Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that I'm jaded on the subject, since the goddamned development/contractors lobby here in Texas have made it so homeowners associations can circumvent homestead laws and take people's houses away. The foreclosure process is a lot quicker if you don't pay your HOA fees than if you don't pay your taxes. Tex. Prop. Code 201-209.

HOAs are tyrannical. Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to buy into one. Assuming you are in one, now may be the time to start exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Puh-leeeze! Putting aside the rhetoric (which both parties engage in, eg. Dean, Carville and Begala are the functional equivalents of Rove), dividing the myraid of issues into an either/or (Dem or Rep) is impossible. Unless you are brain-dead doctinairian.

Uh, 3.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, 3.

original whiff, no?

eta: more seriously, i don'get it, unless you are referencing a third party, of which I know none with any effective viability

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Puh-leeeze! Putting aside the rhetoric (which both parties engage in, eg. Dean, Carville and Begala are the functional equivalents of Rove), dividing the myraid of issues into an either/or (Dem or Rep) is impossible. Unless you are brain-dead doctinairian.

If it was just rhetoric, that would be one thing. But they keep passing laws and shit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Within the next 6 months, expect the following:

2) The Reps to go "nuclear" on the Dems illegal fillibuster tactics, especially after they broke the "compromise" less than 28 hours later by refusing a vote on Bolton;

C'mon Slave -- you're smarter than this. The filibuster is provided for in the Senate rules, so it's not illegal. GOP hacks have newly discovered that this long-standing rule is unconstitutional, but no one thinks it's illegal. And the filibuster compromise was about judicial nominees, not Bolton. Even Republicans agree in principle that a filibuster is proper to try to get documents concerning the nominee in question. (What's unclear is why the White House is refusing to hand over the documents -- there must be something awful in them.)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If it was just rhetoric, that would be one thing. But they keep passing laws and shit.

This proves my point. there are myriad of issues, both sides stake claims. I don't agree with any one sides' claims on all issues. The general philosophy of the Rep side is supposed to be pro-biz, pro-capitalism and markets, anti-gov't regulation. I agree with that. The article you cites shows my side being inconsistent. I disagree with the Rep position here, however, if I choose to take the time I am sure I could come up with at least one example of Dem sponsored/supported regulatory legislation I disagree with. So we are back to square one, I don't see how anyone can wedge a positions on a myriad of issues into an either/or choice.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This proves my point. there are myriad of issues, both sides stake claims. I don't agree with any one sides' claims on all issues. The general philosophy of the Rep side is supposed to be pro-biz, pro-capitalism and markets, anti-gov't regulation. I agree with that. The article you cites shows my side being inconsistent. I disagree with the Rep position here, however, if I choose to take the time I am sure I could come up with at least one example of Dem sponsored/supported regulatory legislation I disagree with. So we are back to square one, I don't see how anyone can wedge a positions on a myriad of issues into an either/or choice.

Sure you can, but you're blind if you don't see the overall trend.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Sure you can, but you're blind if you don't see the overall trend.

Uncool. I thought you were classier than that.

[Sidd Finch]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/..._trade_studies



Once again, the Bush Admin sponsors a report, then suppresses it because the findings are unfavorable to Bush policies.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/..._trade_studies



Once again, the Bush Admin sponsors a report, then suppresses it because the findings are unfavorable to Bush policies.

Makes sense to me. I think the implicit message is "hey Dems, STFU, trading with these guys is in our interest and who cares about their worker conditions or labor laws, if you don't like it, don't buy the products in your local WalMart. And SFTU"

Works for me. For example, I hate the French government and find their people unhygienic boorish idiots, however they make good wine and cheese and there is no reason I should deny myself those pleasures, even if they are pocketing the dough. If I only traded my money or services with people who I like or approve of....I would be living the life of the unibomber. Without the bombs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I personally don't think that the proposed condemnations are for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, but abandonment of federalism couldn't possibly be argued in this decision.

Because you don't think economic redevelopment is a "public use," or because you don't think much of this particular project?

[Replaced_Texan]

by Henry C. Smith

According to Henry C. Smith, it one of the greatest ironies of our day that the very practice which religious conservatives have so fiercely opposed, has in the end, helped their cause, and this same practice, which the humanists, liberals, and feminists have been fighting so hard to protect, is destroying their political base.

Smith points out that since abortion was made legal, roughly one quarter of the thirty and under generation has been "exterminated" and argues that for every three children in our society today, there should have been a fourth, if it were not for abortion.

Since conservatives in general, and religious conservatives in particular, do not approve of abortion, he reasons that the bulk of these dead children would have come from liberal homes, and probably would have become liberals themselves.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would think that you would take the view that as long as the owners are justly compensated, the government should have the right to take the property, because we as a society all benefit, directly or indirectly, from the services government provides and those services need to be paid for.

Nope. I'm not a communist. I think any taking should be extremely limited, and I would not use a rational basis test for it. And no, I don't think taking and taxation have very much to do with each other.

Though, as I think I've said, I cannot claim to be enough of a constitutional law scholar to say whether that is a correct analysis of the development of con law over the centuries -- hence my "is that what the Constitution means?" reaction.

I really do wonder, though, why the typical Slave/federalist response -- if you don't like the takings law in one state, live in another -- approach doesn't apply. If it applies to personal liberties -- which I believe are at least as important as property rights, and really what the Bill of Rights was directed at -- why wouldn't it apply to property rights? Isn't that what federalism is really all about?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wow! There's actually hope.

Am I the only person on the board who thinks Kelo was rightly decided?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Am I the only person on the board who thinks Kelo was rightly decided?

Yes.