Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explain to me how you can have both socialism and private property.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
Socialism:a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
If I owned that land I would have put it into a conservation easement, or flooded it and made it a wetland, to keep the federal government's hands off it. I still can't believe how much land they're taking for that stupid memorial.
It's not stupid - the people on Flight 93 were true heroes. They were able to avert a disaster in Washington.
That said, it seems there could be a better solution than taking away private land.
Why didn't they seize hundreds of acres in NY city?
They didn't but they are planning a memorial there. I do not support them seizing 2,200 acres - a few as the previous poster mentioned, yes. But NOT 2,200.
It is if you have looked at the plans and what's going on. An acre or two I wouldn't have an issue with. 2200 acres is absurd.
Any seizure of private property for the purpose of a memorial would be absurd. While I agree that the Heroes of Flight 93 were heroes in the truest sense of the word, and I agree that there ought to be a fantastic memorial to them and their bravery, I simply CANNOT suggest that it be erected on land that is TAKEN from someone who would rather not give it. Find a spot where the owner is happy to give or sell the space, and put the memorial there.
I used the search function to find old posts related to Bush and civilian deaths in Iraq. The results were as expected: because of civilian deaths in Iraq, Bush was labled a murderer . Given the 100 civilian deaths yesterday, do any on the Left now view Obama a murderer?
And I have to say, NO. President Obama cannot be called a murderer becasue of the innocent civilians that were killed yesterday. Those deaths go squarely on the heads of the dirtbags we are hunting over there, the taliban. The news I hear now is that the taliban lured American forces to a prechosen spot, and intentionally put those civilians there to be killed, perhaps even going so far as to lob the kiling grenades in themselves when American forces didn't kill them.
Last edited by Bill Keegan; 05-07-2009 at 03:10 PM..
Reason: Typo
Of course it is. For years we have heard numerous Democrats accuse Bush of being a murderer. Several frequent posters here have called for him to be tried post-Presidency for torture and war crimes against civilians. Given that Obama is now President, supports the war in Afghanastan, has called for tens of thousands of new troops to the region, and he was CIC this week when 100+ civilians were killed, why has there been no outrage? Is he not a murderer as well? Help me understand the distinction, please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
