Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

[NYcarbineer]

No, it can't. It is the last SCOTUS ruling on the word you are still misspelling and pronouncing from the way you spell your version of eminent domain. The SCOTUS ruling still stands. No matter how many state legislatures passed laws to neutralize the court ruling, it still stands as the Constitutional ruling on eminent domain.

*snort*

Yes, you are correct that I used the wrong spelling of eminent domain. But if you think about it, they both apply to the act of government seizing property. Imminent as it relates to having your property taken with little notice, and eminent which I think is misapplied to government, because that word implies the presence of a positive quality or a distinguished presence. Government has no positive quality of any kind, and its presence is hardly distinguished, especially when it seizes property that isn't theirs.

All you have left is to attack my spelling and insist that the Tenth Amendment (states rights) doesn't apply to imminent (eminent) domain. If I recall my constitutional law correctly, imminent domain can be defined by states by any means they wish. If they wish to restrict imminent domain for one purpose or expand it for another, the courts have not stopped them from doing so.

Therefore, the constitutional impact of Kelo is nullified.

How can youi support something that cannot exist without eminent domain, and had already used eminent domain to establish much of its route,

and then claim you're against eminent domain? The two positions are irreconcilable.

You say it can't exist without government I say it can

Business do shit all the time without the government stealing people's land for it

But not the pipeline you support.

You keep saying that but the pipeline could be built without stealing anyone's land.
The pipeline is not a going to be a public project it is a PRIVATE for profit venture and the fucking government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

So you believe that all of the pipelines that have already been built using eminent domain should be shut off and dug up and disposed of?

Don't be a fucktard

Chances are those could have been done without the fucking government stepping on peoples' rights too

Eminent domain is a government power, which means that opposing it is not a right of the people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The real problem as illustrated here is that you IDIOTS think that nothing can get done unless the fucking government runs rough shod over anyone in its path

if anyone is and idiot that would be you ... the only reason the government takes a home is they need it ... this idea that you feel they are running rough shod over it is just plain crazy on your part ... you're one of those anti-government at all cost ... thank goodness you haven't any control what the governments does ... thank goodness we out number you nut jobs

No the government takes homes to give the land to private developers if the government needed the homes the government would keep the land not sell it at a profit to someone else

bull shit ... if the government takes it and you are paid for it ... by the company that needs it ... the government has been saying for years let the private sector pay for it ... and now that they are you're complaining about it ...

So does the government need it or does a private for profit company need it?

 

[billyerock1991]

You said all eminent domain acquisitions were theft. You're debating yourself now.

They are. But one crime can be more egregious than another

Or don't you know that?

So you're willing to endorse theft but not murder.

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

they are just ignorant

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, it can't. It is the last SCOTUS ruling on the word you are still misspelling and pronouncing from the way you spell your version of eminent domain. The SCOTUS ruling still stands. No matter how many state legislatures passed laws to neutralize the court ruling, it still stands as the Constitutional ruling on eminent domain.

*snort*

Yes, you are correct that I used the wrong spelling of eminent domain. But if you think about it, they both apply to the act of government seizing property. Imminent as it relates to having your property taken with little notice, and eminent which I think is misapplied to government, because that word implies the presence of a positive quality or a distinguished presence. Government has no positive quality of any kind, and its presence is hardly distinguished, especially when it seizes property that isn't theirs.

All you have left is to attack my spelling and insist that the Tenth Amendment (states rights) doesn't apply to imminent (eminent) domain. If I recall my constitutional law correctly, imminent domain can be defined by states by any means they wish. If they wish to restrict imminent domain for one purpose or expand it for another, the courts have not stopped them from doing so.

Therefore, the constitutional impact of Kelo is nullified.

You say it can't exist without government I say it can

Business do shit all the time without the government stealing people's land for it

But not the pipeline you support.

You keep saying that but the pipeline could be built without stealing anyone's land.
The pipeline is not a going to be a public project it is a PRIVATE for profit venture and the fucking government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

So you believe that all of the pipelines that have already been built using eminent domain should be shut off and dug up and disposed of?

Don't be a fucktard

Chances are those could have been done without the fucking government stepping on peoples' rights too

Eminent domain is a government power, which means that opposing it is not a right of the people.

Of course it is

Many government powers have been opposed and the laws changed you know like slavery

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are. But one crime can be more egregious than another

Or don't you know that?

So you're willing to endorse theft but not murder.

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

Like I said as long as it's not your house you don't give a shit

Nice meltdown. Now back to the topic. Tell us how you would build our highway system without eminent domain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are. But one crime can be more egregious than another

Or don't you know that?

So you're willing to endorse theft but not murder.

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

Like I said as long as it's not your house you don't give a shit

I wouldn't be unhappy if the government came in and took my home for fair market value.

 

[billyerock1991]

The real problem as illustrated here is that you IDIOTS think that nothing can get done unless the fucking government runs rough shod over anyone in its path

if anyone is and idiot that would be you ... the only reason the government takes a home is they need it ... this idea that you feel they are running rough shod over it is just plain crazy on your part ... you're one of those anti-government at all cost ... thank goodness you haven't any control what the governments does ... thank goodness we out number you nut jobs

No the government takes homes to give the land to private developers if the government needed the homes the government would keep the land not sell it at a profit to someone else

bull shit ... if the government takes it and you are paid for it ... by the company that needs it ... the government has been saying for years let the private sector pay for it ... and now that they are you're complaining about it ...

So does the government need it or does a private for profit company need it?

who cares its not about who needs it ... its about what is needed ... whether its the government or the private sector, and what the hell does profits have to do with it ... do you think government isn't allowed to make profit???? then you're a lot more stupid then i first thought

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it can't. It is the last SCOTUS ruling on the word you are still misspelling and pronouncing from the way you spell your version of eminent domain. The SCOTUS ruling still stands. No matter how many state legislatures passed laws to neutralize the court ruling, it still stands as the Constitutional ruling on eminent domain.

*snort*

Yes, you are correct that I used the wrong spelling of eminent domain. But if you think about it, they both apply to the act of government seizing property. Imminent as it relates to having your property taken with little notice, and eminent which I think is misapplied to government, because that word implies the presence of a positive quality or a distinguished presence. Government has no positive quality of any kind, and its presence is hardly distinguished, especially when it seizes property that isn't theirs.

All you have left is to attack my spelling and insist that the Tenth Amendment (states rights) doesn't apply to imminent (eminent) domain. If I recall my constitutional law correctly, imminent domain can be defined by states by any means they wish. If they wish to restrict imminent domain for one purpose or expand it for another, the courts have not stopped them from doing so.

Therefore, the constitutional impact of Kelo is nullified.

But not the pipeline you support.

You keep saying that but the pipeline could be built without stealing anyone's land.
The pipeline is not a going to be a public project it is a PRIVATE for profit venture and the fucking government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

So you believe that all of the pipelines that have already been built using eminent domain should be shut off and dug up and disposed of?

Don't be a fucktard

Chances are those could have been done without the fucking government stepping on peoples' rights too

Eminent domain is a government power, which means that opposing it is not a right of the people.

Of course it is

Many government powers have been opposed and the laws changed you know like slavery

Imagine this map with almost every one of those red and blue lines gone,

and then you can imagine living in Skull's ideal world.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you're willing to endorse theft but not murder.

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

Like I said as long as it's not your house you don't give a shit

Nice meltdown. Now back to the topic. Tell us how you would build our highway system without eminent domain.

I think it would have been done anyway even if the government diidn't do it and people could have gotten an actual fair price for their land not what the governemnt tols them was fair
That has nothing to do with the abuses going on today where property is being taken by the government and transferred to another citizen

 

[billyerock1991]

So you're willing to endorse theft but not murder.

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

Like I said as long as it's not your house you don't give a shit

I wouldn't be unhappy if the government came in and took my home for fair market value.

thats the way its done ...they have never taken a home or land with out paying for it

 

[Skull Pilot]

The real problem as illustrated here is that you IDIOTS think that nothing can get done unless the fucking government runs rough shod over anyone in its path

if anyone is and idiot that would be you ... the only reason the government takes a home is they need it ... this idea that you feel they are running rough shod over it is just plain crazy on your part ... you're one of those anti-government at all cost ... thank goodness you haven't any control what the governments does ... thank goodness we out number you nut jobs

No the government takes homes to give the land to private developers if the government needed the homes the government would keep the land not sell it at a profit to someone else

bull shit ... if the government takes it and you are paid for it ... by the company that needs it ... the government has been saying for years let the private sector pay for it ... and now that they are you're complaining about it ...

So does the government need it or does a private for profit company need it?

who cares its not about who needs it ... its about what is needed ... whether its the government or the private sector, and what the hell does profits have to do with it ... do you think government isn't allowed to make profit???? then you're a lot more stupid then i first thought

You just said the government takes the land it needs and then you said that it can be taken because a private company needs it

So which is it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

Like I said as long as it's not your house you don't give a shit

I wouldn't be unhappy if the government came in and took my home for fair market value.

thats the way its done ...they have never taken a home or land with out paying for it

Yeah at the price they say you have to take period. That's not buying that is theft

If I walked into your home and said here's 20 bucks get the fuck out and I have armed police with me is that not stealing?

That is exactly what eminent domain seizures are. People never get what they would on the open market.

 

[billyerock1991]

*snort*

Yes, you are correct that I used the wrong spelling of eminent domain. But if you think about it, they both apply to the act of government seizing property. Imminent as it relates to having your property taken with little notice, and eminent which I think is misapplied to government, because that word implies the presence of a positive quality or a distinguished presence. Government has no positive quality of any kind, and its presence is hardly distinguished, especially when it seizes property that isn't theirs.

All you have left is to attack my spelling and insist that the Tenth Amendment (states rights) doesn't apply to imminent (eminent) domain. If I recall my constitutional law correctly, imminent domain can be defined by states by any means they wish. If they wish to restrict imminent domain for one purpose or expand it for another, the courts have not stopped them from doing so.

Therefore, the constitutional impact of Kelo is nullified.

You keep saying that but the pipeline could be built without stealing anyone's land.
The pipeline is not a going to be a public project it is a PRIVATE for profit venture and the fucking government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

So you believe that all of the pipelines that have already been built using eminent domain should be shut off and dug up and disposed of?

Don't be a fucktard

Chances are those could have been done without the fucking government stepping on peoples' rights too

Eminent domain is a government power, which means that opposing it is not a right of the people.

Of course it is

Many government powers have been opposed and the laws changed you know like slavery

Imagine this map with almost every one of those red and blue lines gone,

and then you can imagine living in Skull's ideal world.

he's a moron ... his argument is moronic ... he tries to push this notion that the government takes your property with out paying for it ... that has never happen that I'm aware of

 

[billyerock1991]

if anyone is and idiot that would be you ... the only reason the government takes a home is they need it ... this idea that you feel they are running rough shod over it is just plain crazy on your part ... you're one of those anti-government at all cost ... thank goodness you haven't any control what the governments does ... thank goodness we out number you nut jobs

No the government takes homes to give the land to private developers if the government needed the homes the government would keep the land not sell it at a profit to someone else

bull shit ... if the government takes it and you are paid for it ... by the company that needs it ... the government has been saying for years let the private sector pay for it ... and now that they are you're complaining about it ...

So does the government need it or does a private for profit company need it?

who cares its not about who needs it ... its about what is needed ... whether its the government or the private sector, and what the hell does profits have to do with it ... do you think government isn't allowed to make profit???? then you're a lot more stupid then i first thought

You just said the government takes the land it needs and then you said that it can be taken because a private company needs it

So which is it?

its both moron ... if the government need it, they take it ... if the privet company needs its, they can take it too ...how hard is that for you to grasp in both caes you are paid the currant market value...

 

[billyerock1991]

how is it theft when you get paid market value ... where do you get this fucked up Idea you aren't reimburse for your property ... are you really this stupid

These people think taxation is theft. They think any system that doesn't let the individual live by his own set of personal laws is theft.

Like I said as long as it's not your house you don't give a shit

I wouldn't be unhappy if the government came in and took my home for fair market value.

thats the way its done ...they have never taken a home or land with out paying for it

Yeah at the price they say you have to take period. That's not buying that is theft

If I walked into your home and said here's 20 bucks get the fuck out and I have armed police with me is that not stealing?

That is exactly what eminent domain seizures are. People never get what they would on the open market.

thats correct ... they get the currant market value.... thats not theft ....then you are paid the currant market value ... you don't get less money or more money for it ...you don't get to choose how much, the market does ... just like it has always done when you would sell your house ... its no different

 

[billyerock1991]

Okay. You build the interstate highway system without the power of eminent domain, and show us what it would look like.

The highway system was a government defense project NOT a PRIVATE FOR PROFIT endeavor

Are you too fucking thick to see the difference?

You said all eminent domain acquisitions were theft. You're debating yourself now.

They are. But one crime can be more egregious than another

Or don't you know that?

So you're willing to endorse theft but not murder.

I endorse neither but we know you endorse theft as long as it's not your house being stolen and bulldozed

name one home that was stolen by the government or private companies then bulldozed that wasn't paid for by the government or the private sector

 

[Contumacious]

Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.

Full Definition of theft

1. 1a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Yep, taxes are theft

 

[KissMy]

Regulation prevents the Entitled Rich & their Powerful Giant Bully Corporations from stealing everything you worked hard for & killing you off at will.

 

[bripat9643]

Regulation prevents the Entitled Rich & their Powerful Giant Bully Corporations from stealing everything you worked hard for & killing you off at will.

Actually it does precisely the opposite.

 

[KissMy]

Republican Party Platform of 1968

Preamble, Purposes and Pledges:

By reducing interest rates through responsible fiscal and monetary policy we will lower the costs of home-ownership, and new technologies and programs will be developed to stimulate low-cost methods of housing rehabilitation. Local communities will be encouraged to adopt uniform, modern building codes.

Republicans started the DEA & forced insurance exploding healthcare cost.