The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of development companies. You can now lose your home if your city would rather have tax revenue from a mall than from the displaced home owners.
Although I can see both sides of the Courts decision, I have to agree with the dissenters on this one. This is potentially scary stuff.
http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/shared-ge ... perty.html
Your thoughts?
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
This is, by far, the worst act of encroachment on personal rights I've seen in a good long time. If the government is allowed to force you out of your home, what next? They can confiscate your other property at will?
This has gone way, WAY too far. Libertarians, while they may have some faults, are sounding like a very good choice at this point.
For crying out loud, the PEOPLE are supposed to run the GOVERNMENT. Not the other way around.
This has gone way, WAY too far. Libertarians, while they may have some faults, are sounding like a very good choice at this point.
For crying out loud, the PEOPLE are supposed to run the GOVERNMENT. Not the other way around.
This is nothing new, sadly. One of the first things I found out when I started doing research on how the Constitution has been nullified is that the State governments have taken everyone's land by stealing the titles/deeds to them, meaning they own it even if Joe Average American paid for it. Very, very, very few Citizens today own their property in allodial title like they used to. For the Supreme Court of Corruption to have ruled otherwise would have been like telling the State that the State cannot kick people off of its property. 
Good, another who has waken up. I've been seeing an increasing number of people going 3rd party.Libertarians, while they may have some faults, are sounding like a very good choice at this point.
The process is nothing new at all.
When Bank One Ballpark was built (98' ?) for the Diamondbacks there was one very old lady who had lived her entire life in her home who refused to move. She sued, and lost. They forced her to move and she died a few weeks later.
People say the stadium is haunted cuz of that.
When Bank One Ballpark was built (98' ?) for the Diamondbacks there was one very old lady who had lived her entire life in her home who refused to move. She sued, and lost. They forced her to move and she died a few weeks later.
People say the stadium is haunted cuz of that.
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
Wandering across the political forums I visit, I haven't seen this many people so severely pissed since the National ID Card was passed on May 10th. Even moonbat central, Democratic Underground, is against this. I'm glad people are waking up.
Of course, no one will do anything other than complain, because they know that the final line to be drawn in the sand is when the government actually comes to their house for whatever reason to do whatever they see fit.
Of course, no one will do anything other than complain, because they know that the final line to be drawn in the sand is when the government actually comes to their house for whatever reason to do whatever they see fit.
Some post I came across wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few
This is what it all boils down to. This country has become, in many ways, Socialist. It was founded on the rights of the Individual, with the States coming second and the Federal government a distant third having only those POWERS (NOT RIGHTS) not granted to or allowed by the "several States".
The situation today is TOTALLY reversed. The Individual is now the last to be considered since "the greater good" demands that The State (in the form of the Federal government) shall have sway and dominion over all.
The Constitution has CLEARLY become simply a piece of paper for FedGov to wipe their collective asses on. It means EVERYTHING when it comes to the spirit and foundations of this once great Nation. It means NOTHING to those that now operate the mechanism of government.
This one will get people killed. When an older person who has worked all their lives for a home suddenly finds themselves with "an offer he can't refuse" who DOES refuse and then finds himself threatened with losing it all for the 3rd Wal-Mart SuperCenter in town, well, I see hot lead flying and bodies dropping.
I know for a fact that if faced with that possibility late enough in life, I'd be willing to, as Mencken said, "...spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."
I'm left with nothing but despair at this point in time. Why ★■◆●ing bother with ANYTHING. Illegals are invading at rates that boggle the mind, the government bends over backwards to accommodate and actually pander to those that should be thrown out on their asses. Offenses that would have me in jail and financially ruined are routinely ignored by the invaders.
My taxes go to support a government that has now said that if they can make more money from other sources I can lose my property.
We are being systematically disarmed and conditioned to simply submit to force for how else would goverement subdue the people?
And to top it all off goverment has ruled that essentially ANYTHING can be regulated under the guise of Interstate Commerce, even when CLEARLY, by any SANE test, it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with it.
I've got a lot to think about and none of it is good.
Yet, they still won the World Series, as opposed to the Devil Rays, who just moved into a vacant stadium.Gooberman wrote:The process is nothing new at all.
When Bank One Ballpark was built (98' ?) for the Diamondbacks there was one very old lady who had lived her entire life in her home who refused to move. She sued, and lost. They forced her to move and she died a few weeks later.
People say the stadium is haunted cuz of that.
Anyways...
This ruling freakin' scares me. I'll admit I'm pro-business more than most people, but this is a little too much.
any of you guys seen the aussie movie "the castle"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/
much about the same thing. airport corporation VS aussie battler.
doesn't it ever happen to guys, where a highway is being built and your house is right in the way? basically the government takes you house, giving you compensation. so it's basically a forced sale.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118826/
much about the same thing. airport corporation VS aussie battler.
doesn't it ever happen to guys, where a highway is being built and your house is right in the way? basically the government takes you house, giving you compensation. so it's basically a forced sale.
Take your pick:
a) a national standard(and attendant bureaucracy) on defining requists on emmiant domain seizures, taking away that power from the states(muncipalities emminat domain rights are defined by state statute/regulation).
b) not having parts of local policy dictated by someone in DC.
In short, the supreme court wanted nothing to do with a purely local issue.
If you don't like it, have the law in your state changed. Jebus, it sounds like most of you forgot that you live in a federal republic.
a) a national standard(and attendant bureaucracy) on defining requists on emmiant domain seizures, taking away that power from the states(muncipalities emminat domain rights are defined by state statute/regulation).
b) not having parts of local policy dictated by someone in DC.
In short, the supreme court wanted nothing to do with a purely local issue.
If you don't like it, have the law in your state changed. Jebus, it sounds like most of you forgot that you live in a federal republic.
Along with the Patriot act and the other things that have transpired, this march towards the absence of liberty has been going on for the last half century starting with the dumbing down of citezens and moving on up to the government. If things dont go back to the way they were through politics, then there will be bloodshed and it will be another crisis on the level of the Civil War.
aww come on ... crises because of the erosion of liberties are so 60ies and 70ies. At least as long as the politicians make sure that everybody retains their freedom to switch between 20+ channels on the TV.Top Wop wrote:If things dont go back to the way they were through politics, then there will be bloodshed and it will be another crisis on the level of the Civil War.
Ferno: waiting for an injustice from whom? Surely you can't be talking about the Bush Administration, because as we all know around here the Supreme Court is independent of the Administrative Branch.
And just for the record:
John Paul Stevens (R) - Yay
Anthony Kennedy (R) - Yay
Steven Breyer (D) - Yay
Ruth Bader Ginsberg (D) - Yay
David H. Souter (R) - Yay
Clarence Thomas (R) - Nay
Sandra Day O'Connor (R) - Nay
William H. Rehnquist (R) - Nay
Antonin Scalia (R) - Nay
The "omg republinazi" names all seem to be on the "nay" side... a big @ TopWop.
And just for the record:
John Paul Stevens (R) - Yay
Anthony Kennedy (R) - Yay
Steven Breyer (D) - Yay
Ruth Bader Ginsberg (D) - Yay
David H. Souter (R) - Yay
Clarence Thomas (R) - Nay
Sandra Day O'Connor (R) - Nay
William H. Rehnquist (R) - Nay
Antonin Scalia (R) - Nay
The "omg republinazi" names all seem to be on the "nay" side... a big
@ TopWop.-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
2005-06-24 01:28:23 PM LarsThorwald
I have read and reread the Court's decision in Kelo, then I went and read and re-read two cases it relies on, Berman and Midkiff.
In her dissent, O'Connor offers a bone-chilling warning of the impact of this decision, and it's worth quoting in full because it is true. But before I get there, a bit of background:
In limiting the power of government, the Fifth Amendment admonishes: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is called the "Takings Clause" by most. The concept of taking land for public use is called "eminent domain."
Until yesterday, there were three types of eminent domain cases.
First, the Court had long held that the state could transfer private property (for just compensation) to public ownership--such as for a road, a hospital, or a military base.
Second, the Court had also long held that the state could transfer private property to private parties (typically, common carriers) who make the property available for the public's use--such as with a railroad, a public utility, or a stadium.
There was also a third category, very narrow, and it is on this third category that the majority based its opinion. In two cases--Berman and Midkiff--the Court declared that, in certain circumstances and to meet certain exigencies, the Constitution permits takings that serve a public purpose, even if the property is destined for subsequent private use.
(In Berman, a neighborhood was severely blighted and had to be condemned if it were ever to be habitable again. There was one shokeeper whose store was not blighted, and he sued to stop condemnation, which would have transferred the land to a private developer. The state argued that without condemnation and transfer, there would be no possible use of the land for any public good whatsoever.
In Midkiff, through historical niceties, 75% of the island of Oahu wound up in the hands of a very few owners. The state sought to condemn the property, noting that without such condemnation and development by a private developer, there would be no possible use of the land for any public good whatsoever.
In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society--in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth.
And in both cases, the legislatures had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the ongoing, affirmative harm. Because each taking directly achieved a public benefit of removing this harm, it did not matter that the property was turned over to private use.)
The Court yesterday created a fourth category, one that swallowed up all others and all but eliminated the Public Use requirement.
The Court held that a legislature (state or, more typically, a municipality) could condemn private property and transfer it to a private person so long as the legislative body had a "rational basis" for doing so (e.g., it provides some "improvement" over the original property use), and that it was "not purely for private benefit."
As the dissent pointed out, this all but eliminated the Public Use clause, because a "rational basis" means only that if the legislature thinks there's a good idea for the condemnation, transfer and development, then the property may be subject to eminent domain.
O'Connor wrote: "[Today the Court holds that a sovereign] may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure." In short, if the legislature has the "police power" to do something, that police power translates to public use.
But, as O'Connor pointed out, "nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."
As the dissent noted, the trouble with economic development takings is that "private benefit and incidental public benefit are, by definition, merged and mutually reinforcing. In this case, for example, any boon for Pfizer or the plan's developer is difficult to disaggregate from the promised public gains in taxes and jobs."
In other words, Wal*Mart could persuade a city council hungry for money that a particular poor neighborhood should be condemned and transferred because Wal*Mart could bring in more in sales tax and property tax than any poor neighborhood ever could. And oh, by the way, the fact that Wal*Mart would substantially profit from such a development is incidental and irrelevant. Or, in this case, Pfizer could have a city condemn part of a neighborhood--all on the basis that its business will bring in more taxes than the existing residences.
In short, as long as the city or state determines there's any improvement--through taxes, jobs, beauty, whatever--then that land may be seized by the Crown.
The only protection against this? As the majority made clear, a Court could always invalidate it if the court didn't think it was an improvement, or if the court thinks that it's really a private use. By what standards? Anybody's guess. The Court declined to provide any such guidance.
Therefore, what comfort do you--yes, you, Mr. homeowner, or you Ms. condo dweller--have that the government will not take your land, your home, your building willy nilly?
None. And hence O'Connor's warning, which I promised to quote in full:
"For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
I have read and reread the Court's decision in Kelo, then I went and read and re-read two cases it relies on, Berman and Midkiff.
In her dissent, O'Connor offers a bone-chilling warning of the impact of this decision, and it's worth quoting in full because it is true. But before I get there, a bit of background:
In limiting the power of government, the Fifth Amendment admonishes: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is called the "Takings Clause" by most. The concept of taking land for public use is called "eminent domain."
Until yesterday, there were three types of eminent domain cases.
First, the Court had long held that the state could transfer private property (for just compensation) to public ownership--such as for a road, a hospital, or a military base.
Second, the Court had also long held that the state could transfer private property to private parties (typically, common carriers) who make the property available for the public's use--such as with a railroad, a public utility, or a stadium.
There was also a third category, very narrow, and it is on this third category that the majority based its opinion. In two cases--Berman and Midkiff--the Court declared that, in certain circumstances and to meet certain exigencies, the Constitution permits takings that serve a public purpose, even if the property is destined for subsequent private use.
(In Berman, a neighborhood was severely blighted and had to be condemned if it were ever to be habitable again. There was one shokeeper whose store was not blighted, and he sued to stop condemnation, which would have transferred the land to a private developer. The state argued that without condemnation and transfer, there would be no possible use of the land for any public good whatsoever.
In Midkiff, through historical niceties, 75% of the island of Oahu wound up in the hands of a very few owners. The state sought to condemn the property, noting that without such condemnation and development by a private developer, there would be no possible use of the land for any public good whatsoever.
In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society--in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth.
And in both cases, the legislatures had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the ongoing, affirmative harm. Because each taking directly achieved a public benefit of removing this harm, it did not matter that the property was turned over to private use.)
The Court yesterday created a fourth category, one that swallowed up all others and all but eliminated the Public Use requirement.
The Court held that a legislature (state or, more typically, a municipality) could condemn private property and transfer it to a private person so long as the legislative body had a "rational basis" for doing so (e.g., it provides some "improvement" over the original property use), and that it was "not purely for private benefit."
As the dissent pointed out, this all but eliminated the Public Use clause, because a "rational basis" means only that if the legislature thinks there's a good idea for the condemnation, transfer and development, then the property may be subject to eminent domain.
O'Connor wrote: "[Today the Court holds that a sovereign] may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure." In short, if the legislature has the "police power" to do something, that police power translates to public use.
But, as O'Connor pointed out, "nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."
As the dissent noted, the trouble with economic development takings is that "private benefit and incidental public benefit are, by definition, merged and mutually reinforcing. In this case, for example, any boon for Pfizer or the plan's developer is difficult to disaggregate from the promised public gains in taxes and jobs."
In other words, Wal*Mart could persuade a city council hungry for money that a particular poor neighborhood should be condemned and transferred because Wal*Mart could bring in more in sales tax and property tax than any poor neighborhood ever could. And oh, by the way, the fact that Wal*Mart would substantially profit from such a development is incidental and irrelevant. Or, in this case, Pfizer could have a city condemn part of a neighborhood--all on the basis that its business will bring in more taxes than the existing residences.
In short, as long as the city or state determines there's any improvement--through taxes, jobs, beauty, whatever--then that land may be seized by the Crown.
The only protection against this? As the majority made clear, a Court could always invalidate it if the court didn't think it was an improvement, or if the court thinks that it's really a private use. By what standards? Anybody's guess. The Court declined to provide any such guidance.
Therefore, what comfort do you--yes, you, Mr. homeowner, or you Ms. condo dweller--have that the government will not take your land, your home, your building willy nilly?
None. And hence O'Connor's warning, which I promised to quote in full:
"For who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Crap, another one I shoulda bought that got discontinued!!Skyalmian wrote:They don't make the Franchi SPAS-12 anymore; they stopped in 2000. Plus, it's too heavy. He's better off fetching a Mossberg 500, a Remington 870, or a Benelli M1 Super 90.
After I leave the socialist hellhole known as the People's Republic of New Jersey, I intend on buying some stuff too.
Is there another semi-auto/pump combination out there? I always thought that was a great feature after having a semi-auto jam on me a few times....nothing like being able to just give it a rack without changing hand positions when the action doesn't close right.
One can arm themselves to protect themselves from other citizens. One cannot arm themselves to protect themselves from the Government.Fusion pimp wrote:I actually agree with Top Wop. People are getting fed up, and well armed.
The Governments best, and most effective weapons, cannot be boughten. That may bother you, but it is an irreversable state (pending a major revolution) in which we exist today. The apachie pilot would probably never even realize that you had a shotgun.
There will be no second Civil war. If you want a revolution, then it's creation, and duration, must be a peaceful demonstration.
<3
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
Assuming, of course, that there was a pilot capable of using the Apache. The military servicemen are just as fed up with the government as we are, from what I've seen.Gooberman wrote:One can arm themselves to protect themselves from other citizens. One cannot arm themselves to protect themselves from the Government.Fusion pimp wrote:I actually agree with Top Wop. People are getting fed up, and well armed.
The Governments best, and most effective weapons, cannot be boughten. That may bother you, but it is an irreversable state (pending a major revolution) in which we exist today. The apachie pilot would probably never even realize that you had a shotgun.
I am fairly certain that the city of Fairburn GA doesn't have any Apache's. Besides, in this day and age, a citizen, or group of citizens probably would not win a battle with most any government, Federal or otherwise. But, armed resistance can serve to focus attension on an issue. A lose the battle but ultimately win the war sort of thing.Gooberman wrote:The Governments best, and most effective weapons, cannot be boughten. That may bother you, but it is an irreversable state (pending a major revolution) in which we exist today. The apachie pilot would probably never even realize that you had a shotgun.
Let's hope it doesn't ever come to that.
If the army is on your side, then there is no need to arm yourself.Stryker wrote:Assuming, of course, that there was a pilot capable of using the Apache.
I disagree, at least not any positive attention. When Oklahoma happened, no one asked 'why' McVeigh did it....or at least, when we heard the 'why,' no one cared. McVeigh was instantly demonized, and right fully so.Dedman wrote:..... armed resistance can serve to focus attension on an issue. A lose the battle but ultimately win the war sort of thing.Gooberman wrote:The Governments best, and most effective weapons, cannot be boughten. That may bother you, but it is an irreversable state (pending a major revolution) in which we exist today. The apachie pilot would probably never even realize that you had a shotgun.
Let's hope it doesn't ever come to that.
So long as we have a solid economy: If any group of citizens violently engage any form of the government, their actions will be demonized, and their reasons ignored.
Reasons don't make headlines. The violence is all that would. The reasons would just be footnotes for later articles.
The only way you can change the system is through the system. By voting for those who will create the change you desire.
Brilliant idea. Let's fix a corrupt system by going to the corrupt system in the hope that we can get them to fix themselves.Gooberman wrote:The only way you can change the system is through the system. By voting for those who will create the change you desire.
Also, there are countless thousands of officials in power that were never elected by the People and have their jobs until they are fired or elevated. These people hold as much power as the elected officials.
People will not silently and peacefully tolerate this increasing lockdown for the next 100 years. A beneath-the-surface movement would form.There will be no second Civil war. If you want a revolution, then it's creation, and duration, must be a peaceful demonstration.
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
That's the silliest thing I've heard in awhile, Goob.One can arm themselves to protect themselves from other citizens. One cannot arm themselves to protect themselves from the Government.
First of all, the military cannot be used against it's own citizens. *If* it ever came down to some type of government Vs. citizens and they did use the military, I seriously doubt there'd be many enlisted that would follow those orders.
The Governments best, and most effective weapons, cannot be boughten. That may bother you, but it is an irreversable state (pending a major revolution) in which we exist today. The apachie pilot would probably never even realize that you had a shotgun.
Do you have any idea how many registered firearms there are in the U.S? Know how many unregistered firearms? They don't have enough Apache's to cover the people. Even if they did, there wouldn't be enough pilots! Goob, you don't need big weapons to do the job, they make too much noise anyway. Slow, quiet and steady will do the trick.
Maybe, maybe not. I think that if we continue to be railroaded and there isn't some type of reversal, we have a better chance of seeing civil unrest than not. I think we will- how, when and where? I have no idea. I just know that you can see/hear the tension and anger toward government in the people and they can only push so far before someone starts pushing back. This type of thing might just be what would set it off. I think the people know that government is literally out of control( remember, the people control the government, not the other way around) and we've *let* them paint so far outside the lines for so long, that it will require drastic measures to get us back on track. Hopefully those measures don't include violence.There will be no second Civil war. If you want a revolution, then it's creation, and duration, must be a peaceful demonstration.
It's really kind of sad that people don't realize how controlled they really are. We are not "free". A free man does not need permission from an established government to water his lawn, build a fence, conduct business, etc. They've incrementally increased laws/regulations so slowly that most don't even realize they're not "free". Each generation becomes less and less their own and can't/won't complain because they've known it no other way.
Goob, talk to your (great)grandfather or anyone who lived in the 20's/30's/40's... ask them how things have changed in regards to liberties over the past 50 years, I think you'll be surprised and how bound we really are.
B-
"that wont work because the system is corrupt,"
An argument that one cannot possibly directly respond too, since it offers no 'where' or 'how' to give you a direction in which to respond.
So let me ask, if the system is corrupt, and cannot be changed on the inside, then why would it make you happy to be "seeing an increasing number of people going 3rd party"?
If it was another war of the same scale, it would be used again.
It is my position that such a thing today is absurd, its your (or Top's anyway) position that it could happen. If there is "bloodshed of the same scale," then the army would get involved.
Barry, I'm actually with you on most of these issues. I do not like this law at all, the government should have no say in private land ownership exchange. I do not like the growing lack of freedoms. I loath how our government dictates morality to us. In many ways, my 'far liberal' views exactly align with your 'far conservative' views when it comes to our freedoms.
The only thing I am arguing with you here, is method of change, and practicality.
An argument that one cannot possibly directly respond too, since it offers no 'where' or 'how' to give you a direction in which to respond.
So let me ask, if the system is corrupt, and cannot be changed on the inside, then why would it make you happy to be "seeing an increasing number of people going 3rd party"?
We are talking about a second Civil War. One of the same scale, (so six million americans would die), that you guys suggested could happen. This is you guys thinking that it could come, not me. In the last Civil War, the army was certaintly used. Brother did fight against Brother. If you joined the army back then, you fought in the Civil war.That's the silliest thing I've heard in awhile, Goob.
First of all, the military cannot be used against it's own citizens. *If* it ever came down to some type of government Vs. citizens and they did use the military, I seriously doubt there'd be many enlisted that would follow those orders.
If it was another war of the same scale, it would be used again.
It is my position that such a thing today is absurd, its your (or Top's anyway) position that it could happen. If there is "bloodshed of the same scale," then the army would get involved.
Barry, I'm actually with you on most of these issues. I do not like this law at all, the government should have no say in private land ownership exchange. I do not like the growing lack of freedoms. I loath how our government dictates morality to us. In many ways, my 'far liberal' views exactly align with your 'far conservative' views when it comes to our freedoms.
The only thing I am arguing with you here, is method of change, and practicality.
The fact that you cannot argue with that isn't my problem, it's yours. The fact remains that the corrupt system doesn't have to listen to any of us, and in fact this is what they have done countless times in the past. Even when slammed in the face with damnable evidence that they were wrong, they just brush it aside (Exs: all cases against the illegally ratified 14th Amendment to prove it was illegal and the same with the illegal 16th Amendment, too). Only when people make a lot of noise for results they give it merely attention, otherwise it vanishes without incident.Gooberman wrote:"that wont work because the system is corrupt,"
An argument that one cannot possibly directly respond too, since it offers no 'where' or 'how' to give you a direction in which to respond.
However, wide resistance (a form of force) has yielded results, and the biggest success I have seen thus far against government corruption is with the illegal organization known as the Internal Revenue Service (you'd be surprised at how many departments and letter agencies in existence today are illegal). That group is repeatedly and increasingly losing their battles against the Citizens and almost appear to be on their way out.
Hmm, I don't know -- pointless, really, now that you've mentioned it. However, what I have noticed is that virtually everyone who is 3rd party (by this I primarily mean the L/libertarians and C/constitutionalists) is wide awake of what is going on and is actively following it. Nearly every last one of them has at least removed the blinders they never themselves put on.So let me ask, if the system is corrupt, and cannot be changed on the inside, then why would it make you happy to be "seeing an increasing number of people going 3rd party"?
-----
Ooh, nicely written.
Yet another post I came across wrote:Everything I see and hear in the world tells me that America has been dead for a long, long time. America was sold out by its politicians back in the 1840's and the final nails were pounded into the coffin in 1913 when we lost control of our money system. Everything since then has been in accordance with burying the casket one shovel full at a time. Constitutionalists have been "radicals" for over a hundred years. How could a thinking person have respect for "the law" when there are millions of them? In this society you are rewarded for conforming and using others as a stepping stool. This has to end.
There are few American patriots left and the ones that are, are immediately dismissed as wackos. The whole world is degenerate, selfish and materialized. The socialistic countries of Europe are particularily disturbing as many of their people have been duped into somehow believing they are not party to this etherization of the human spirit, when they are some of the worst offenders of all. Selfishness and materialism is considered a virtue to the neocon gods of AM talk radio. I think it's going to take a rapture type event in order to end the slavery and restore dignity to humanity. Either that or a movement based on dignity, self-respect and individualism. A movement based upon identifying and eliminating those forces which work to drag us down to the level of serfdom.
Whats stopping the servicemen from siding with the citezens whom they swore to protect? You dont think they are fed up with the way things are going?Stryker wrote:Assuming, of course, that there was a pilot capable of using the Apache. The military servicemen are just as fed up with the government as we are, from what I've seen.Gooberman wrote:One can arm themselves to protect themselves from other citizens. One cannot arm themselves to protect themselves from the Government.Fusion pimp wrote:I actually agree with Top Wop. People are getting fed up, and well armed.
The Governments best, and most effective weapons, cannot be boughten. That may bother you, but it is an irreversable state (pending a major revolution) in which we exist today. The apachie pilot would probably never even realize that you had a shotgun.
Regarding this Civil War, its not literally that as its more citezen against government not brother against brother. Thats the difference. However the level of seriousness can equate to what happened in the Civil War, America once again being tested for its system.
Dcrazy: Quote me where I bashed the Bush administration.