Originally posted by generalissimo They're based in past experiences with the government, which will go to great lenghts in order to minimise any compensation.
[b]You've already shown yourself to be a liar who DOCTORS quoted text.
not true.
Why should we believe your assertions?
I ask you the same question.
Why should I believe you after you were proven to be a liar? see "open letter to FMF"thread.[/b]
You are an embarrassment. You DOCTORED the text in order to change its balance and tone. You yourself admitted this a post ot two ago! ...
"I took only a few parts of the text [...] I took the parts I thought would be important..."
The stuff you thought would not "be important" was about the legality of the move, the constitutionality of the move, the compensation on offer, the support for the indigenous poeple being proposed, the fact that it was 20,000 people - who had NOT threatened violence against 30 families - who HAD threatened violence - the text was DOCTORED by you, beyond all semblence of balance. This is an RHP scandal. I think you are too dim and pompous to even recognize it. For all your passion and sincerity, you have done something deeply wrong here. Do you even realize?
Originally posted by generalissimo I don't know what you're talking about, you're the only liar here, why don't you apologise for that?
Good grief! Your defence - in the face of these very specific and very detailed = and BANG TO RIGHTS = accusations is... "I am not a liar, you are!"???? Are you for real?
Originally posted by generalissimo It isn't fair because the people removed didn't want to be removed, and because the "compensation" by the government is certain to be minimal compared to the loss of homes and farms.
So you say; the government says otherwise. Why should I believe you? There seems to be a judicial system to adjudge whether the compensation is "fair" or not.
Susette Kelo was not disputing the "fairness" of her compensation but whether the "use" the government was making of her prior property was "public". She got a full hearing in the courts on that issue.
Originally posted by no1marauder Susette Kelo was not disputing the "fairness" of her compensation but whether the "use" the government was making of her prior property was "public". She got a full hearing in the courts on that issue.
The "use" argument was the one that was Constitutionally plausible. I'm sure she would tell you that what was done her her was not "fair" as well.
Of course she got a full hearing... many of them. The due process she got was very fair. That doesn't mean that the result that was reached by the Supreme Court was correct. Personally, I believe that it was not. I wouldn't call it "legalized robbery" or anything like that, but condemning private property to give to private developers is not very consistent with my sense of what governments ought to do.
Originally posted by sh76 The "use" argument was the one that was Constitutionally plausible. I'm sure she would tell you that what was done her her was not "fair" as well.
Of course she got a full hearing... many of them. The due process she got was very fair. That doesn't mean that the result that was reached by the Supreme Court was correct. Personally, I believe that it was not. ...[text shortened]... rivate developers is not very consistent with my sense of what governments ought to do.
She probably would, she makes a lot of irrational statements.
Governments have been using eminent domain to transfer private property to other private users who are going to use it for approved public purposes since before the establishment of the US. The use of the power for private railroad owners in the 1800's was widespread. In Berman v. Parker in 1954, the SC ruled without dissent that "''The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.'' Accepting Kelo's arguments would have reversed hundreds of years of practice and a long line of established precedents. It also would have been inconsistent with the philosophical framework of the Founders as eminent domain does not deprive you of any "Fundamental Right".
Of course, if you don't think your government should do something, you can push for legislation in your State to make sure it doesn't do that something. I probably would agree that the use of eminent domain in Kelo was unwise, but I can't agree tht it was unconstitutional.
Originally posted by FMF Spare me the nasty little Personal Messages, generalissimo.
You posted a DOCTORED text. I called you on it.
Either apologize or stick by your guns.
But, please, spare me the Personal Messages.
Again, I explained what I did and why. I didn't doctor the info from the BBC (or at least not intentionally), I didn't change what was there, nor did I want to deceive anyone.
Now, Why are you avoiding the subject of the "open letter to FMF" thread?
Why won't you apologize for that? (since you want me to apologize for being liar, which Im not).
Originally posted by AThousandYoung There were people living in all of Brazil for generations before those peoples' ancestors moved in.
I've always been highly suspicious of the idea that just because people have lived in a certain place for a few generations they have a right to the land. Why? Because it justifies the Nazi/Israeli mindset - use violence to hold land for a while and it becomes ok to the rest of the world.
oh-ho! do you know that LA could claim your house right now under eminent domain, and build a shopping mall on it, for public development? so says the Supreme Court!
Originally posted by zeeblebot oh-ho! do you know that LA could claim your house right now under eminent domain, and build a shopping mall on it, for public development? so says the Supreme Court!
Wrong.
California residents on Tuesday said Yes to Proposition 99 which banned government agencies from tapping its eminent domain power to force owners of residence who occupy their unit to sell their homes for conversion into private projects.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011163370
Originally posted by generalissimo Again, I explained what I did and why. I didn't doctor the info from the BBC (or at least not intentionally), I didn't change what was there, nor did I want to deceive anyone.
You removed material that didn't suit your point of view and changed the balance and the meaning of the BBC article. Deceit 101.
Originally posted by FMF You removed material that didn't suit your point of view and changed the balance and the meaning of the BBC article. Deceit 101.
If I really wanted to remove the material I wouldn't have posted the link.
legalised robbery, by the brazilian government.
03 May '09 16:051 edit
Back to Top