Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Hank, you are never going to unconvince someone there is no conspiracy when that is what they want to believe. No amount of facts or sound reasoning will cause them to give up their conspiracy theory.

I'm not hearing Ty saying anything about a Rovian conspiracy. And you are hearing me specifically disavow such a notion.

If anything, I'm suggesting that one genius R could engineer this by tricking some lunatic leftist Texan. Odds: 15% Odds that the lunatic leftist Texan did this alone: 70%. There ain't a conspiracy anywhere in there. D'ju skip that semester too?

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not hearing Ty saying anything about a Rovian conspiracy. And you are hearing me specifically disavow such a notion.

If anything, I'm suggesting that one genius R could engineer this by tricking some lunatic leftist Texan. Odds: 15% Odds that the lunatic leftist Texan did this alone: 70%. There ain't a conspiracy anywhere in there. D'ju skip that semester too?

Hello

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.

[Say_hello_for_me]

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.

I hate to say it Ty, but these guys are so used to disagreeing with you, that they are going to try and put words in your mouth just so they can feel like the world hasn't been turned upside down.

Remember when Bugs Bunny would start saying "Is", and his nemesis would say "Is Not", and they would go back and forth for awhile til Bugs Bunny would say "Is Not", just so the nemesis would finally say "Is"?

Well, one of these days I'm afraid you are going to post something about Ronald Reagan being the greatest American president ever, and 3 or 4 people are going to start screaming about how he was a pinko queer. Mark my words.

Hello

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(or Lugar, or Hagel, or Graham) I suppose we'd have to question their patriotism. Bastards slander the effort like that, and all . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ors/index.html

The core:

"Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Bush was not being "as straight as maybe we'd like to see" with the American people about Iraq.

Whoa. Guess McCain's not on the campaign trail anymore.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I hate to say it Ty, but these guys are so used to disagreeing with you, that they are going to try and put words in your mouth just so they can feel like the world hasn't been turned upside down.

Sorry, man. With that little post, you are now persona non grata with the Conservative Establishment of this Board. You thought the Bushies turned on their own, wait 'till you see this crowd.

So, meetings are Tuesdays at 6:30. Bring your own coffee, and you can use Club's seat for now. (He won't be back until the market failure on cocunut supplies gets sorted out.)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Sorry, man. With that little post, you are now persona non grata with the Conservative Establishment of this Board. You thought the Bushies turned on their own, wait 'till you see this crowd.

So, meetings are Tuesdays at 6:30. Bring your own coffee, and you can use Club's seat for now. (He won't be back until the market failure on cocunut supplies gets sorted out.)

Well, I might just have to start a third party.

My premise would be a 12% national tax and a ban on any deficit. Congress can't buy it with the 12%? Well, get all interested parties to write checks to cover the difference.

Oh yeah, and rights and priveliges actually will be reserved and retained for the states.

Who's with me?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Oh yeah, and rights and priveliges actually will be reserved and retained for the states.

Who's with me?

Anyone been following the eminent domain case in Connecticut?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me


Oh yeah, and rights and priveliges actually will be reserved and retained for the states.

When did states get rights? I thought it was people who had rights.

At what's the eminent domain case in CT? I did read an interesting blurb about (I think) Michigan, and its S. Ct.'s reversal of an earlier decision. It actually restored some bite to the "for public use" aspect of the state V amend equivalent, so that the state couldn't take a bunch of property and then give it to a developer to upgrade the area. Huzzah!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
At what's the eminent domain case in CT? I did read an interesting blurb about (I think) Michigan, and its S. Ct.'s reversal of an earlier decision. It actually restored some bite to the "for public use" aspect of the state V amend equivalent, so that the state couldn't take a bunch of property and then give it to a developer to upgrade the area. Huzzah!

The argument in CT, as I understand it, is that the state wants to take a bunch of residential property so that it can be developed for other use. The argument is that the "other use" will generate far more money in property taxes which will benefit the public. 90 or so residents have sold out to the state, but there are 7 holdouts. The case is to be heard by the US SCT in October.

[SlaveNoMore]

Say_hello_for_me
Well, one of these days I'm afraid you are going to post something about Ronald Reagan being the greatest American president ever, and 3 or 4 people are going to start screaming about how he was a pinko queer.

If John Kerry's own webmaster can confuse his boss' record with that of Bob Kerrey, then it wouldn't surprise me if a few GAs confused Ron Reagan with Ron Reagan Jr.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The argument in CT, as I understand it, is that the state wants to take a bunch of residential property so that it can be developed for other use. The argument is that the "other use" will generate far more money in property taxes which will benefit the public. 90 or so residents have sold out to the state, but there are 7 holdouts. The case is to be heard by the US SCT in October.

Much like the arguments for free trade (hi skek!), it seems just to me that those benefiting from the state action compensate the victims, through the state, for the harm they suffer. If the state action is truly net beneficial, everyone will still be at least as well off in the end.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Much like the arguments for free trade (hi skek!), it seems just to me that those benefiting from the state action compensate the victims, through the state, for the harm they suffer. If the state action is truly net beneficial, everyone will still be at least as well off in the end.

These things happen all the time, of course, but the logic is pretty damned paternalistic and assumes the state has the sole appropriate measure of value. Whether it's taking farm land for a football stadium, an Indian burial ground for a road, or a "slum" for urban redevelopment, the folks forced to sell their land usually suffer disproportionately and the collective benefit is usually a benefit perceived mainly by the proverbial tyranical majority.

Anyone up for 2004, a Takings Odyssey (the sequel to the Great Zoning Debate)?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the state action is truly net beneficial, everyone will still be at least as well off in the end.

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.

[Say_hello_for_me]

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.

Where's the Skipper while all this is going on?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Much like the arguments for free trade (hi skek!), it seems just to me that those benefiting from the state action compensate the victims, through the state, for the harm they suffer. If the state action is truly net beneficial, everyone will still be at least as well off in the end.

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.