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.
I've often been told that 'eminent domain' means that the government has ownership of all land.
However, the constitution says that such takings require JUST compensation - in lawful money (gold / silver coin). And the taking had better be for the GENERAL WELFARE, and not some whim of a tyrant or special interest.
Since 1935, duly enumerated socialists do not absolutely own private property. And since the government routinely takes property without paying JUST compensation in lawful money, it is evident that eminent domain is not behind their authority and power.
Frankly, they haven't pay just compensation, in lawful money, since 1933.
"Just compensation", as well as "general welfare", absent any exact definition, means anything any group of politicians decide it means.
I do not like this state of affairs much, but I don't perceive any improvement even when Republicans control all three branches of government (as in Kelo v. New London).
Socialism isn't all that horrible as many paranoid right-wingers claim it is.
What is so bad about the people owning things that affect everyone?
As it is, I work for the gov't one day for every two days I work for myself. Do the math. 2:1. Not that bad. **** you! Every day I get taxed more - it gravitates more towards working two days for the gov't for everyday I work for myself. Do that that math.
Last edited by mossomo; 02-23-2010 at 01:31 AM..
Reason: don't believe in serfdom
As it is, I work for the gov't one day for every two days I work for myself. Do the math. 2:1. Not that bad. **** you! Every day I get taxed more - it gravitates more towards working two days for the gov't for everyday I work for myself. Do that that math.
You get taxed more every day? Funny guy.
If you're paying 50% of your earnings in taxes, you're either in the top bracket, or your math is wrong. If you're in the top bracket, I'll send you a bucket of crocodile tears.
O'Reilly has been slobbering over Obama ever since his name was on the list for the WHCD.
He must have went; it seems he left his nuts at the White House cafeteria and doesn't remember.
Subjective term socialism. May I say I enjoy reading all of your posts on this forum and get a better understanding about what's going on in our country. The debate is good and intense with passion because there are many usual that post regularly and make this the best forum on CD.
I liked the genuine surprise look on Newt Gingrich's face every time O'Reillly interrupted him to defend his boyfriend.
O'Reillys been doing a lot of huffing and puffing lately in an obvious attempt at impressing Obama. He doesn't let people finish their sentences anymore, his voice goes up a few octaves, often accompanied by the flush look.
Definitely has changed.
I tune in for Miller time
O'Reilly was out of his league trying to debate socialism with Gingrich. In the end Gingrich gave him a pass realizing O'Reilly didn't know what Gingrich was talking about when Gingrich offered up several examples of socialisric counttres and the degree of it [que Bill]
Never has a president inherited an economy in such an extreme state of disaster as our current president.
And extreme problems demanded extreme solutions.
You can thank your President Bush for leaving our economy on the verge of a complete meltdown.
And you can thank President Obama for having the courage to make the difficult and unpopular financial decisions necessary to reverse it's course.
First of all, the economy was not in an extreme state of disaster, that was just manufactured fear mongering of a recession so obama could get his stimulus passed. Think about it; if the situation were so dire, why after just one year, is 2/3 rd of the money still unspent.
Taking over the auto industry, the student loan industry, the mortgage industry, the health care industry and the banking industry has nothing to do with the recession.
jetgraphics, if I'm not mistaken, isn't Obama beginning to allow banks to return to being privately run? And keep in mind if not for the hands on governing of business the last year or so, unemployment may be double or triple what it currently is. Can you tell me business would've recovered under lassiez-faire with a straight face?
Yes I can tell you with a straight face,you might not have noticed but the banks are not lending.That was part of the plan to shore up the balance sheets and them to lend to boost the economy.That did not take place,do you recall a couple of months ago Obama had a bankers meeting to brow beat them to lend more.
The banks are holding 1 trillion in reserves and are not lending so lo and behold enter Barnanke.Who sets up a program that pays the banks interest on their reserves.Why would the banks lend when they can take no risk and get payed interest?
The only segment that has benefited from TARP is the banking cartel,they scared the populace with the "it will be worse "boogeyman.
That same boogeyman was used for the auto bail out that we are on the hook for 24 billion.You mean to tell me that if we let them go through normal bankruptcy there would have been no investors to swoop them up,I do not believe that.
Home mortgage, student loans, car companies, energy, banks, health care.
Never has such a radical leftist occupied the White House.
If it walks like a duck, If it has feathers like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, its probably a duck or in this case a socialist
As it is, I work for the gov't one day for every two days I work for myself. Do the math. 2:1. Not that bad. **** you! Every day I get taxed more - it gravitates more towards working two days for the gov't for everyday I work for myself. Do that that math.
Then you are a good patriot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
That which is given free will not be cherished.
True. Except that it becomes addictive to the one receiving it -- and don't you ever try to take it away from them! It makes them because they've grown accustomed and entitled.
O'Reilly plays the devil's advocate too much. It doesn't ring true. But I can see where he does that to keep the conversations lively, and the audience engaged.
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.
paranoid...
because they've grown accustomed and entitled.
