At what point do we start pitching tea......

[scottychaos]

If you are a liberal,
do you honestly believe that Democrats have your best interests at heart?
that they are fighting for "the people"..
and that Conservatives are only out to help "Big Oil" and make themselves and their corporate buddys Rich?
if so, you are deluded, and you have been brainwashed.

If you are a conservative,
do you honestly believe that conservatives in government are the "good guys" that want to protect you from terrorists, and that liberals are whining babies who actually hate america?
if so, you have been deluded, and brainwashed..

the 2 parties are THE SAME!!
they are ALL ruled by money.
the differences you *think* there are between them have been mostly invented, by them, to make you love their side and hate the other side..

why? for your vote, and to keep them in power, and to keep them Rich..
both sides..
if you think Democrats are NOT out for their own fortunes and power, and only Republicans are...wake up.
they are all the same..

Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore are exactly the same..
they both outright LIE to you, to try to keep their side in power.
they are both so insane and out of touch with reality its not even funny..
and people believe them, thats whats really scary..

As Americans, we should realise that WE are all the same people,
and that its own own government who divides us,
by feeding us lies designed only to keep themselves in power..
both sides....

I agree with Bugweed on this one..
I think a second American Revolution will probably happen.
probably not in our lifetimes, because we havent been pushed far enough yet,
and because we are still basically sheep, accepting whatever we are told.
but I think it will happen eventually..

Scot

 

[scottychaos]

Quote[/b] (herenorthere @ June 25 2005,4:57)]There are no justices on the Supreme Court who a liberal would consider to be very liberal.  There are some a conservative would consider to be very conservative.  Ginsburg has some liberal bonafides and Breyer is left of center, given how far right the center has shifted, but neither is the liberal equivalent of Rehnquist, Scalia, or Thomas.

Here are the justices and who appointed them:

Stevens (Ford)
Kennedy (Reagan)
Souter (Bush the elder)
Ginsburg (Clinton)
Breyer (Clinton)

Rehnquist (Nixon)
O'Connor (Reagan)
Scalia (Reagan)
Thomas (Bush the elder)

Notice that seven were appointed by Republican presidents and two by Democrats.  The first five voted in favor of the taking and the last four voted in favor of the landowners.

In contests between money and people, money is winning.  As the nation swings further and further to the right, money wins more and more.  The solution isn't to swing even further to the right.

nice job of taking the facts and intrepreating so that Conservites end up being the bad guys!
nice job..
lets see if I can take the exact same facts and skew them so that liberals are the evil ones here..I bet I can!

Stevens (Ford)
Kennedy (Reagan)
Souter (Bush the elder)
Ginsburg (Clinton)
Breyer (Clinton)

Rehnquist (Nixon)
O'Connor (Reagan)
Scalia (Reagan)
Thomas (Bush the elder)

All true, factual information.
7 were appointed by Republican presidents, 2 by Democrat presidents.
BUT..that does not mean that seven are "conservative" and only 2 are "liberal"!

Stevens
Sauter
Bader-Ginsburg
and Kennedy
are considered the "liberal wing" of the supreme court.
(I read that here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s....roperty
since someone wrote it, it must be true..)

So, in this ruling, all FOUR liberal justices voted for it, only one conservative judge sided with the liberals.
and the remaining 4 out of 5 conservatibe justices voted against it..

this is a clear case of liberals wanting to take away rights of citizens in favor of the rich, and big-business..

and consertives wanting to PROTECT the right of home owners,
and keeping big buisiness out of your land..

hey! that was easy!
see how easy we can all be deluded into thinking one side is pure and sweet and the other side is evil?!

I wrote this all mostly as a joke..to point out the futility of buying into the lies that conservatives and liberals are SOOOOOO different.
they arent..
the facts can get twisted to support EITHER side..
and its done all the time.
just depends on how you say it, what you emphasize, and what you leave out..

Scot

 

[Bugweed]

Scotty, If we are the sheep, then our government is the Judas Goat. The job of the Judas Goat was to lead the rest of the sheep to slaughter. Since we are headed in that direction, I suggest we kill the Goat! And again, kill it with votes. I do not agree this will not happen in our lifetime Scot. I intend to move and shake until the message is heard--Get rid of the old government, and get the new one in place. If that means changing parties, then fine. Change the worthless S.O.B.'s to those who DO have the peoples interest at heart. And for God's sake, leave the big Corporations out of our Government, and make them pay their fair share WITHOUT hiking up their prices to live. My Lord! How much money can you make before there is no more money to make? WAKE UP!!!! Take your/our country back, and establish our place in the world as a benevolent society, not one that pushes the rest of the world around.

 

[herenorthere]

Scot - Huh?

I made full disclosure:

I clearly said the two most liberal (relatively speaking), who were appointed by the Democrat, voted in favor of "the taking".  But they aren't liberal justices and remember they were appointed by the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.

I only identified three justices - Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas - as conservative.  I implied they're very conservative, but no reasonable person can think otherwise.  Even people further to the right than they have to acknowledge those three are very conservative.  As the word is defined these days, anyway.

Yes, I think some others are conservative too, but a conservative person would see them as mainstream.  But my point was that there are no justices that a liberal can consider very liberal, while there are three that a conservative can consider very conservative.

The fact that there are some who are considered the liberal wing of the Supreme Court doesn't make them liberal.  I'm sure some people are considered the conservative wing of the Berkeley city council, but that doesn't make them conservative.  If there were an actual liberal on the Supreme Court, I doubt he or she would have been with that majority.  My liberal friends and coworkers are outraged by that decision.

 

[schloaty]

Quote[/b] ]I had an epiphany yesterday.

That ruling made me realise the true purpose of the 2nd amendment.

It's not so you can have sporting rifles to hunt.
It's not so you can carry a handgun to defend against crime.

It is so the government always properly fears the people.

The first two are just happy side-effects.

From this point of view, it is imperative the 2nd Amendment not be stripped of its teeth by restricting weapons sales to the point that anything that poses a real risk to the government is illegal.

I bet the NRA gets a boost in membership over this.

For the two who think I missed the point of the 2nd amendmant, it was my poor wording (in a hurry, you see). The above quote put it much better.

We need to make being in the gov't a really LOW paying job. That would fix 'em!

'Course then we'd only get people who couldn't get better paying jobs, and we'd be lead by a bunch of morons....Though I wonder if it would by any different than it is today....

Potatoe indeed!

 

[herenorthere]

Government doesn't fear people with guns.  Government fears educated people that think independently.  Guns (and grenades and tanks and ...) were readily available in Germany during WW II, yet Hitler had to take his own life.  And it's hard to believe there weren't quite a few lying around the USSR afterwards, but Stalin survived.  If a heavily armed population is a bunch of pawns mindlessly following their leader, a totalitarian regime will thrive.

 

[aprilh]

Does anyone here really think their .38 or rifle or semi-automatic is going to do much good against a tank?

If one is that freaked out about the government, IED's would be a much better choice, they're being used with great success in Iraq against our soldiers, Iraqi police recruits and Iraqi civilians, too.

IMO, it's really too easy to say "all politicians are bad, horrible, money-grubbing jerks." You know they aren't. It's a stereotype. There ARE dedicated public servants out there. Some people do go into public service to serve the public, and I still believe it's an honourable profession. They may be few and far between, true. I can't say that the nice older lady who's the recorder of deeds/county clerk in my town is unmitigated evil on a stick.

I'll vote for a DemoCRAT who has my best interests at heart, I'll hold my nose and vote for a Republican who has my best interests at heart, or a Green, or Independant, or whatever. It's not necessarily about party affiliation.

Quote[/b] ]and because we are still basically sheep, accepting whatever we are told.

Not, not, not, not. I'll accept almost whatever I'm told about CP's...but politics...no way. I make up my own mind.

 

[rattler]

some one mentioned they didnt think that this desition would mean much wel here is some news from Texas about land being siezed thanks to the ruling, $40 million annual profit by a local company sure sounds like the land needs to be condemmed for the public good.

Texas Article

and for those not familiar with the history, here is the article about the case the Supreme court ruled against, sure sounds as if the area needed to be condemed doesnt it? please note this article is from January, well before the SC ruling.

New London article

 

[aprilh]

While our elected officials bubble, bubble, toil and trouble about the business of making laws that mostly keep their pockets full....

The Supreme Court, and the lower district courts, whose officials are not elected, appointed for life, and are accountable to no one except the Constitution of the United States of America, and their interpretation of it...have much more impact on our daily lives, IMO.  I'm a lot more frightened of the Supremes than what ever party is ruling at the moment.  

Electing SC justices sounds like a good idea...but what if the populace decides to elect an erudite, charming, telegenic(and this really matters in this day and age), man or woman who holds white supremacist views, for example? One would hope they would have been weeded out long before this...but charm and "pretty-ness" for the cameras will take you far in this country.  

I'm of two minds about this stuff, and I think it's a complicated issue.  Aprilh

 

[rattler]

i agree with you April, its an extreamly complicated issue. i really dont know whats the proper way to fix it. the more i am seeing desitions like this the more im starting to wonder if there isnt going to be another American Revolution in my life time.

as far as the comment about taking out a tank. you would be quite surprised how easily it is to break one down. take out the tracks and you take out the tank for the most part. not that difficult if yah put your mind to it.

i am forseeing alot more Wacos and Ruby Ridges in the future. heck for all intents and purposes Waco happened cause the Feds were out to enforce a $200 tax, what do you think is going to happen when some local government trys to claim emminant domain on a neighborhood that is fed up and fairly well armed and prepaired to loose their own life to protect what is rightfully theirs? unfortunatly its going to put alot of good ppl like our own Copper in very bad situations.

 

[aprilh]

Quote[/b] ]If you are a liberal, do you honestly believe that Democrats have your best interests at heart?

This is assuming all liberals are Democrats, of course, and that all Republicans are conservative.  Southern Democrats are NOT liberals, for the most part.  

The Repubs I know in Oregon are a lot more liberal than their mid-west or bible belt counterparts.  

It's not so simple.

 

[Treaqum]

I have not followed this conversation but I will bet anyone $10000000 here that besides the AP areticle the entire other 6 pages are about politics. I probibly am not the first to say it but I do beleve that Supreme Court interprets the constitution and since these peopple will be given compensation (whther it is enough will be in question as always) the city is following the letter of the law. Maybe not the spirit but certainly the letter.

 

[aprilh]

The city is following the letter of the law.  You are right, Tre.  The law is a bloodless thing, however.  I'm not a fan of this decision.  

Didn't Shakespeare say that "the law is an a55?"

 

[herenorthere]

Electing judges is a bad idea.  Elected judges who make unpopular, but constitutionally correct decisions lose their next election.  That's bad, but at least it's democracy.  Elected judges also worry about losing their job if they rule against the economic powers that might attack them in the next election.  It isn't democracy, but it's what passes for democracy in the US.

Judges need to have long appointments, even if not lifetime, because it allows them the freedom to do their jobs.  But that means it's crucial that opposition parties challenge questionable appointments and, when necessary, block them.

But the case isn't as unique as suggested.  Urban renewal took lots of privately held land and flipped it to big money developers or to corporations for offices, etc.  Privately held land is taken to extend highways to new factories or to create interchanges where another landowner will make a windfall profit.

Same as with presidential primaries and criminal trials and local zoning decisions and food safety regulations; money rules.

 

[aprilh]

Herenor,

You are right...in the 60's in Chicago, lots of private homes were seized and destroyed to make room for the "spaghetti bowl" expressway, the rest was turned into the "Circle Campus" of the University of Illinois.  

In the last 10 years, Eminent domain was used to get rid of the thriving Maxwell Street Market...so the University of Illinois could have parking lots, soccer fields and dorm rooms.  Maxwell street was a thriving market for over 150 years.  It was the entry point for Jews, African Americans, Irish and other minorities, and therefore, a historical site. The city moved it to a different spot...but it's not the same. It's way too regulated.