Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But doesn't this broad reading of public use eviserate the takings clause? Seems to me that if this qualifies, then there are few limits on the Gs right to take the property. I think it would be different if the G wanted to take the property so that they could build a public hospital. Here they are taking from one set of citizens and giving to another, and the transfer of property only benefits the public indirectly, rather than directly.

Plus, the stories of the current owners are pretty sad. A couple of them were born in those houses and their families had lived there over 100 years.

What's the difference between this and taking land for urban redevelopment? Does your analysis apply there as well?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What's the difference between this and taking land for urban redevelopment? Does your analysis apply there as well?

What exactly does urban redevelopment mean? If the land is taken then used by the public (e.g., hospital, ball park, etc.), it feels more justifiable to me.

[sgtclub]

Staking out new ground on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would not have overthrown Saddam Hussein had he been in the White House, and he accused President Bush of "stubborn incompetence," dishonesty and colossal failures of judgment.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040920/D857LANG1.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
OK, so if Bilmore has 5, Ty has 10, and Slave has 15, but Ty and Slave decide that taking Bilmore's 5 will let them each end up with 5 (for a net gain of 5), how will Bilmore be at least as well off as Ty (15) and Slave (20) when he has nothing (as usual)? And even if you give him 5 for taking 5 (though I know you'll only give him 3), how?

Though I grant you, Atticus will be pleased because he takes 1 whenever 5 change hands.

If Bilmore has 5, I have 10, and Slave has 15, and Slave and I get together to pass free-trade legislation that leaves Bilmore with 0, me with 15, and Slave with 25, we should still want to pass the law if part of the deal is that we take 2 from me and 3 from Slave to restore Bilmore to his prior position.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What exactly does urban redevelopment mean? If the land is taken then used by the public (e.g., hospital, ball park, etc.), it feels more justifiable to me.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that when the state takes land from me to build a hospital, it does not need to compensate me for this because I and the rest of the public benefit from the future hospital. Not to confuse you by outflanking you on the right or anything, but this strikes me as crazy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that when the state takes land from me to build a hospital, it does not need to compensate me for this because I and the rest of the public benefit from the future hospital. Not to confuse you by outflanking you on the right or anything, but this strikes me as crazy.

I think you misunderstand him:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Club assumes the compensation is just (although if it were, then the likelihood of dispute diminishes significantly)--that is, it's a necessary condition. But there's a second condition--that the taking be for "public" use, which club recognizes also is in the constitution. Taking property from one private citizen adn giving it to another is not putting the property to public use and therefore absolutely barred by the constitution (contra Jed Rubenfeld, Usings, Yale LJ, who argues those takings need not be compensated at all; accord Democrats)

If we need to distinguish for G3's hypo, (which we don't because that's what's happening in CT essentially), the argument goes that there is in fact a public use in taking completely derelict property and converting it from slums into something useful for the public. Granted, that's simply a question of degree, because none of the plaintiffs in CT believe they're in a slum.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that when the state takes land from me to build a hospital, it does not need to compensate me for this because I and the rest of the public benefit from the future hospital. Not to confuse you by outflanking you on the right or anything, but this strikes me as crazy.

You misunderstand me. See Burger's post, he get's what I'm saying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

If we need to distinguish for G3's hypo, (which we don't because that's what's happening in CT essentially), the argument goes that there is in fact a public use in taking completely derelict property and converting it from slums into something useful for the public. Granted, that's simply a question of degree, because none of the plaintiffs in CT believe they're in a slum.

And, to gloss, I'm simply saying one person's slum is another's castle (and the other way around as well, of course).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You misunderstand me. See Burger's post, he get's what I'm saying.

Damn. I really wanted to outflank you on the right. It would have been my Hello Moment Of The Day(tm).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Damn. I really wanted to outflank you on the right. It would have been my Hello Moment Of The Day(tm).

I think you can do that on drug policy, if I recall.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Interesting article by Novak today. He says that his sources tell him that the Bush administration plans to withdraw from Iraq in the next year, whether or not it has been rebuilt.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040920.shtml

I was amazed by this, to say the least. It's especially noteworthy on a day when Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said "John Kerry's latest position on Iraq is to advocate retreat and defeat in the face of terror."

Of course, this is Novak we're talking about here, and he's had an axe to grind with the neocons for a while now, so this may just be speculation of the idlest kind by a disgruntled current employee source. I mean, Wolfowitz advocating getting out? That would be stunning.

Aside from all that, I got a real chuckle out of your use of the "whether or not it has been rebuilt" qualifier. I don't think anyone, including Bilmore's optimistic friend Captain Ed, believes the place will be rebuilt by next year...

et make clear that i mean rebuilt in a fix-the-buildings sense, not in some nebulous the-nation-is-rebuilt sense. I don't want any easterners to get a 3 hour head start on a flame war tomorrow morning ("OH YES WE CAN REBUILD IT BY NEXT WEEK, AND HERE'S WHY!") based on something I didn't mean...I'd prefer to save that for when I'm around....

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think you can do that on drug policy, if I recall.

Yo, I'm pretty sure I outflank anyone here to the right on any issue. Y'all suckers need to step off.

re: drug policy. Preferable to legalize and tax, spend tax money on prevention and treatment. As long as its illegal, shoot everybody, especially all y'all crackheads.

re: public housing. Preferable to abolish, cept for those who can't fend for themselves. As long as its legal, spread the pain around fairly and don't let nobody pay to get out of the war on poverty.

re: Fallujah. Preferable to fight and kill our enemies. As long as we won't, preferable to leave (liberally leaving weapons in the hands of the Kurds and Shiites).

re: Taxes. 12% baby. Bid me lower or bow down.

Someone wanna tell me how they are farther to the right? I'm the rightest mutha in the house.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

From today's Washington Post:

>>The man CBS News touted as the "unimpeachable source" of explosive documents about President Bush's National Guard service turns out to be a former Guard officer with a history of self-described mental problems who has denounced Bush as a liar with "demonic personality shortcomings."<<

This is just the first paragraph of another lengthy article. Kudos to the Post for doing a good job with this one. Does anyone have any idea who was responsible for generating and approving the use of the term "unimpeachable"? Anybody involved with that should be fired.

Hello

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
From today's Washington Post:

>>The man CBS News touted as the "unimpeachable source" of explosive documents about President Bush's National Guard service turns out to be a former Guard officer with a history of self-described mental problems who has denounced Bush as a liar with "demonic personality shortcomings."<<

This is just the first paragraph of another lengthy article. Kudos to the Post for doing a good job with this one. Does anyone have any idea who was responsible for generating and approving the use of the term "unimpeachable"? Anybody involved with that should be fired.

Hello

Rather should tell anyone who suggests he be fired to go rub their knuckles in shit. Fox has dragged us into the gutter; pardon CBS for fumbling as it struggles to kneel in the muck.

Give the newbie liar and spinner a break. CBS will get better - its lies and spin will be as hard to unscramble as Fox's soon enough.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Burkett has been around, feeding stuff to reporters, for a while. I find it highly, highly improbable that Rove or other Republicans had anything to do with what he fed CBS. I just think that once Rove et al. figured out what CBS was about to run, they found a skillful way to play it.

Considering they had all of three hours, whereas the Kerry campaign had 3 days, it's all the more impressive.