Quote:
Although socialism has long claimed to be for the poor, it has probably done more damage, on net balance, to the poor than to the rich. After all, the rich have enough money to leave the country if they think the socialists are going to do them any serious harm.
Some of our own rich have already had their money leave the country, to be sheltered from the higher taxes that limousine liberals say we should all pay. Meanwhile, the liberal media give them kudos for their selfless advocacy of higher taxes on higher income people, forgetting that these are not taxes on wealth.
Most of the people in the upper income brackets are not rich and do not have wealth sheltered offshore. They are typically working people who have finally reached their peak earning years after many years of far more modest incomes -- and now see much of what they have worked for siphoned off by politicians, to the accompaniment of lofty rhetoric.
The rich have learned to adapt socialist policies to their own benefit. For example, the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, is planning to demolish a working class neighborhood under its power of eminent domain, in order to prepare the way for a marina for yachts, luxury condominiums and an upscale shopping district.
What will the city of Riviera Beach get out of all this? More taxes from higher-income people, enabling local politicians to spend more money on programs to attract votes.
Meanwhile the rich get rid of lower-income folks without having to pay them the value of their homes and businesses that will be demolished. As in so many other cases, eminent domain is socialism for the rich.
Theoretically, those whose homes and businesses are demolished will get the "just compensation" to which the Constitution says they are entitled.
In reality, just announcing plans to demolish the homes in an area will immediately demolish part of their market value. Even if homeowners are compensated for whatever value remains when their homes are actually demolished -- which can be years later -- they have still been had.
For businesses, compensating them for the value of their physical assets -- which may or may not include ownership of the place where their businesses are located -- does nothing to compensate them for the often much larger value of the clientele they have built up over the years but who are now scattered to the winds by neighborhood demolition.
This game doesn't work the same way in rich neighborhoods. Not only can the rich hire big-bucks lawyers to fight city hall, why would city hall want to get rid of upscale taxpayers, who are often also big donors to political campaigns?
A very different form of socialism for the rich protects their communities from even the dangers of a free market. A whole array of laws and policies prevents outsiders from buying up property near them, even when these outsiders are ready to pay prices determined by supply and demand, rather than by eminent domain.
For example, the "open space" laws that have spread across the country to protect upscale communities represent one of the biggest collectivizations of land since the days of Josef Stalin.
Upscale residents say that they have a right to protect "our community." But not even the rich own the whole community.
They own what they paid for -- their own individual property. But they get the government to collectivize the often vastly larger surrounding property, in order to keep the unwashed masses from settling near them and spoiling their views.
Moreover, they wrap themselves in the mantle of idealism while doing this and denounce the "selfishness" of those who would stoop to building homes or apartments to house others, just to make money.
"Developer" is a cuss word to those who wax indignant in their righteous zeal to keep other people out. Why can't these money-grubbing developers just inherit money, like so many of the upscale idealists?
Meanwhile, back in the working class neighborhood in Riviera Beach, it is being defended legally by the Institute for Justice, one of the few "public interest" organizations that deserve the name.
This is the big concern I have with eminent domain today; the fact that it's been perverted for uses that won't be universally acceptable to the public (like a freeway; a freeway and a new shopping mall are not the same thing.).
Anyone remember the man whose home was wardened off due to eminent domain, and he crafted the super bulldozer?
Eminent domain threatens the poor as well. I remember reading about a farm that had been created and maintained on private land in the middle of LA for years by and for the members of the local community, who were too poor to buy their food. The municipal government eventually got state approval to kick them off the land... so they could sell it to Safeway.
First off, squatting on someone elses land means they can kick you off. Possession may be nine tenths of the law according to Talmud, but doesn't mean much here in the US.
Secondly, the abuse of eminent domain that stemmed from the New London case has caused various state legislatures to more clearly define what falls under eminent domain.
Republicans in Congress tried to pass legislation that would stop Federal funds to projects that seized land under eminent domain for commercial tax base purposes. As usual a democrat had to say something stupid.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif. "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court, This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution."
Pelosi should pull her head out of the sand and actually take a class on American Government. Eminent Domain is a STATE issue, and the Federal Government is under no compunction to give money to state projects even for roads, airports, or universities.
Anyways, vote Republican, they respect property rights, and only occaisionally get caught molesting teenage boys.
Jimro
Anyways, vote Republican, they respect property rights, and only occasionally get caught molesting teenage boys.
No, vote Democrat! We like BOOBS! BOOBS! And we're not afraid to say....we want MORE BOOBS!
(And we're normally pretty spiffy at accounting, too. At least in New York State. I don't know about everyone else, but we are spiffy.)
...Oh yeah....topic. Right.
Personally, I admit I don't know enough about eminent domain to make any claims about it. On the other hand, I would think that it's not just Democrats whining about the decisions. There has to be a Republican out there whining about it, albeit, probably not for the reasons Pelosi is complaining about. It's just a matter of finding them. :p
Republicans like breasts, of the human variety, and perky!
LOL, yes this did get a bit off topic, however I haven't found any Republicans saying anything about New London except that they believe it was a mistake and a gross misuse of government power.
Jimro
Anyways, vote Republican, they respect property rights, and only occasionally get caught molesting teenage boys.
It's a sad indicator of the health of American politics that people care more about the sexual indiscretions of a single Congressman than they do about the Republicans unanimously voting to tear up Habeas Corpus.
Lincoln did it in the Civil War, it happened to the Japanese Americans in WWII, so this is not exactly "tearing up Habeus Corpus" without historical precedence.
Thank goodness Canada and Mexico are right there to give asylum to all those poor Americans who are fleeing oppression.
Jimro
The fact that it has happened before doesn't make it any less wrong. Also, both of those happened during actual wars, not fake, made-up ones.
I should also mention that that very same bill contains a section granting immunity to the entire Bush Administration from possible war crimes prosecution.
"They respect property rights." LOL. You're like a parrot. The only rights the Republicans respect are the ones they feel they should have.
Boy you don't know how to not put your foot in your mouth...
Fake made up war indeed.
*checks the death toll* REAL
*checks congressional and UN approval* REAL
*checks the deployment schedule* REAL
But then again I guess Canada never sent troops to Afganistan, never denied their snipers the medals they were due (especially for a confirmed kill at over 2,400 meters a new world record).
Oh well, there is none so blind that they can't see.
Jimro
Wait, are we talking about Afghanistan here? Because that's not what the bill says. It says the US government can detain anyone it deems a terrorist supporter without trial, charge or evidence, until such time as the "war on terrorism" is over.
There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as the use or threat of serious violence to advance some kind of cause. Some state clearly the kinds of group (sub-national, non-state) or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is, after all, a tactic. The term "war on terrorism" is nonsensical.
When Bush articulated the goals of the "war on terrorism" in 2001, he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." In that same speech, he called the war "a task that does not end." Such goals create a state of perpetual war. Terrorism is only a tactic which can never be defeated. The "War on Terrorism" does not qualify as a war as there is no party whose defeat can bring victory.
I draw the distinction thus: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus over a hundred years ago during and because of the Civil War. The government also rounded up and interred legal US residents during and because of WWII. Both actions were wrong then and are wrong now. But the difference is that both the Civil War and WWII were actual wars with parties on either side whose defeat could bring victory for the other. The War on Terrorism is not.
Furthermore, the fact that your leaders find it necessary to include a provision for immunity against war crimes just shows that they realize that they are behaving improperly and against the rule of the law.
But then again I guess Canada never sent troops to Afganistan, never denied their snipers the medals they were due (especially for a confirmed kill at over 2,400 meters a new world record).
I'm not Canada, nor do I support the actions of my government. I just live here.
I've yet to hear anybody of either party who isn't a politician or judge support eminent domain, except in extreme cases. That's not what I call liberalism.
Eminent domain is another politically correct, but undescriptive phrase. Just call it land stealing, huh?
Quote:
Fake made up war indeed.
*checks the death toll* REAL
*checks congressional and UN approval* REAL
*checks the deployment schedule* REAL
May 1, 2003. Three years ago. And yet we are still there, Americans are still dying and there are STILL no WMDs. Oh, and Osama Bin Laden is still at large. Oh, and terrorism is getting larger and harder to find. Oh, and the terrorists win because they forced a change in the American lifestyle, which they hate most of all if our leaders are to be believed. But hey, it's cool, y'know, because we "accomplished our mission".
Also, there was cause for the suspension of Habeas Corpeas during the Civil War. In the Civil War, nearly half of the US population was openly rebelling with guns and explosives against the US government. In Iraq, you have maybe how many actual terrorists on US soil? Could be 1, could be 1,000 (unless you're a neocon moonbat, in which case everyone who says "boo" about the US government (and by 'US government' they mean 'Republican leaders') is a terrorist sympathizer, which inflates the number in their minds substantially and sends them into sputtering fits of pseudo-patriot rage).
The only reason this bill passes is because the current administration wanted their asses covered for their treasonous acts during this "war". Like any good scumbags, they don't want to serve time for their scumbag activities. I mean, what good's the perfect crime (stealing the White House, raping the Constitution, killing boatloads of American soldiers and actively ruining the intelligence of the general American people) if you can't get away with it in the end?
Take up Habeus Corpus with congress, also take up the war on terror with congress.
Congress writes the laws and controls the purse strings. Right now Congress has decided to give money and tools to the federal government to deal with terrorists.
When the time comes that they don't support those aims they will restore Habeus Corpus and stop military funding.
The war on terror is a real war, saying that it isn't is wishful thinking. The war on terror will not last forever, and I'm sure judicial review will be required for suspects held soon enough.
As far as war crimes go, there are idiots that want to charge anyone who ever deployed to Iraq with "war crimes". The language of the law is there to further clarify what constitutes a war crime, NOT TO EXCUSE US SERVICEMEMBERS OR AGENTS FROM PROSECUTION as you imply.
Some of the "torture" that we have been accused with is "too much Air Conditioning", "Too high a calorie diet" and "Flickering florescent lights". It's stupid, but it's for real. I don't want to go to jail because I couldn't get a light fixed fast enough for a freaking hippie peacenik lawyer.
Jimro
Quote:
Anyways, vote Republican, they respect property rights, and only occaisionally get caught molesting teenage boys.
Screw both parties! I say let's createa third party and vote ourselves into public offices (so we can do whatever we want to do and see breasts too.) :p
Quote:
The war on terror is a real war, saying that it isn't is wishful thinking. The war on terror will not last forever, and I'm sure judicial review will be required for suspects held soon enough.
And yet, it was not an American war until it hit home: the rest of the world was (and in many places it still is) on this "war" since God knows when, usually because someone or something cause resentment in part of the population.
