Property is Liberty, and Regulation Is Theft

[billyerock1991]

I didn't change my mind at all

Keystone is a private company building a for profit enterprise I would never support government getting involved in that in fact I don't even know why they are involved now. If a business can come to terms with private landowners and but or lease the land for a project why should the government get involved at all?

The fact is there are no plans for it to be built

Sure they can buy off some land owners wh leases . But not all.

There's no way you can build a pipeline clear across the country wh out ED.

Just think how they could be stopped by any enviro group that buys a well placed plot of land .

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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.

he doesn't like the Idea of government forcing you to sell your land ... we know if that never happen we wouldn't have cities

 

[NYcarbineer]

So in the space of five minutes you've changed your mind,

or did you just get busted?

I didn't change my mind at all

Keystone is a private company building a for profit enterprise I would never support government getting involved in that in fact I don't even know why they are involved now. If a business can come to terms with private landowners and but or lease the land for a project why should the government get involved at all?

The fact is there are no plans for it to be built

Sure they can buy off some land owners wh leases . But not all.

There's no way you can build a pipeline clear across the country wh out ED.

Just think how they could be stopped by any enviro group that buys a well placed plot of land .

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

Don't feel bad. Ted Cruz stepped in it on this same thing:

Disconnect for Ted Cruz Between Pipeline Stance and Attack on Trump

 

[Skull Pilot]

I didn't change my mind at all

Keystone is a private company building a for profit enterprise I would never support government getting involved in that in fact I don't even know why they are involved now. If a business can come to terms with private landowners and but or lease the land for a project why should the government get involved at all?

The fact is there are no plans for it to be built

Sure they can buy off some land owners wh leases . But not all.

There's no way you can build a pipeline clear across the country wh out ED.

Just think how they could be stopped by any enviro group that buys a well placed plot of land .

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure they can buy off some land owners wh leases . But not all.

There's no way you can build a pipeline clear across the country wh out ED.

Just think how they could be stopped by any enviro group that buys a well placed plot of land .

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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.

he doesn't like the Idea of government forcing you to sell your land ... we know if that never happen we wouldn't have cities

Yeah cities are great

(sarcasm)

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

eminent domain laws aren't just for the government to use its also for private sector to use

And therein lies the abuse

suck to be you ...I guess you feel the government abuses us all the time ... OH well

Better than being in denial

how is that being in denial ??? how is it when you see a law you don't like, I don't like, that I'm being in denial... government is here to make laws, if you don't like them do something, instead of whining about it ... all I've said is I don't like it,but realize that it is and important law that should be use wisely ... you feel we shouldn't have it at all ... with that attitude nothging would never get done

hey it's the law so that's how it is it doesn't matter as long as it's not my house getting bulldozed

Shit if everyone thought like you we'd still have slavery

 

[NYcarbineer]

eminent domain laws aren't just for the government to use its also for private sector to use

And therein lies the abuse

suck to be you ...I guess you feel the government abuses us all the time ... OH well

Better than being in denial

how is that being in denial ??? how is it when you see a law you don't like, I don't like, that I'm being in denial... government is here to make laws, if you don't like them do something, instead of whining about it ... all I've said is I don't like it,but realize that it is and important law that should be use wisely ... you feel we shouldn't have it at all ... with that attitude nothging would never get done

hey it's the law so that's how it is it doesn't matter as long as it's not my house getting bulldozed

Shit if everyone thought like you we'd still have slavery

If everyone thought like you we'd have no interstate highway system, no rail system.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure they can buy off some land owners wh leases . But not all.

There's no way you can build a pipeline clear across the country wh out ED.

Just think how they could be stopped by any enviro group that buys a well placed plot of land .

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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.

 

[boilermaker55]

We are in agreement.

You have never eviscerated anyone in your life. Only in your feeble little mind.

Goldberg is an asshole spawned by what became one of the most hated women in America. He is a low rent propagandist commentator of ill repute.

Time and again, when folks realize they have been skewered, that they have no adequate response to truth that destroys their worldview, their most closely held beliefs, their language falls to the vulgar.

It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.

That would be you.

Asshole is the legal and accurate term for that guy who the great traitor/betrayer dumped on America. It is therefore not vulgar.

1. You are not only the low-life anti-American, as I stated earlier.
But you are a vulgar low-life anti-American.

2. And, you are a blow hard who has not read the scholarly work by Goldberg.

3. "Although Goldberg does permit himself a few moments of over-the-top liberal bashing,his book is for the most part a work of serious scholarship that attempts to identify important intellectual connections between the American Progressives and European Fascists of the early twentieth century and a number of trends in modern U.S. politics, many but not all of which are associated with contemporary American liberalism.

For the most part,Goldberg succeeds in this endeavor,calling our attention to the ways in which the Progressives, the Fascists, and much of liberalism share a fundamental distrust of markets, unintended social order, and other core ideas of classical liberalism.

Goldberg’s strengths arehis destruction of the argument that fascism is “right-wing”and the way he draws powerful parallels between the line from American Progressivism to the New Deal and the ideas behind European fascism."
https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf




You are a disgusting little twerp, and I thoroughly enjoy eviscerating your posts on a daily basis.

Her attempted insults aren't taken seriously. It is her routine response anytime she is challenged or questioned. Her default so to speak. No matter how much rational, logic, common sense, academic, intellectual or provable points backed up by reliable links are used, PC will fall back to her default of insulting. PC pretends to be scholarly, but scholars are not stubborn and predisposed to predetermined results. Scholars by definition are open to learning and discovering.

Note how the scholar PC quotes, Professor Steven Horwitz, does not refer to Jonah Goldberg as a fellow scholar, but rather calls his work "for the most part a work of serious scholarship". A polite way of saying the book and writings are not genuine scholarly work due to the other, unmentioned parts included in his book. The fact he precedes that quote by admitting Goldberg includes "over the top liberal bashing" shows his effort to be polite and give a favorable book review, but needs to distance himself from giving a full endorsement. Horwitz, after all, while an adherent of the Austrian school of economics and dedicated to conservative principals, must protect and maintain his reputation as a genuine scholar. For this reason, the works of a Goldberg never get a real scholarly endorsement, but rather a polite review and suggestion of the work being interesting.

 

[Agit8r]

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

When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?

Trumpism.

Trump????

How about Democrat elected officials.....

And, some education for you, too.....


The dictator-wannabe Franklin Roosevelt had followers like this:

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism

Gee, I hadn't realized this was posted under history.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the theft in regulating abortion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?

Trumpism.

Trump????

How about Democrat elected officials.....

And, some education for you, too.....


The dictator-wannabe Franklin Roosevelt had followers like this:

The attitude of the FDR government can be seen in these words of A.B. “Happy” Chandler, a former Kentucky governor: “[A]ll of us owe the government; we owe it for everything we have—and that is the basis of obligation—and the government can take everything we have if the government needs it. . . . The government can assert its right to have all the taxes it needs for any purpose, either now or at any time in the future.”
From a speech delivered on the Senate floor
May 14, 1943 Happy Chandler’s dangerous statism

Gee, I hadn't realized this was posted under history.

Technically, the statement is true.

PoliticalChic pretends the government shouldn't be able to take anything. I'll bet though she doesn't mind how much was taken from the American people, including American lives, including conscripted Americans' lives,

to defend her Korean homeland.

Oh, but that's different, she'll say.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And therein lies the abuse

suck to be you ...I guess you feel the government abuses us all the time ... OH well

Better than being in denial

how is that being in denial ??? how is it when you see a law you don't like, I don't like, that I'm being in denial... government is here to make laws, if you don't like them do something, instead of whining about it ... all I've said is I don't like it,but realize that it is and important law that should be use wisely ... you feel we shouldn't have it at all ... with that attitude nothging would never get done

hey it's the law so that's how it is it doesn't matter as long as it's not my house getting bulldozed

Shit if everyone thought like you we'd still have slavery

If everyone thought like you we'd have no interstate highway system, no rail system.

But you fail to see that we don't need any more highways or railroads so there is no need for the government to steal any more homes
And besides homes aren't being stolen for big nation building projects anymore they are being stolen to give land to private developers so a town can raise it's tax vase

 

[Skull Pilot]

Again that's a concern of the private business not the government

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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 ******* government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

 

[TemplarKormac]

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, however that doesn't mean I don't understand what it means. Though 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.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The whole point of the SCOTUS rulings is that the government can determine what is of public interest to the degree that eminent domain becomes a legal and valid action by the government

Like I said before, if that is true for the federal government, it is also true for the states. That means the states can enact their own versions eminent domain, inasmuch, they chose to prohibit the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. The constitutional impact of Kelo is nullified because it no longer applies to the vast majority of the states.

 

[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.

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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 ******* 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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're denying you ever supported the pipeline and your posting history is an illusion?

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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 ******* government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

You are aware aren't you that in order to abolish eminent domain the Constitution would have to be amended?

Eh?

 

[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.

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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 ******* 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 ******* government stepping on peoples' rights too

 

[Skull Pilot]

Where did I say that?

Stop trying to tell me what I say.

I can support the pipeline and still be against eminent domain
Unlike you I know things can be done without the ******* government trampling over people and stealing their homes

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 ******* government has no business getting involved if the company can't make it happen then that's their problem

You are aware aren't you that in order to abolish eminent domain the Constitution would have to be amended?

Eh?

SO what?

It's been amended before hasn't it? WHen enough people get sick of the ******* government stealing homes and land it will be changed

 

[Skull Pilot]

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