No Politics Please
- Thread starter J.R. Hudson
- Start date
- Status
Edalgo_Alvarez
Well-known member
waltind said:
You may not realize just how right you are. If you play monopoly you may or may not be aware of an interesting strategy (try it out on the kids, its always a winner
) but it goes something like this:Once your opponent gets low on money and can't pay you, tell him "all right, whenever I land on your property I don't have to pay you" so you pretty much get access to his property free.
The same type of thing is going on in the US. Since the debt is so high, foreign banks are accepting land in exchange for financial support. And since land is more valuable then money, these banks are getting a hell of a deal. There is data that shows a map of the US and it outlines all of the foreign properties. Initially there isn't much but as you increase the years up until present day it shows that a lot of the land is now foreign owned.
-Edalgo
Edalgo_Alvarez
Well-known member
Shaw said:
Couldn't agree more.
-Edalgo
Rosestar
Well-known member
I can not contain my outrage with this "decision" from the "high" court.
I know we are not to get political with this, but, many of you may be aware that the judicial system has been under great scrutiny lately, mostly from the right and mostly because of the reproductive rights issue. Now, with this BS decision, the court has alienated the vast majority of freedom loveing individuals in this country. I am scared that the back lash of this will feed right into the hands of the radical right and that if there is judical reform, it will not be to the advantage of the US mainstream.
I know we are not to get political with this, but, many of you may be aware that the judicial system has been under great scrutiny lately, mostly from the right and mostly because of the reproductive rights issue. Now, with this BS decision, the court has alienated the vast majority of freedom loveing individuals in this country. I am scared that the back lash of this will feed right into the hands of the radical right and that if there is judical reform, it will not be to the advantage of the US mainstream.
Frizzle Fry
Well-known member
and so the polarity intensifies...
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The Rich get Richer and I get screwed, Damn.
Hey Wells; Wilmington , NC. Yes. *Have to be on ocean)
This news stroy scares me. and Yes, the recent Flag issue (Yes, careful where we tread) is close to being amended. I do not condone but don;t me I cant do it.
Hey Wells; Wilmington , NC. Yes. *Have to be on ocean)
This news stroy scares me. and Yes, the recent Flag issue (Yes, careful where we tread) is close to being amended. I do not condone but don;t me I cant do it.
craigbowman
Veteran
So, incorporate! Then take over your home!
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
craigbowman said:
Good one, Craig!
This has been going on for several years. Down here in Florida, counties that screwed up with subdivisions during the 50's land rush are now going back and kicking those people out of their homes so they can sell a "continuous tract" to developers. Bad enough to get kicked out for a factory. But they are using eminent domain to force people out of their homes at WAY below market rates ($3,000 a lot) just so they can get the profit ($60k-$80k) for the county (along with higher taxes, due to Florida property tax laws). If you want reference, do a search on Charlotte County and Murdock. With property values going up here at 30% a year, this is big bucks outright theft.
really really sad stuff.
frizzle, i know what you mean man. alot of my family members have ALOT of land.. hundreds of acres. and what really gets me is that as the older ones pass on, i watch their kids fight over their stiff and often the land gets subdivided and sold. which irritates me profusely to no end. still thers a few i know will never sell the land as long as they live. so ill always have places to go to blow stuff up for movies which is cool. but better yet the heritge and ownership will always be there (till someone in that part of the family raises some greedy copreate minded selfish kids.. probably wont be too long.. its them agains the media and the rest of the corporate world)
frizzle, i know what you mean man. alot of my family members have ALOT of land.. hundreds of acres. and what really gets me is that as the older ones pass on, i watch their kids fight over their stiff and often the land gets subdivided and sold. which irritates me profusely to no end. still thers a few i know will never sell the land as long as they live. so ill always have places to go to blow stuff up for movies which is cool. but better yet the heritge and ownership will always be there (till someone in that part of the family raises some greedy copreate minded selfish kids.. probably wont be too long.. its them agains the media and the rest of the corporate world)
oh man
oh man
This is the first decision of the Supreme Court with which I have found that I am passionately in complete disagreement. It is, to my mind, 'Jim Crow' wrong.
As John says, this is the stuff of revolution.
I haven't done my research yet, but I can hardly believe that the Supremes could 'find' that the seizure (there is no other word for it) of private land, in order to increase tax revenue, is a 'public good.'
I suppose the only non-violent way of fixing this insane ruling is to pass Yet another Ammendment to the Constitution which clearly spells out that the federal government and the states may not seize property unless a COMPELLING public good is demonstrated. *Sigh*
oh man
This is the first decision of the Supreme Court with which I have found that I am passionately in complete disagreement. It is, to my mind, 'Jim Crow' wrong.
As John says, this is the stuff of revolution.
I haven't done my research yet, but I can hardly believe that the Supremes could 'find' that the seizure (there is no other word for it) of private land, in order to increase tax revenue, is a 'public good.'
I suppose the only non-violent way of fixing this insane ruling is to pass Yet another Ammendment to the Constitution which clearly spells out that the federal government and the states may not seize property unless a COMPELLING public good is demonstrated. *Sigh*
Hard thread to deal with....If I even started to type out the rage I'm feeling inside after reading it, the whole forum would get locked down. Suffice it to say I'm a tad angry inside at this moment. Torture is to good for the greedheads that allow this kind of deal to go down. Excuse me while I got out on my balcony and throw large rocks at the mall below me........
kai
After FX Guru
That's jacked.
There was a similar instance here in Tulsa very recently, a family owned restauraunt downtown was "in the way" of a new building project they wanted to put there, and they offered her pennies on the dollar of what it was worth. Of course she didn't accept, this was her livelihood and life (the restauraunt). In the end, they condemed it and forced her out I believe. Jacked, I say... jacked.
There was a similar instance here in Tulsa very recently, a family owned restauraunt downtown was "in the way" of a new building project they wanted to put there, and they offered her pennies on the dollar of what it was worth. Of course she didn't accept, this was her livelihood and life (the restauraunt). In the end, they condemed it and forced her out I believe. Jacked, I say... jacked.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is the only sane one in the bunch it appears saying:
(And I paraph)
who argued "the decision favors rich corporations"
""Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall...""
O'Connor warned that the decision upends the principle that eminent domain can't be used to transfer property from one private entity to another. The decision all but erased the "public use" clause from the law, she said.
She also warned that the ruling will give more power to corporations and the wealthy. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," she wrote.
Another interesting and just Qoute by one of the affected (Von Winkle) "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country"
One of the players? Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. Un-****ing-beleiavable. Well ****; at least the Drug company's are not being inconvenienced.
Also, it appears that this neighborhood was not a slum nor a crime-ridden area. But just a neighborhood people called home.
No way:
The day before Thanksgiving 2000, Kelo said, a notice was posted on her East Street home, informing her and her husband that they had four months to move out or police would remove them and their belongings.
What pisses me off is that these ass-hats are thinking "But we offered them FAIR PRICE for the properties." That isn't the issue. The issue is you are taking my home by force and now you are taking it for private profit. But you know for a fact; it will never happen to the people on the other side of the fence and that is the part that is bullshit. Money talks; Money is Power; Greed is evil.
(And I paraph)
who argued "the decision favors rich corporations"
""Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall...""
O'Connor warned that the decision upends the principle that eminent domain can't be used to transfer property from one private entity to another. The decision all but erased the "public use" clause from the law, she said.
She also warned that the ruling will give more power to corporations and the wealthy. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," she wrote.
Another interesting and just Qoute by one of the affected (Von Winkle) "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country"
One of the players? Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. Un-****ing-beleiavable. Well ****; at least the Drug company's are not being inconvenienced.
Also, it appears that this neighborhood was not a slum nor a crime-ridden area. But just a neighborhood people called home.
No way:
The day before Thanksgiving 2000, Kelo said, a notice was posted on her East Street home, informing her and her husband that they had four months to move out or police would remove them and their belongings.
What pisses me off is that these ass-hats are thinking "But we offered them FAIR PRICE for the properties." That isn't the issue. The issue is you are taking my home by force and now you are taking it for private profit. But you know for a fact; it will never happen to the people on the other side of the fence and that is the part that is bullshit. Money talks; Money is Power; Greed is evil.
Edalgo_Alvarez
Well-known member
Now that this ruling has been passed your country will never give you those rights back. If only there was some accountability, both in the gov't and corporations. I'd love to see one of those corporate bigwigs who helped forward this decision get his home taken from him. But then again that wouldnt happen because the corporations help the politicians get into power and then all it takes is one phone call.
Corporate Guy: "Bill, looks like there's been some kinda mistakes, seems they wanna take my house."
Political Guy: "Well I'll be damned, how'd that happen? Don't you worry, we'll have this whole thing settled. Hey isn't there some middle class homes around there? We could just get a hold of them instead."
Corporate Guy: "That'll do nicely, Bill, oh and why don't you bring the wife and kids over for dinner sometime."
I say have a public hanging so they know there's consequences to their actions. It's not like me to get so riled up but considering how bold those in power are getting and noone is stopping them.
-Edalgo
Corporate Guy: "Bill, looks like there's been some kinda mistakes, seems they wanna take my house."
Political Guy: "Well I'll be damned, how'd that happen? Don't you worry, we'll have this whole thing settled. Hey isn't there some middle class homes around there? We could just get a hold of them instead."
Corporate Guy: "That'll do nicely, Bill, oh and why don't you bring the wife and kids over for dinner sometime."
I say have a public hanging so they know there's consequences to their actions. It's not like me to get so riled up but considering how bold those in power are getting and noone is stopping them.
-Edalgo
HorseFilms
Look ma no hands
Edalgo_Alvarez said:
Right on!
Don't we have that thing, that... you know the government rules thingy there, that piece of paper there uh... checks and balances or something... something to do with inalienable rights and such... you know, that uh.. oh yeah THE CONSTITUTION.
Keep forgetting about that thing these days.
Keep forgetting about that thing these days.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
My initial reaction was the same as the sentiments here. But then I thought about it some more. I have no doubt that O'Connor was right is her assessment about how this will pan out. But the spirit of this decision is not that simple. First of all it returns the right and responsibility of making this decision to the State/City/County where it is happening. Theoretically, and costitutionally, that is a good thing. The federal government only has the power t interfere when necessary. You can argue that this action is a violation of the 5th amendment, but the court feels differently. Secondly, it is a question of the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. If a county or city needs revitalization and a few houses are in the way, I don't think it unreasonable to cite eminent domain.
Now don't get me wrong. I find the seizure of private property a heinous act, and my heart is on the same side of the fence as the rest of you. This decision will hurt many people, while the greatest benefit will go to those already priveleged. But I have found through many political discussions that people often interpret the Constitution and the Law to their own ends; and not always in a selfish way. We feel that the law should do a certain thing. I struggled recently with the Schiavo case, but in the end the courts stuck to the most conservative (in the non-political sense) of the constitution; that being the right of the individual. The courts do not have the benefit of going with their feelings; they must follow their interpretation of the law. In this case, they followed the same conservative (non-political definition) and returned the right to rule on this to the individual states. State governments are (or should be) more in touch with the needs of their individual citizens and communities that the feds. That's why we have the system we do (although more power is ceded to the feds all the time), and it usually works.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision, but it's not the Supreme Court saying they think it's okay to do this. They are just saying that it's a state by state issue.
Now don't get me wrong. I find the seizure of private property a heinous act, and my heart is on the same side of the fence as the rest of you. This decision will hurt many people, while the greatest benefit will go to those already priveleged. But I have found through many political discussions that people often interpret the Constitution and the Law to their own ends; and not always in a selfish way. We feel that the law should do a certain thing. I struggled recently with the Schiavo case, but in the end the courts stuck to the most conservative (in the non-political sense) of the constitution; that being the right of the individual. The courts do not have the benefit of going with their feelings; they must follow their interpretation of the law. In this case, they followed the same conservative (non-political definition) and returned the right to rule on this to the individual states. State governments are (or should be) more in touch with the needs of their individual citizens and communities that the feds. That's why we have the system we do (although more power is ceded to the feds all the time), and it usually works.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision, but it's not the Supreme Court saying they think it's okay to do this. They are just saying that it's a state by state issue.
..if people really wanted to be heard they could boycott the companies/corporations that do things like this to people.
.. im sure theyed start listening when their sales plummit like a rock.
.. but you know the reality of the matter is , that people here dont want to be bothered by having to be inconvenienced.. they want the company to stop , but do you think theyed stop buying their kid "kripsy corn crunch" till things got better.. do you think they wouldnt shop at "high fashion express" till they stopped their illegal sweat shops.. truth be told .. no. they just go in and frown at the guy behind the desk as they buy their stuff like they have more to do with it than themselves buying the stuff. whens the last time you heard the word "boycott" .. if ever.. you know how much power it has when people band together and boycott something.. ALOT. anyway just about anyone and everyone is a sellout that cares more about drinking their starbucks in the morning than they do about people losing rights and houses.. ....untill it affects them personally that is.
makes me sick.
.. im sure theyed start listening when their sales plummit like a rock.
.. but you know the reality of the matter is , that people here dont want to be bothered by having to be inconvenienced.. they want the company to stop , but do you think theyed stop buying their kid "kripsy corn crunch" till things got better.. do you think they wouldnt shop at "high fashion express" till they stopped their illegal sweat shops.. truth be told .. no. they just go in and frown at the guy behind the desk as they buy their stuff like they have more to do with it than themselves buying the stuff. whens the last time you heard the word "boycott" .. if ever.. you know how much power it has when people band together and boycott something.. ALOT. anyway just about anyone and everyone is a sellout that cares more about drinking their starbucks in the morning than they do about people losing rights and houses.. ....untill it affects them personally that is.
makes me sick.
- Status