|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
06-28-2005, 04:27 PM | #1 (permalink) | |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
Freestar Media CEO files application to demolish SCOTUS Justice's home to build hotel
http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html
Quote:
|
|
06-28-2005, 04:55 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Now this is good.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
06-28-2005, 05:46 PM | #3 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I love this. Awesome!
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter |
06-28-2005, 08:42 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
I love it!
I may have to take a vacation in New Hampshire if this hotel actually gets built.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
06-29-2005, 04:18 AM | #7 (permalink) |
Addict
Location: Midway, KY
|
Eminent domain is just crap anyway! Now the government can take people's property in the name of greater tax revenue only. That is incredible.
__________________
--- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein --- |
06-29-2005, 05:01 AM | #8 (permalink) |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
I heard about this on the way into work this am. I'd like to see all the majority opinion justices hit with something like this, as well as the CEO's of the company that initiated the lawsuit. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
06-29-2005, 06:40 AM | #9 (permalink) |
I am Winter Born
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
It is a very amusing attack back at one of the worst decisions by SCOTUS. I predict that there will be a lot of people rioting, etc. when developers buy off a town's property board and go in and start taking over houses.
I'm not too sure if this guy has the necessary capital to run his idea through to completion, but it would be great to see it done. |
06-29-2005, 09:06 AM | #10 (permalink) |
beauty in the breakdown
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
|
I just read this on BoingBoing and burst out laughing. Absolutely hilarious, and proves why the ruling was so unbelievably bad.
__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato |
06-29-2005, 09:28 AM | #11 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
I really hope it works.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter |
06-29-2005, 09:31 AM | #12 (permalink) |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Sounds like he might want to start looking for investors if he doesn't have the capital to fund it. What a great way for people to express their feelings about the decision in a capitalist society.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
06-29-2005, 09:18 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Browncoat
Location: California
|
Earlier this evening I saw Logan Darrow Clements on Hannity and Colmes. He was well-spoken and seemed intelligent.
__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek |
06-30-2005, 06:37 AM | #14 (permalink) | |
Registered User
Location: Right Here
|
Quote:
|
|
06-30-2005, 09:10 AM | #18 (permalink) |
The Griffin
|
state rep. neal kurk (r - weare) whose wife is a town selectman said he also disagrees with the court's decision and sees clements' action as poetic justice but added he'll oppose any government seizure of souter's home
"Justice Souter's property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople,'' he said screw him too |
06-30-2005, 10:13 AM | #20 (permalink) |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
I find it quite amusing that those who don't like the law would rather use it than change it.
As I have stated on another thread this "law" was on the books in the city of New London. The SC basically upheld a local law. You can change this ruling by having your community/state put on the ballot a simple law that makes this illegal. As the AG of Georgia pointed out, that state already has the law that makes this illegal. I swear some people listen too much to others and would rather work up into a frenzy than look at the true facts. I guess it's just easier to blame others for laziness than to get out and do something.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
06-30-2005, 10:24 AM | #21 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Anyways, they are 'using' the law to point out how stupid the 'law' is, which is, in this case, poetic justice. And if you think its that easy to change a city council, I have some soon to be confiscated by the government property to sell you.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
06-30-2005, 11:54 AM | #22 (permalink) | |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Quote:
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
|
06-30-2005, 04:50 PM | #23 (permalink) | |
Junkie
|
Quote:
Mr Mephisto |
|
06-30-2005, 11:42 PM | #24 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
If it says anything about it, it's easier to get an Amendment passed.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
|
06-30-2005, 11:57 PM | #25 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
It's not that hard to change your area to make sure you get a law protecting land. Unlike someone above believes, you can fight to change laws. This would not be hard at all since the media coverage is already there. Here's how you do it: Call your local elections board and find out how many signatures (*by law EVERY state must allow this) it take on a petition to get something on the ballot. Also, make sure you know the wording needed, or after you turn it in they may reject it for terminology forcing you to start all over again. Then you ask if anyone has filed the necessary paperwork (if needed yet) if so then you find them and sign the petition. OR you call the Dems. or GOP or both headquarters in your area to see if either knows of a petition going around and if so how to sign. You work to get the needed signatures, turn it into the elections board and get it on the ballot. Now if someone is losing their house and you have jumped through the hoops, gotten the signatures and it's on the next ballot, you have a justifiable reason to get a cease and desist order preventing the loss of land until the vote. You can do this on local or state level. It sounds much harder than it is. *.... in order for a territory to become a state, one of the major requirements in their state constitutions is a way for people to be able to put laws on the ballot..... I.E. petitions. so every state may have slightly different petition requirements but in every state you can by law petition to get a law made.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
|
07-01-2005, 03:41 AM | #26 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986) overturned in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-01-2005, 04:55 AM | #27 (permalink) |
I am Winter Born
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
I agree with smooth. It's easy for SCOTUS to overturn decisions, once they're given a similar case. They don't (entirely) control which cases are brought to their attention, sometimes a case similiar might not make it all of the way up the appeals chain, but if they are presented with one, they can just go ahead and overturn the previous ruling.
I predict that will probably happen some time in the future with this ruling, as it's really a horrible decision. Yes, they're only upholding the local law, but the local law is crap and should be struck down. |
07-01-2005, 05:09 AM | #28 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
|
07-01-2005, 08:13 AM | #29 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
once again, i doubt seriously that the folk whose knickers are all in a twist about this ruling gave a damn about the exercize of this same eminent domain question when it was used over and over during the past 50 years or so by cities around the country to herd poorer folk around like cattle so that vital urban developments like convention centers could be built where once homes were. why? because the class position of most of the folk who are o so outraged by this ruling would enable them to imagine themselves being serviced by these convention centers, they think of them as a place they would like to go to, and do not think about the fact that many of them going to were built ontop of razed lower-income neighborhoods--classical case in point--yerba buena in san fransisco--
so one can only conclude that the destrcution of THOSE residences via eminent domain was and would now be just fine--but once it appears that the middle class itself can be effected by laws that previously had functioned to further its political and economic interests--o the horror. on the argument that private property is sacrosanct is simple nonsense---what you are really saying is that YOUR proterty is sacrosanct--the property of folk LIKE YOU socially, economically--THAT is sacrosanct. what's good for the goose is good for the gander indeed. btw i think the action in weare is quite funny. in that kind of har-de-har way that most such actions are. but i dont think anything about it speaks to or legitimate the sanctimonious "outrage" above.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
07-01-2005, 10:04 AM | #30 (permalink) | |
pigglet pigglet
Location: Locash
|
Quote:
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style |
|
07-01-2005, 10:27 AM | #31 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
|
|
07-01-2005, 10:28 AM | #32 (permalink) |
All important elusive independent swing voter...
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
|
A good example is Dodger Stadium in LA. 10,000-30,000 poor people were forced out of their homes to make way for the stadium. They were promised new housing that never materialized.
__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter |
07-01-2005, 10:57 AM | #33 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
in the specific case of yerba buena, the center is run by a non-profit organization. That isn't always the case, however, and I understand roachboy's point to be that in situations like that the "public good" speaks to a particular class level and people similarly situated. the poor people swept out of the way to make room for the center aren't likely to ever enjoy it, have time to visit the center, or really be preoccupied about anything other than living day to day (not that they wouldn't necessarily enjoy a multicultural arts center--but when would they visit it and would its presentation be relevant to them; it might only become relevant to them at the expense of relevancy to the citizens it's aimed at caputuring...after all, eminent domain is and always has been about revenue) but in the main, we might consider that the meme put out by conservatives over the past decades has been that privitization is and always will be necessarily better than government. That the free market is an "good" end in and of itself, rather than a means to achieve freedom for the people within the market. So then we have the interesting dilemma that when these projects are undertaken, they are constructed by private companies for corporate gain and often run by private companies for profit--or "non" profit as the case may be. But the idea that a portion of the downtown area be bracketed off for public consumption at no cost is pretty repugnant to the main conservative view--they would much rather private interests become involved and develop that space into a strip mall or business renovation or anything that will generate revenue (perhaps if I studied the context of this art center more I might find whether the proposal anticipates revenue generation from the visitors to the surrounding businesses or if the poverty housing units were eyesores and devalued the surrounding areas). Well, from my understanding, eminent domain has lotsa times been used for business interests and seldom for non-profit construction. Yet, roachboy's point doesn't hinge on that, I think. We might question why the low-income housing can't be understood as a "public good." and this ties to the processes of hegemony we both brought to the table in an earlier discussion... so here conservatives are faced with a gnarly proposition...they have to deal with a glaring inconsistency in the internal coherence of their politics: how do they resolve the fact that in order to keep their personal property they need the government's protection to shield them from corporate interests, yet this same government, by its nature and increasing presence in their lives, violates their personal liberties. Ordinarily this wouldn't be so problematic. Roachboy already outlined in what some are referring to as his "racist" post the release valve that is traditionally utilized: us vs. them. but in this case, the "us" and the "them" are problematized by the fact that the middle class are not provided with an "us" to align with...they are surrounded by "thems"--the people they would ordinarily thrust on their asses for development, the elites who want to strip them of their property, the judicial system that can't seem to follow what they believed to be the tenents of the Constitution in regards to individual liberty. So then they have to make sense of their position in the world, what they are being hit with. All humans do this, in my opinion, I'm not flaming conservative ideology or particular peoples--it just doesn't really help in this particular situation and so I'm speaking about it in this particular thread. As they cast about for an appropriate "them" we get characters who perform as though they are an "us" (Bush & Co., which by all standards is anything but an "us" to most people milling around the United States) telling the people to calm down...we have identified the "them." Luckily, the threat is external...we just need to unify...go to war...kill them...save us...track them down...we are secure...we are safe...we can overcome adversity as long as we are the same...think the same...act the same...beieve the same...we do believe the same...we are great...our nation is tops...our ideals are tops...never regret...stay the course...keep the resolve...do not question...do not fear...bush is here... and you'll this stuff replicated throughout the years to come...and you'll notice it was replicated throughout our history. If Bush's speechwriters were better at their jobs, or if they had more confidence in their listeners' historical knowledge, they would be able to incite a hella lot more jingoism. But perhaps they have accurately judged the apathy of many people and don't really need to incite the kind of following past leaders have obtained. so here in this case, we have a crack in the institution of capitalism, and some people are going to put their fingernail in it and probe the crack, pry it open, peer into it, see what's behind that curtain... how do the people make sense of their context? why can't they be capitalist, why not own their land and lease it out, are they not part of the owning class? but they certainly are not part of the non-owning class, right? caught in some no-man's land...a very precarious situation for the working-class conservative just trying to raise a family and live his life...
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
07-01-2005, 12:14 PM | #34 (permalink) | |
Like John Goodman, but not.
Location: SFBA, California
|
Quote:
Of course with two possible imminent replacements on the SCOTUS now, this is liable to be quickly overturned if someone (with legal funding) does end up getting their property siezed in such a manner. |
|
07-01-2005, 08:53 PM | #35 (permalink) | ||
Cunning Runt
Location: Taking a mulligan
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
07-01-2005, 09:04 PM | #36 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
At best her replacement will do the same.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
07-02-2005, 06:45 AM | #37 (permalink) |
Tilted
Location: Massachusetts
|
I actually don't see this being overturned anytime soon. Most of the cases cited above (Bowers, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.) deal with hot button social issues. As much as the current takings jurisprudence is wrong, it will only affect only a few people on a limited basis. There won't be enough of a catalyst to effect the change.
|
Tags |
application, build, ceo, demolish, files, freestar, home, hotel, justice, media, scotus |
|
|