If you're not with Us, do more research (take a couple months looking at current events in 3rd world countries), and then ask yourself if you really think your stance is correct, or if you still have it just to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

"Thank the Supreme Court for redefining what "Public Use" is: now it means that if whatever is going to be put there, owned publicy or privately, is going to have some sort of value to the community, i.e. tax revenue or jobs, it is considered 'public use'."

You should say, thank the liberal Supreme Court justices for redefining what public use is.

Lusiphur:

Ok, but back me up on this: In the heat of the moment, people do dumb things. War crimes are commited against people, and it's soldiers following orders that commit them. So at least some soldiers will be willing to follow orders, or at least follow them without thinking. All it takes is the guy at the top saying something like "Hey, Joe Soldier, it's ok to kill those people because they want to turn America over to the commies/aren't American/hate your religion/would allow(minority of your choice or gays) to run your city."

Yeah, I'm sure some would.

Some would, instead, take the side of the people.

Some would desert and flee to Canada or Mexico.

Something people don't realize is that the military is a very diverse organization, fairly accurately representing a cross-section of America.

You've got conspiracy theorists in the military. You've got bleeding-heart tree-hugging libs in the military. You've got musicians, painters, scientists, doctors, idiots, geniuses, and a plethora of othere types of people in the military.

Faced with a revolutionary war, the military would most likely split into two or more parts, being fairly representative of the division seen in the nation.

"That's for each soldier to decide for themselves. Some would feel it to be right, and some would feel it to be wrong."

Well I've never served so maybe I don't have the right view point, but I'd think I would view an attempted overthrow of the government as treason.

All of this makes me want to sing the firefly theme lyrics.



Take my love. Take my land.
Take me where I cannot stand.
I don't care, I'm still free.
You can't take the sky from me.

Take me out to the black.
Tell 'em I ain't comin' back.
Burn the land And boil the sea.
You can't take the sky from me.

Have no place I can be since I found Serenity.
But you can't take the sky from me.

SchlingFo: In the case of a revolutionary war, each soldier would have to decide which side he felt to be right.


Yup. This isn't North Vs South with slaves, taxes, and wealth in the middle. This is a question that affect every citizen in the nation. What is the nature of our goverment? Do we reallocate things owned by other people to people who say they can do best? Do we allow groups of people to determine who much or how low we can own of something we privately hold? We can get rid of these people in elections, we can recall officials. California did throw out its governor. But Grey Davis wasn't taking land away from people, and if you read the article, throwing them out on the street with no compensation via legal wrangling. Grey Davis was found to be an incompetent politician - not a theif. He was never tried. The people that are doing this, are thieves. They are not going to go willingly, any more than they are going to operate in the best interests of the public. You can rationalize this anyway you want, but what it amounts to, is that these people are using the disguise of public good to sieze power for themselves. And because they are outlaws in this, they will not abide by the law. They will rig elections, all manner of shiat before they are gone. This is a MASSIVE undertaking. It is not an overnight thing.

buwolverine:

Well I've never served so maybe I don't have the right view point, but I'd think I would view an attempted overthrow of the government as treason.

For me, it would depend on the actions of the governemnt, as well as why the people were revolting.

But, I'm not every soldier. For any given situation, different soldiers are going to have different viewpoints.

They're going to take courses of action based on their individual viewpoints. The ones who would support said revolution would side with the people. The ones who would view it as treason would side with the government.

faethe: I never said people wouldn't die - or that this would be a walk in the park. The alternative is to turn into something like China did. So we either loose a lot of people, or make a lot of friends, or do both. I don't know. I know I am not going to wake up one day and have my land siezed by a city council in order to for a luxury housing development to be built. I am just one person, but hopefully, if people see what happens to me, they might identify with that, and start to fear for themselves.


Amen to that last part. Just know that when it comes time for it, if it does, the gvt will have no trouble finding people to fill the ranks.

TheKnownUniverse: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

lol, but at least they're angry and (on the surface) willing to do something and not just biatch about how people are naive and stupid.

Touchyournose: Or better yet...it's a trap!

It's true, as soon as we march inside the whitehouse to deactivate the force-field, it will turn out that we were had, and only a group of dedicated midgets in fur coats will be able to save us.

Brade: and if I were on that trial's jury, I would find him innocent...

which, as I recently found out, is illegal. A jury, it appears, cannot vote based on personal feelings of whether a law is right or not. They can only determine whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a shaow of a doubt.

smoovement: Their desire to acquire and distribute wealth for the greater good is the train of thought that led to this decision. The state needs tax dollars and you are denying them that right by occupying a prime tax collecting piece of property.

Not a lefty, but left leaning you can say. The problem here is that the majority of profit from this transaction will pass to a privately owned corporation.

Lusiphur:

faethe: There is no other way to break the system down completely,, unless there is a revolt

Well, there is, but involves a boycott of rediculous proportions. Basically, if everyone, even for a day or a week, refused to show up for work or buy anything, the American economy would if not grind to a halt, hicup to a large instability-driven recession. The government will be completely off-balance, and the time would be right for enacting change legally. Otherwise, no ammount of voting will change the status quo. Actually, a large boycott is a good idea anyway. If US companies lose millions from workers not showing up on the premieres of Star-Wars films, imagine the damage an oganized boycott could do.

You vote with your income. I think this would also be effective. I would love to do this. Communication is the greatest weapon.

Lusiphur:

Utilitarianism is often the first excuse of a nation undergoing a transition from serving the people to serving itself. Look back at any communist/faschist regime, and I will guarantee you that the first words out of the leaders/figureheads mouth was "This will do the greatest ammount of good for the greatest ammount of people." At the risk of Godwin-ing this thread

Once again, here's the slippery slope argument, that holds about as much water as my 91 year old grandmother. Seizing property in America for economic development is not going to lead to Jews being thrown in ovens. The Justices made it very clear what ED is to be used for. Furthermore, if politicians abuse it, the voters will throw them out and elect people who will pass laws to end it. In Germany, Italy, Russia and China, the people had no recourse since there were no elections. BIG DIFFERENCE.

But let's think about it this way: You live in the suburbs but work in the city, as do 40,000 other people. The commute is 1 hour. Building a new highway that has a much more direct path than the current one would lower the commute down to 30 minutes. But to do so, 100 homes would need to be seized and torn down because they are currently blocking the proposed path. So would you be in favor of the new highway or not? Most Americans would answer yes, because they have been in the past. The highways that connect major American cities and their surround suburbs were all built by seizing property.

I'm so sick an tired of people trying to pin this on one side or the other. Who gives a flying fart who's side the blame is on? Both major parties in this country are screwing everyone over.

I used to "side" largely with the Republicans (note: that does NOT mean I now side with Democrats) because they were the party of "fiscal and economic responsibility," and of "smaller, less intrusive government." For most of Bush's time in office, they have controlled both the House and the Senate.

And what have they done with this power? Ok, they've cut taxes. They've made some decent proposals for fixing social security. And, they've made a jab at tort reform. I'll give them credit where it's due.

But then, they spent hundreds of billions on pork projects, showing absolutely no fiscal constraint of any kind whatsoever. Even if one accounts for the "one-time" boost in spending due to warfighting, the pork coming out of congress is unbelievable for a "fiscally conservative" party.

And what else has the party of "smaller, less intrusive" government done?

Censoring "indecency" like feminine nipples and swear words while letting violence off the hook? I don't think anything should be censored, but if you think it's more important to shield "minors" from a boob or a monosyllabic utterance than from a wanton orgy of violence, you have your priorities wrong.

The Patriot act? Hahaha.

Banning gay marriage? Why the hell has the government been sticking its nose in a religious concept for so long anyway? Who cares what gays do or anyone does in the privacy of their own home as long as they're not harming others? Why do some Republicans always feel such an overbearing need to regulate the private actions of your genitalia?

Passing the largest increase in socialized medicine in the U.S. through the prescription drug benefit? Remember when they used to fry Hillary over her plans to socialize medicine? WTF?

Continuing to spend hundreds of billions on farm subsidies but only six billion on the National Science Foundation? And we wonder why we're losing our technological edge? How retarded are we for having a government that spends more on peanuts than on basic science research?

Failing to support stem cell research while other countries (such as South Korea) take the lead in a field which has the potential to save millions of lives? I can't wait to see all those in the culture of life some day turning down life-saving treatments for themselves and their family members because it's based on stem cells.

Oh, and it's not like the Democrats have a better track record. They love to spend too, and they love to tax. I'd love to give them credit for protecting civil liberties, but they often jump right on the bandwagon for things like the Patriot Act, banning violent video games, censoring speech and national ID cards. And, Bill Clinton signed the nightmarish DMCA into law, and that's screwed over far more citizens and small businesses than the Patriot Act. The democrats are also guilty of crap like wasteful farm subisidies and paltry spending on basic research too.

And both parties are now wasting time on crap like steroid use in sports. At a time when this nation is embroiled in a difficult war, I'm so glad they think tongue-lashing juiced up athletes is an issue worthy of serious legislative concern.

And about Kelo, what have they done? I know a handful who are making an attempt to do something, but most are just ignoring the most universally outrageous issue to come by in some time. Both sides are far more worried about John Roberts' position on the nature of single-celled organisms than on Kelo. This man's views will be impacting citizens TWO generations from now!

From now on, I'm voting libertarian. But, I'm pretty pessimistic. They'd probably become just as corrupted and detached from their core values as the existing parties if they ever got in power. But, at least, maybe at first, maybe for a little bit, they could get something right for a change.

Pollen! Must find Pollen!

LH
You should say, thank the liberal Supreme Court justices for redefining what public use is.

You mean the two Supreme Court justices who were appointed by liberals?

And, better yet, the Constitution doesn't say 'private use', and therefore it's a state issue. The Supreme Court returned a strictly legal opinion.

We don't have a 'liberal' justice system and you know it. 60% of federal judges were appointed by conservatives. You just call them liberals when they do something you disagree with, regardless of the legality or correctness of their decision. The alternative is to admit that you may be wrong, and that would be too severe a blow to your world-view.

For example, whenever the judges in the Schiavo debacle returned an opinion unsympathetic to her continued existance, all the religious leaders and FOX 'News' pundits screamed, "Liberal activist judges!!!1!"... But almost all of the judges were appointed by conservatives! And yet when facts got in the way of this carefully-constructed fabrication, they were ignored by our corporate media.

The only place the blame belongs is the corrupt city councilpersons and developers who are doing this.

Lusiphur:

lol, but at least they're angry and (on the surface) willing to do something and not just biatch about how people are naive and stupid.

Naive and stupid...that was my second choice! :)

I do not think the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this use of eminent domain.


I DO believe the Supreme Court declared that the state had the final say in determining what falls under eminent domain and thus they declared themselves no jurisdiction to issue a decision.


Please correct if I am wrong.

buwolverine: Well I've never served so maybe I don't have the right view point, but I'd think I would view an attempted overthrow of the government as treason.

It really does depend. A soldiers first duty - seriously - is to defend the constitution. If the goverment breaks that trust, revolution is provided for. Just like you are not allowed to plead 'following orders' for war crimes, you are not allowed to plead ' following orders ' for dereliction of duty. Its going to cause a LOT of hesitation, but there will also be many many arguments by people that don;t want to destroy the nation - they just want to throw out the goverment. OK - like if the President ordered you to shoot every member of the Supreme Court, in thier beds, because he didn;t like one of thier decisions. THAT is not going to fly. The President is the commander in Chief - there is no other authority above him. He says jump - piss your pants, whatever, no one can countermand that order. THAT if I am not wrong is your second general order? But if he tells you to violate the constitution, he looses, because he is priority 2. The constitution is priority one. Thats why he takes an oath to defend the constitution - that is priority one. I think the founding fathers did this because they knew the nature of all goverments was temporal, and want to make sure the people could dismiss it peacefully. We don't HAVE to shoot each other. All we have to do is agree.

LH: You should say, thank the liberal Supreme Court justices for redefining what public use is.


Why do idiots allways resort to party-bashing instead of realizing we're all getting screwed over together?

SchlingFo: Faced with a revolutionary war, the military would most likely split into two or more parts, being fairly representative of the division seen in the nation.

ok, I'll grant you that. It's just too easy to get down on the army.

What farking stupid farking shiateheads! o_O @_@

Why in hell doesn't anyone realize that being overly nice pays off much more in benefits during an unpopular decision ("Well, the ruling sucks, but at least they gave 50% over market value instead of sticking it to them...") than compounding the anger!

GAAAAAH!

With very few exceptions, eminient domain is bullshiat. Justice Breyer's farmhouse is only a few hundred miles away from me; if the town siezes it, like it wants to, and builds the "Just Deserts Cafe" in it's place- like it wants to, I'll be the first customer.

Sometimes- very infrequently- eminent domain can be justified. Say a county desperately needs a hospital, and there's a beautiful spot for it in the county seat- a big, vacant lot that the owner doesn't, can't, or just plain refuses to build on. Yeah, in that case, OK. Make an offer, if he refuses it, well, sorry, we need a hospital. It has to be a special case though, siezure by eminient domain should be a last resort for planning boards.

I'm angry because my city's original red-light/drunken sailor district got razed in the '50s in the name of eminent domain and "beautification". I want to carouse, dammit.

This is a travesty that makes me question even more my homeland. I live in NY state. No public smoking (non-smoker), Mandatory seatbelts, and now "You're property is now a 'hot' commodity so you lose and owe. The future of our beloved country isn't going the way of our founders ideals.

davidshi123:

Quit trying to make sense, you'll just confuse them!

At this point in time a complete gutting of the current government would not be seen as treason by myself.

This is mostly due to the fact that our government in it's current form has ceased to represent the people, one of the core ideas laid down in the constitution way back when a bunch of angry white folk got pissed off at another group of angry white folk.

Slowly over a century of mishaps and fumbles a real government for the people began to emerge, then slowly it faded away as state rights began to dissapear ever faster.

I'll say it once again cause it bears repeating.

This country will experience a civil war within the next 50 years.

thornhill
In Germany, Italy, Russia and China, the people had no recourse since there were no elections. BIG DIFFERENCE.

In the 2004 presidential election, in almost every district, exit poll results jived with the actual election results. However, in districts with Diebold electronic voting machines, exit polls differed from the reported results. Always, the exit polls were less sympathetic to Bush. The odds of this happening by chance have been calculated at 1 in 250 million.

Several months before the election, the president of Diebold (himself a major donator to the Republican party) declared that he would do all in his power to deliver Ohio to Bush.

We do not live in a democracy anymore.

O'Connor (Republican) - Reagan, 1981
Rehnquist (Republican)- Nixon, 1971
Scalia (Republican) - Reagan, 1986
Thomas (Republican) - Bush I - 1991

Judicial activists ignoring the plain-text of the Constitution

It's a simple decision. Ruling against it IS judicial activism, making up rights that don't exist. Government taking land for public use (and public use is not defined, so the plain-text meaning, to benefit the public, is very broad) is enshrined in the Constitution. It sucks but it's the only way a federal Judge can rule

IdBeCrazyIf: This country will experience a civil war within the next 50 years.


I agree with you, but I am thinking it won't be as violent as the last one. That was a nasty divide, and this is not a divided issue. The North did some pretty stupid shiat to get Lincoln elected, and the South did some pretty stupid shiat to keep Lincoln off the ballot. All things being equal, the amount of division that caused made non-violent resolution impossible. It was a massive cluster fark all the way through. From what I can tell by my Reps and my senators, there is NO division on this. In fact, it appears they are pork barreling the fark out of this because its a dead certainty the only thing they are going to fight over is language. Its a massive love fest with righteous indignation and calls to duty. Kinda sickening actually.

thornhill
I'd agree with you if ED was used strictly for "Public Use", and it was shown that a substancial number of residents would benefit from such a use of ED.

However, no one can justify the hundreds of ED cases where private land merely changed hands into other private hands due to kickbacks and corrupt local councils who all happen to share the same last name with the developer.

"It really does depend. A soldiers first duty - seriously - is to defend the constitution."

Wouldn't step 1 of defending the Constitution be defending it's Constitutionally elected government? If the government is overthrown there is no guarantee that it will be replaced with a government that will follow the Constitution. In fact I'd bet good money that a lot groups that would want to overthrow the government would like to lose a good portion of the Constitution.

TheKnownUniverse: Naive and stupid...that was my second choice! :)


Really? woulda been my first choice. It's pretty common, and can be backed up by a whole buncha cliches. Very easy viewpoint to defend.

Anyway, to do my part in this debate: People like you are the reason the system sucks. Tag.

Touchyournose: You vote with your income. I think this would also be effective. I would love to do this. Communication is the greatest weapon.

I especially vote with my income since I'm barred from voting, not being a citizen and all. But imho, this is the best, the quickest, and the most effective way to present a unified front and send a strong message to the people on top.

MadSkillz: "The Pursuit of Happiness", which is rather nebulous?

Because too many "people" weren't allowed to own property and they didn't want anything in the constitution to in any way allow, say, slaves to own anything.

thornhill: Once again, here's the slippery slope argument, that holds about as much water as my 91 year old grandmother. Seizing property in America for economic development is not going to lead to Jews being thrown in ovens. The Justices made it very clear what ED is to be used for. Furthermore, if politicians abuse it, the voters will throw them out and elect people who will pass laws to end it. In Germany, Italy, Russia and China, the people had no recourse since there were no elections. BIG DIFFERENCE.

I didn't say anything about burning jews. That was just a little aside. The point remains that before an opresive gvt comes into power, rights are taken away slowly under the guise of public good. You're only response to this argument appears to be: "I want to get to work faster so it's a-ok by me."

UndecidableComputation: I used to "side" largely with the Republicans (note: that does NOT mean I now side with Democrats) because they were the party of "fiscal and economic responsibility," and of "smaller, less intrusive government." For most of Bush's time in office, they have controlled both the House and the Senate.


I think that whole "fiscal responsibility" and "small gvt" thing ended like 30 years ago.

This is where someone busts out the firearms and gets called a hero in the history books...

faethe

Ohh it will be just as violent.

See this time, instead of North vs South it is going to be the Army of the Federal Government vs armies of the United States.

It'll happen, and you all will be glad all those gun nuts in the middle of nowhere exist.

UFO's are real, there is so much unexplained phenomenon in this world and we don't know our real history. Don't ask me what it is, probably none of us know. Or perhaps that's the elite secret these overlords use to their advantage. There is a law in the books called the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951. It places a non-disclosure agreement on anything found to be a threat to national security. Do you think it's by chance we have been using oil for almost 180 years. Things are kept from us, or do you think planes and trains are the end of it all? No, our ingenuity goes beyond there.

Someone call in the D...


CITY HALL
All you people up there in City Hall,
You're f**kin' it up for the people that's in the streets.
This is a song for the people in the streets,
Not the people City Hall.
All you motherf**kers in the streets it's time to rise up,
Come along children and f**kin' rise!

Lots of times when me and KG are watchin'
All the f**kin' shiat that goes down at City Hall,
We get the feeling we should f**k shiat up,
Yeah we should f**kin' start a riot.
A Riot!

We have 'em screaming in the streets,
we have 'em tippin' over shiat and breakin' f**kin' windows of
small businesses,
and settin' f**kin' fires!
and settin' f**kin' fires!
and settin' f**kin' fires!

[spoken]
And then after the smoke is cleared,
and the rubble has been swept away,
me and KG will peek out our heads.
We've been watching the riots on a monitor twenty floors below
sea level,
from a bunker.

We did it Rage-Kage, we beat the bastards of City Hall!
[laughs] But now what will we do?
We must rebuild. But who will lead us in the rebuilding process?

Man, it's got to be someone with the know-how
and the elbow grease to lead us to a new land.
No, not me and KG, we don't have the cognitive capacity to
lead...
Alright, we'll do it!

[sung]
We'll lead as Two Kings,
We'll lead as Two Kings.
Ahhhaaa (Two Kings, we'll lead as Two Kings)
Ah-ha ah-how,
We'll lead as Two Kings.

[spoken]
The first decree is to legalize marijuana.
The tyranny and the bullshiat's gone on too long.
You old f**kin' shrivs who blocked it's legalization,
you're banished from the land!

[sung]
We'll lead as Two Kings,
We'll lead as Two Kings.
Ahhhaaa (Two Kings, we'll lead as Two Kings)
Ah-ha ah-how,
Lead as Two Kings.

[spoken]
The second decree: no more pollution, no more car exhaust,
or ocean dumpage. From now on, we will travel in tubes!

[sung]
We'll lead as Two Kings, oh, yeah,
We'll f**kin' lead as Two Kings.

[spoken]
Get the scientists working on the tube technology, immediately.
(Tube technology.) Chop, chop, let's go.

[spoken]
Third decree: no more... rich people: and poor people.
From now on, we will all be the same... ummm, I dunno,
I gotta think about that...

UndecidableComputation
Ok, (the Republicans)'ve cut taxes.

In theory. But they've done it at the cost of massive defecit spending- In essence, they put $5 in your front pocket while stealing $10 from your back pocket.


Noam Chimpsky
I've already stated that Scalia structured his argument to fit his anti-drug agenda.

"agenda." Agenda! Judges are not supposed to have an 'agenda'! That is the definition of judicial activism!

buwolverine: Wouldn't step 1 of defending the Constitution be defending it's Constitutionally elected government? If the government is overthrown there is no guarantee that it will be replaced with a government that will follow the Constitution. In fact I'd bet good money that a lot groups that would want to overthrow the government would like to lose a good portion of the Constitution.


Theres a big part in there (no I don;t have it open in my browser) about what steps are to be followed to get rid of the goverment. They planned all this shiat out - procedures. I think it may require a general election.

OK - its based on this (I do know the history). England - they have a Queen/ Monarch and they have a goverment. Two seperate things. In thier case - goverment is parliment which is made up of two houses (sorta). The House of Lords (appointed and heriditary peers - this is changing though) and the House of Commons (people elected by constituency). Periodically (very rarely) they go apeshiat and deadlock. They reach an impasse that can not be resolved, do stupid shiat, or someone does something that defies logic (Neville Chamberlain I think was the last really amazing shiat head they had). The Queen/Monarch can issue a proclimation and dismiss the goverment. She can throw them all out, and force a general election. The ensures they have a continuity of goverment, regardless of how farked up it gets. In theory, she can do this over and over again until the results are clear (but that would never likely happen). This is why its called a constitutional Monarchy. The goverment goes off course, they have a constitution to fall back on. The Monarch obeys the constitution. Everything goes off according to plan then.

Here, we have the populace. To throw out our goverment, we have some sort of general election. I Have NO idea how that works. We don't have a monarch to do it, we have to do it. But yeah - its provided for in the constitution.

spelunking_defenestrator: I'm angry because my city's original red-light/drunken sailor district got razed in the '50s in the name of eminent domain and "beautification". I want to carouse, dammit.


Arrr, I second that, ye salty dog.

Noam Chimpsky: I've already stated that Scalia structured his argument to fit his anti-drug agenda. Do you have an explanation for why the others that joined with him decided as they did? Seems to be a curious lack of interest in their motive from those who want to explore Scalia's motive.


The motive in drug-cases is usually popularity. The majority of the population of this country will side with the anti-drug side, though the number against is slowly growing.

RanDomino: Several months before the election, the president of Diebold (himself a major donator to the Republican party) declared that he would do all in his power to deliver Ohio to Bush.

We do not live in a democracy anymore.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I gotta be the umpteenth to say: THIS IS NOT A LEFT-RIGHT ISSUE! This is simply assholes vs. citizens.

More like eminent DUMB-ain!!!!!!

/BOOM!!!
//problem solved.

You're getting ass-raped, America. You jeer at those who have been saying this for years, you crack stupid tinfoil hat jokes when confronted with facts.
So roll over and take it like a brave lil cowboy.

IdBeCrazyIf: It'll happen, and you all will be glad all those gun nuts in the middle of nowhere exist.


Make no mistake - congress doesn't address right at the top of the next session, fark the flat screen. I'm getting a mausberg for Christmas to go with my .357.

how about: Bad: loosing your property for a road widening project Worse: they didnt widen the road, they sold the land to the highest bidder for twice what they gave you.

TheGoodBook

More like eminent DUMB-ain!!!!!!

/BOOM!!!
//problem solved.

teh winnar!!1

BTW, Alex Jones began discussing imminent domain about 3 months ago when this shiat first went through. See his movies like Martial Law: 9-11 and the rise of the Police State.

/infowars.com

IdBeCrazyIf:Bless them all.

TheKnownUniverse:
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

Yeah, well, that woman holding you in her hand in the 3rd photo of your profile is ugly.

Now vacate my home town.

/stupid ferret
//you have time to stick around and make multiple posts about how no one knows what they're talking about, yet exhibit no knowledge as to why

How about a new law that lets a lot of people looking for homes to take up residence in a business?

Oh yeah, it never works that way.

Just go ahead and take 'my everything'. Have worked for 20, maybe 30 yrs. to boast that' this is mine'.

RanDomino:

In theory. But they've done it at the cost of massive defecit spending- In essence, they put $5 in your front pocket while stealing $10 from your back pocket.

The government has taken much, much more than $10 from my back pocket, sad to say. And my front pocket has a hole in it.