posted on October 14, 2001 07:02:26 PM new
Noting that several posters rely on cut-n-paste for all their opinions: I thought it might be interesting to offer up a subject for debate.
The only rule being that all opinions/statements/facts must be cut-n-pasted from another source and links must be provided as proof of cut-n-paste.
The first subject should be something to do with governmental affairs...
I know!
The constitution grants the use of eminent domain for the taking of private property. Good or Bad?
"Federal, state, and local governments may take private property through their power of eminent domain or may regulate it by exercising their police power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the government to provide just compensation to the owner of the private property to be taken. A variety of property rights are subject to eminent domain, such as air, water, and land rights. The government takes private property through condemnation proceedings. Throughout these proceedings, the property owner has the right of due process.
Eminent domain is a challenging area for the courts, which have struggled with the question of whether the regulation of property, rather than its acquisition, is a taking requiring just compensation. In addition, private property owners have begun to initiate action against the government in a proceeding called inverse condemnation."
posted on October 14, 2001 07:20:57 PM new
Not to derail, but I find your comments to be insulting to me, other posters, Americans, fat people, politicians, and minority groups.
posted on October 14, 2001 07:23:33 PM new
Eminent domain sucks in my opinion only
The frikking Port of Seattle took our house and property this way, a house on a lake, tore it down, all in the name of a third runway, and because it would be too noisy as they put it.
We had put so much into that house, and the lake, they tore the place down! and there sits empty spots now for 2 years.
I don't care about the money they did pay, it was because we did not want to give up the house, we did not want to move.
The community tried to get it stopped in court, and it was a joke. The Port rules.
"The judiciary has really watered down eminent domain laws," said Joe Waldo, an attorney in Norfolk who represented business owners when their land was condemned for a parking lot. "They have given great deference to the local authorities in deciding what is public use. There is no serious consideration given to interrupting a family's or business home site."
It's a problem that is increasing nationally as many private landowners see their land taken for speedways, parking lots, even casinos. A recent study by the Washington-based Council for Urban Economic Development found that cities across the country use their eminent domain powers in about 80 business projects a year, more than double the number from 10 years ago.
Gideon Kanner, professor emeritus at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, called the practice "profoundly immoral."
posted on October 14, 2001 07:26:47 PM new
Sorry: I cannot play, as I have absolutely NO intelligence, either implied, applied or any other form Gosh Shosh
"As citizens of a capitalist empire where property rights are paramount, numerous Americans would be quick to discredit any notion of their home or business being taken away. Many cannot fathom government deciding that their plot of land would better serve the public as the site of a roadway, airport, hospital, or other facility. Nonetheless, local or big government can coerce an owner to relinquish his property by exercising its right of eminent domain. Unfortunately, the proprietor is oftentimes destined to lose in this contest of wills"
posted on October 14, 2001 08:19:46 PM new
Delightful, I need an easier game. I hate having to scour the Internet for suitable cut-and-paste. Start a thread that seeks my own opinion on any subject, and I'll be right there...
posted on October 14, 2001 08:46:07 PM new
Oh, I'm sorry deliteful, I'm too tired from working today. Tomorrow I have to do the laundrey, Tuesday I have yard work and then and then...so I can't play.
posted on October 14, 2001 09:09:31 PM new
I think you missed the actual number of posters who rely on cut and paste and the even fewer posters who insist on cut and paste, deliteful.
These posters "usually" rely on three letter initials as they need all their time to search the net and copy and paste information whether they believe in it or not.
Altruisim aside just for the benefit of the other posters so there can be a little blood letting...this has been stated but of course there was no cut and paste to back it up.
posted on October 14, 2001 09:19:52 PM new
Why is my opinion less valued than the one at the end of a link?
They say an expert is anyone 200 miles from home with a briefcase.
Is the link the equivalent removal in cyberspace?
posted on October 14, 2001 09:27:23 PM new
Yeah! Here's some classic krs from the thread above -- all personal opinion, too!
"Spazmodeus says:
"I feel that the posting of news links without any commentary or stated reason for posting said link constitutes spamming the forum. JMHO."
I disagree. Every member applied to be in the forum regardless it's content, and so anything found here could not be termed unsolicited.
At Spazmodeus' home he is free to set conditions, presumably, subject perhaps to the wishes of any other members of his family, but this, however much he acts like he thinks it is, is not Spazmodeus' home.
I would think that after all of the forced absenses which spazmodeus has endured he would be happy to be here under any conditions. But no, even though the likelihood of his having as much as begged to be let back in so many times exists, he no sooner is back and ensconced here than he begins his campaign of complaints in order to move the characteristics of the place he so much desires to be a part of to suit his own peculiar idea of how it should be here.
Someone wishing to counter the complaints of
spazmodeus might begin with an expression of the opinion that whining also constitutes spamming of the forum if the person so inclined did not share my opinion that by application for membership here the applicant expresses acceptance of all characteristics of the forum."
You're probably right, krs -- flooding this forum with threads that require no commentary at all from you is the wisest move...
posted on October 14, 2001 09:28:00 PM new
posted on March 10, 2001 09:04:34 PM
by krs--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enchanted, DEAR!
YOU may be crabby, but I'm NOT CRABBY!!!. i'm just as sweet, kind, courteous, helpful, and reverent as ever.
Who knew krs had a humorous side? Satire at it's best! Taken from his link.
posted on October 14, 2001 09:33:20 PM new
If I'd had my druthers I'd have edited all but the initial post away because the spazmodeus interchange is not, nor is any other interchange contained there, to the point.
posted on October 14, 2001 09:39:54 PM new
Since when is posting to the point part of your M.O.? Gads, I'm really beginning to worry about you now and I don't like that at all...
posted on October 14, 2001 09:56:27 PM new
jamesoblivion, I lived on Lora Lake, along with 10 other homes, and went to court, and it was a joke. The Port of Seattle is thee end all, be all say in sh!t like this here. Yes it sucks.
"This alternative is the concept of Eminent Domain. Under eminent domain, a federal agency can "condemn" a piece of property and convert it to public use for the benefit of the greater community, while providing monetary compensation to the property owner. If that principle is applied to literal property under the domain of the U.S. government, why not to intellectual property which is granted protection by that very same government?"
Taken from his link.