of the many.
With all the horseshit around here, you'd think there'd be a pony somewhere.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

Tom In VA wrote:But it takes money to make money and even the richest among us get a hand up now and again.
maybe the biggest problem is that people honestly want to believe they did it all by themselves, instead of acknowledging just how much help and hand ups they received on the way up.

single mom with 4 kids who has to pay her own way is going to be in a lot worse shape than single mom with 4 kids who doesn't have to pay out expenses for child care because she has family to look after her children for free, and/or who doesn't have to pay out a car note and insurance because family gave her a car and is taking care of her insurance, and/or who doesn't have to worry about making sure the rent and utilities are paid because she has family who is allowing her to live rent free at home or in a bought home........ nevermind if single mom A doesn't have access to the scholarships and programs single mom B has.

Access to child care makes a HUGE difference.

How much money one has to put out for basic shelter and transportation makes a HUGE difference in how much someone can save.

Going it alone is always going to be harder than having a hand up, even if you consider that hand up just your right and not a privilege in the first place.

Is single mom A inherently a loser because she doesn't have access to what single mom B has?

Reality gets in the way of those who have it easiest and who refuse to acknowledge why their idea of 'hardship' is easy street compared to their neighbors idea of hardship.
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa wrote:single mom with 4 kids who has to pay her own way is going to be in a lot worse shape than single mom with 4 kids who doesn't have to pay out expenses for child care because she has family to look after her children for free, and/or who doesn't have to pay out a car note and insurance because family gave her a car and is taking care of her insurance, and/or who doesn't have to worry about making sure the rent and utilities are paid because she has family who is allowing her to live rent free at home or in a bought home........ nevermind if single mom A doesn't have access to the scholarships and programs single mom B has.

Is single mom A inherently a loser because she doesn't have access to what single mom B has?
Single mom A should have considered these things before getting pregnant. Seems pretty simple to me. Pregnancy is not an accident.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

mvscal wrote:You can thank the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for establishing the precedent.
how so?

if you're talking about moving people out of their homes in order to build a dam or a highway, there's hella difference between that -- which is a PUBLIC work, for the benefit of the PUBLIC -- and what the article above is suggesting, which is gobbling up private property to be redistributed to other private persons with no accountability to the public except some pie in the sky trickle down riches bullshit.

Eminent domain as it stands now isn't about the public welfare, but about the welfare of the few on the backs of the many. THAT has nothing to do with liberals or the democrats. This was done under Bush's watch, under a Republican majority in both the house and the senate. This gets to be a Republican baby. Which is as it should be, considering how this administration just loves them some corporate interests over public interests.
on a short leash, apparently.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote:
Risa wrote:single mom with 4 kids who has to pay her own way is going to be in a lot worse shape than single mom with 4 kids who doesn't have to pay out expenses for child care because she has family to look after her children for free, and/or who doesn't have to pay out a car note and insurance because family gave her a car and is taking care of her insurance, and/or who doesn't have to worry about making sure the rent and utilities are paid because she has family who is allowing her to live rent free at home or in a bought home........ nevermind if single mom A doesn't have access to the scholarships and programs single mom B has.

Is single mom A inherently a loser because she doesn't have access to what single mom B has?
Single mom A should have considered these things before getting pregnant. Seems pretty simple to me. Pregnancy is not an accident.
Pregnancy is the natural state of womanhood.

Maybe that's hard for you, as a male, to understand, but women were meant to become pregnant. Sometimes, things happen.

You can either kill the kid -- you know, ensure that abortion remains legal, and that access to birth control is plentiful and easy -- or you can ensure that moms are given assistance to help raise the child they now have.

Things happen. Just like people get into auto accidents and end up losing limbs, or get into industrial accidents and end up losing the same. Telling them 'well, you shouldn't have driven' or 'well, you should have found a new job' doesn't cut it.

Be understanding when those things do happen. Realize that the difference between person A and person B may have zero to do with drive and everything to do with ease of access.

Person A shouldn't get lauds and kudos just because they were born on 3rd base. Person B shouldn't be damned and spat upon because they were born with 2 strikes and 3 fouls or whatever.
Last edited by Risa on Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa wrote:
mvscal wrote:You can thank the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for establishing the precedent.
how so?

if you're talking about moving people out of their homes in order to build a dam or a highway, there's hella difference between that -- which is a PUBLIC work, for the benefit of the PUBLIC -- and what the article above is suggesting, which is gobbling up private property to be redistributed to other private persons with no accountability to the public except some pie in the sky trickle down riches bullshit.

Eminent domain as it stands now isn't about the public welfare, but about the welfare of the few on the backs of the many. THAT has nothing to do with liberals or the democrats. This was done under Bush's watch, under a Republican majority in both the house and the senate. This gets to be a Republican baby. Which is as it should be, considering how this administration just loves them some corporate interests over public interests.
This gets to be a Republican baby because a Republican is President and the Republicans control Congress? Hmmmm, you're forgetting the third branch, dumbshit, the branch that actually made the determination.

And are you seriously arguing that Republicans are somehow worse than Democrats when it comes to accepting campaign contributions and passing elgislation that benefits corporations? Seriously?

Of course you are. You are a know-nothing liberal sheep, Risa.

BTW - you should be happy with Kelo for while it permits the taking of private property it expands the purpose from merely serving a public purpose to filling government coffers with new property tax revenues that would be wasted on even more government services that people like you roundly applaud.
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29339
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Post by BSmack »

DrDetroit wrote:This gets to be a Republican baby because a Republican is President and the Republicans control Congress? Hmmmm, you're forgetting the third branch, dumbshit, the branch that actually made the determination.
That branch would also be dominated by Republican appointees.

Just sayin...
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa wrote:Pregnancy is the natural state of womanhood.
Wrong.
Maybe that's hard for you, as a male, to understand, but women were meant to become pregnant. Sometimes, things happen.


Pregnancy just doesn't happen. It's either planned or unplanned. It just doesn't happen. If it's unplanned it is because the two people failed to abstain, failed to use protection, or failed to take other action which would reduce the likelihood of pregnancy. It's a choice.
You can either kill the kid -- you know, ensure that abortion remains legal, and that access to birth control is plentiful and easy -- or you can ensure that moms are given assistance to help raise the child they now have.
I'm on the preventative side. Just don't get pregnant. It ain't that hard.
Things happen. Just like people get into auto accidents and end up losing limbs, or get into industrial accidents and end up losing the same. Telling them 'well, you shouldn't have driven' or 'well, you should have found a new job' doesn't cut it.


Again, you are wrong. Pregnancy requires two people to consensually do something (except in cases of rape or where consent is not given and a crime is committed). It just doesn't happen.
Be understanding when those things do happen. Realize that the difference between person A and person B may have zero to do with drive and everything to do with ease of access.


Nonsense. Just don't get pregnant.
Person A shouldn't get lauds and kudos just because they were born on 3rd base. Person B shouldn't be damned and spat upon because they were born with 2 strikes and 3 balls.
You have a fucked up worldview, Risa and you argue nonsensical points. Who is damning and spitting on person B? Acknowledging that Person B made a poor choice is not condemining that person nor abandoning that person.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

baaaaaaaaaaah, baby.

i ain't the one who swallowed that contract on america whole, and put faith in an oligarchist actually seeing to my best interests on the supreme court.

how's it feel to be the 'women and minorities' of the republican party?

look, i'm no scholar. but i was PISSED when i found out about that supreme court ruling earlier this year. i could see all kinds of evil applications of such a precedent. it worried the hell out of me that the supreme court would put statistics (basically, that it all evens out in the end) over people. it was just one more 'fuck you' to the average citizen. but what could I do?
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:This gets to be a Republican baby because a Republican is President and the Republicans control Congress? Hmmmm, you're forgetting the third branch, dumbshit, the branch that actually made the determination.
That branch would also be dominated by Republican appointees.

Just sayin...
How does that make it a Republican court? Are you one of these idiots that attempts to classify judges as Republican and Democrat?

And it is hardly "dominated" by Republican appointees. Souter and Kennedy frequently vote contrary to the policy preferences of the President that appointed them. They cannot be properly classifed as Republican or conservative.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa wrote:baaaaaaaaaaah, baby.

i ain't the one who swallowed that contract on america whole, and put faith in an oligarchist actually seeing to my best interests on the supreme court.
Again, you simply do not make sense.
how's it feel to be the 'women and minorities' of the republican party?
:?
look, i'm no scholar. but i was PISSED when i found out about that supreme court ruling earlier this year.


I'm not sure why as I know for a fact that you neither understood it nor had you read it.
i could see all kinds of evil applications of such a precedent.


You see shit that doesn't exist simply to argue your nonsense.
it worried the hell out of me that the supreme court would put statistics (basically, that it all evens out in the end) over people. it was just one more 'fuck you' to the average citizen. but what could I do?
It didn't worry you. It worried someone else and you then adopted their position.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote:
Risa wrote:Pregnancy is the natural state of womanhood.
Wrong.
Stop. Back up.

I know you're not trying to say that pregnancy
is some sort of malignancy, like having cancer?

pregnancy is a beautiful thing. it's a natural thing.
if you're ready for it. it's what women are built for.
now, women can choose NOT to have a kid, but that
doesn't mean that women aren't built for having kids.

why turn something natural into something pathological?
on a short leash, apparently.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote:It didn't worry you. It worried someone else and you then adopted their position.
The little people getting screwed always worries me.

Remember, I'm black ;) so I've got the 'racial memories'
of what happened to black farmers, just to name one example.

I remember what happened to the native americans,
and why they're on reservations in the first place.

When the law is taking private property away from a people,
in order to serve private interests, I don't get images of a
democracy in my mind. I see the shit that went down with
monarchies... and maybe (believe it or not) communism in
the soviet union.
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

STFU, Risa.
I know you're not trying to say that pregnancy
is some sort of malignancy, like having cancer?


What possibly gave you this impression? Are you just that stupid?

I disagreed with your assertion that pregnancy is the natural state of womanhood.

So do not go off the deep end here, idiot.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:It didn't worry you. It worried someone else and you then adopted their position.
The little people getting screwed always worries me.
There is no suhc thing as the little people and the Constitution doesn't recognize enhanced rights of anyone that you would consider to be "little."
Remember, I'm black ;) so I've got the 'racial memories'
of what happened to black farmers, just to name one example.
No you don't. You have no idea what they endured. You've simply latched onto their plight in order to suckle off their tragedy and possible turn that into something that would benefit you and you alone.
I remember what happened to the native americans,
and why they're on reservations in the first place.
No you don't. Again, you were not there. You've adopted the position of others and attempted to pawn it off as your own.
When the law is taking private property away from a people,
in order to serve private interests, I don't get images of a
democracy in my mind. I see the shit that went down with
monarchies... and maybe (believe it or not) communism in
the soviet union.
STFU...again, you simply do not comprehend any of this.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote: There is no suhc thing as the little people
anybody who is negatively affected by eminent domain is going to disagree with you.

by the way, you are a little person if you disagree on first blush
with yesterday's supreme court nomination ;) you may not realize
it yet... or want to swallow.. but you are.
No you don't. You have no idea what they endured. You've simply latched onto their plight in order to suckle off their tragedy and possible turn that into something that would benefit you and you alone.
How exactly will I benefit from black farmers having had their land and livelihood torn away acre by acre by year from them because big corporate farms want all the pork and have all the power?

As for the native americans, the shitty conditions of the rez is real. and it's done that way, artificially, on purpose. why are they there? because somebody decided it would benefit a few people to move an entire people off desireable land.

those who were evicted from their own land were not justly compensated for that eviction. those who coveted that land could do whatever they wanted with the land ..... and none of that was to the prior owners benefit.

that's what i fear.


it's happened before. that's the bad part. it's happened before. i don't know how such a ruling can be stopped though. i don't know why it was allowed to be in the first place.
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa:
anybody who is negatively affected by eminent domain is going to disagree with you.
As you keep demonstrating...ignorance surrounds us.
by the way, you are a little person if you disagree on first blush
with yesterday's supreme court nomination you may not realize
it yet... or want to swallow.. but you are.
I'm hardly concerned about your characterization about anything.
How exactly will I benefit from black farmers having had their land and livelihood torn away acre by acre by year from them because big corporate farms want all the pork and have all the power?


Pathetic. You were not referring to black farms being consolidated by big farm conglomerates. You suggested that you have the "racial memories..." You were referring to slavery. And even if you were not, you still know nothing about black farmers than what someone else has told you or written about that you've adopted as your own thought.

And where were your precious Democrats to protect these black farms while they controlled the Congress for how many decades?
As for the native americans, the shitty conditions of the rez is real. and it's done that way, artificially, on purpose. why are they there? because somebody decided it would benefit a few people to move an entire people off desireable land.


Wrong. In any event, you still don't know anything about it beyond what you've adopted as your own thoughts.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

mvscal wrote:
Risa wrote:How exactly will I benefit from black farmers having had their land and livelihood torn away acre by acre by year from them because big corporate farms want all the pork and have all the power?
You benefit by paying less for food at the grocery store.
Isn't that like saying that the benefits of being dependent upon someone else outweighs the benefits of owning your own land, being your own man/woman, and owning your own business?

If H and R Block can provide tax preparation to all cheaper than the mom and pop cpas and bookkeepers, is that really a better benefit than having all those mom and pop cpas and bookkeepers in the first place?

If it's cheaper to rent, is it really in the long run?

Does a Walmart -- a wannabe monopoly -- really serve the greater good because one can get a couple pencils 12 cents cheaper there, if competition is wiped out in the process?

Paying 2 bucks for a carton of eggs instead of 39 cents can be absorbed if the benefit is that more people are financially independent and in control of their own destinies, if people are empowered. when more people are empowered, then all people are not beholden to whatever the monopolies decide to charge.


Or is that not how it works?
on a short leash, apparently.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote:Pathetic. You were not referring to black farms being consolidated by big farm conglomerates. You suggested that you have the "racial memories..." You were referring to slavery.
There's more to black history than slavery.

Blacks used to own their own land, Detroit.
Blacks used to be farmers, agriculturalists.
Those number has dwindled sickly -- and not
for want of people who were willing to do it.

Not all of it was because of klansmen, or
folks moving to urban areas.

When a people don't own their own land,
what real power does a people have?

Wrong. In any event, you still don't know anything about it beyond what you've adopted as your own thoughts.
;) reminds you of college, doesn't it?
on a short leash, apparently.
Variable
Untitled
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:11 am

Post by Variable »

single mom with 4 kids who has to pay her own way is going to be in a lot worse shape than single mom with 4 kids who doesn't have to pay out expenses for child care because she has family to look after her children for free, and/or who doesn't have to pay out a car note and insurance because family gave her a car and is taking care of her insurance, and/or who doesn't have to worry about making sure the rent and utilities are paid because she has family who is allowing her to live rent free at home or in a bought home........ nevermind if single mom A doesn't have access to the scholarships and programs single mom B has.
Single Mom A is a complete dumbass and, as previously stated, is in that position because of poor life choices...four poor life choices to be exact.

- Why would you have kids with men unable or unwilling to support them?

- Why would you then repeat this same mistake not twice, not three times, but four times? Talk about a textbook dumbass.

- If you knew you had no financial support structure or family support structure to aid with childcare or bills, why would you continue getting pregnant?

Your argument that pregnancy is beautiful and the natural state of womanhood is just some bullshit attempt on your part to legitimize mass breeding by people too stupid to use a condom. That mentality, that it's normal to spit out offspring like a cocker spaniel at a puppy farm is the biggest reason why the black community has so many kids running around with no fathers. Stop being part of the problem.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

Risa wrote:There's more to black history than slavery.
I didn't suggest otherwise.
Blacks used to own their own land, Detroit.
Blacks used to be farmers, agriculturalists.
Those number has dwindled sickly -- and not
for want of people who were willing to do it.
Just as whites also owned small farms and were ultimately bought out. So the fuck what?

Anyway, you were attempting to play the "I'm black, so I remember slavery" card in the first place.
When a people don't own their own land,
what real power does a people have?
STFU.
;) reminds you of college, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote:
Risa wrote:There's more to black history than slavery.
I didn't suggest otherwise.
to tell me that i was talking about slavery.. is to do just that.


you're cool. even if you are a republican.
with racial issues. you did live in detroit.
or thereabouts. i like you. so you usually
get a conditional pass.


and you're right on taking others thoughts and accepting
them as my own. cease fire?
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

to tell me that i was talking about slavery.. is to do just that.
Bullshit. You referred to slavery, dolt. Hence, I addressed it.

Nice backpedalling.
Risa
nubian napalm - numidian princess
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:07 pm

Post by Risa »

DrDetroit wrote:
to tell me that i was talking about slavery.. is to do just that.
Bullshit. You referred to slavery, dolt. Hence, I addressed it.

Nice backpedalling.
No, D. What I wrote was:

"Remember, I'm black so I've got the 'racial memories'
of what happened to black farmers, just to name one example."


you seem to assume that 'racial memory' only has to deal with slavery.
it doesn't.




honest mistake from a white boy?
on a short leash, apparently.
DrDetroit
I Punk Liberals all day
Posts: 6680
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:25 pm
Location: In ya Ma!

Post by DrDetroit »

^^^^ Gets it.
User avatar
Terry in Crapchester
2012 March Madness Champ
Posts: 8995
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:56 pm
Location: Back in the 'burbs

Post by Terry in Crapchester »

Eminent domain has a useful purpose, for road construction and similar matters designed to benefit the public good. However, the most recent Supreme Court decision carries the concept of eminent domain too far, imho.
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
User avatar
titlover
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:00 am

Post by titlover »

mvscal wrote:
Risa wrote:why are they there?
Good question. They certainly don't have to live there. They're free to leave unless of course they like wallowing in their own drunken filth.
I'll take 'tax breaks' for $1,000, Alex.
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21645
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Post by smackaholic »

Risa wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
Risa wrote:single mom with 4 kids who has to pay her own way is going to be in a lot worse shape than single mom with 4 kids who doesn't have to pay out expenses for child care because she has family to look after her children for free, and/or who doesn't have to pay out a car note and insurance because family gave her a car and is taking care of her insurance, and/or who doesn't have to worry about making sure the rent and utilities are paid because she has family who is allowing her to live rent free at home or in a bought home........ nevermind if single mom A doesn't have access to the scholarships and programs single mom B has.

Is single mom A inherently a loser because she doesn't have access to what single mom B has?
Single mom A should have considered these things before getting pregnant. Seems pretty simple to me. Pregnancy is not an accident.
Pregnancy is the natural state of womanhood.

the "natural state" of humans is no different from animals. you get stuff by taking it. If you are incapable of taking it, sux to be you. So, enough about natural states

Maybe that's hard for you, as a male, to understand, but women were meant to become pregnant. Sometimes, things happen.

you don't just get pregnant. you get pregnant by allowing somebody to stick a dick in you, not because you were "meant" to

sin-

MA, health teacher


You can either kill the kid -- you know, ensure that abortion remains legal, and that access to birth control is plentiful and easy -- or you can ensure that moms are given assistance to help raise the child they now have.

Things happen. Just like people get into auto accidents and end up losing limbs, or get into industrial accidents and end up losing the same. Telling them 'well, you shouldn't have driven' or 'well, you should have found a new job' doesn't cut it.

Be understanding when those things do happen. Realize that the difference between person A and person B may have zero to do with drive and everything to do with ease of access.

Person A shouldn't get lauds and kudos just because they were born on 3rd base. Person B shouldn't be damned and spat upon because they were born with 2 strikes and 3 fouls or whatever.

2 strikes and three fouls would be 2 strikes, unless one of the strikes came after one of the balls, which really isn't fair either, come to think of it. Oh fukkin' well. Life sux.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Post Reply