"George Bush turned me into a NEWT!" :)
Posted on 06/28/2005 4:21:25 PM PDT by Desron13
Blame Bush, not liberals --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend Joseph Farah is 100 percent right that the Supreme Court ruling against homeowners and their property is an outrage. But as I read on the WND website the usual accusations about "activist judges" and "liberals," I wonder if conservatives could just step back for a second and look at what has really happened.
It seems to me this ruling is more an example of pandering to big business, rather than an example of liberal philosophy. Most liberals I know are quite opposed to the takeover of so much of our life by giant and impersonal conglomerates, and object to how these corporations make it impossible for family-run businesses to compete.
Many of you have turned "liberals" into the convenient scapegoats for everything, but you can lay this one at the feet of the Bush administration. There has not been a more corporation-friendly president in years. The results are frightening if you are an average working person: It's harder to file for bankruptcy, credit-card interest can go as high as 30 percent with nothing you can do about it, gas prices continue to skyrocket, lobbyists have inordinate influence in writing our laws, and American jobs keep getting outsourced.
But readers of WND, instead of admitting that this president and the Republican-led Congress have made only rich people their top priority and ignored everyone else, continue to blame "activist judges and liberals." The mind boggles.
I fully expect to be disagreed with, and I'm ready. But before you tell me I'm wrong, please think about what I've said. Many of you love this president, and while we may never agree about that, please look at the policies that led to the disgraceful Supreme Court ruling – and liberals didn't do it. Greed did it, and isn't it shameful that we generate so little outrage about the selfishness and corruption of our political leaders – and not just our liberal political leaders.
Joseph Farah is right that the Supreme Court should be ashamed, but he is wrong to expect the Bush administration to do anything about it. Why would the president and the Congress disrupt their pattern of favoring big business at the expense of the rest of us?
Donna L. Halper
Maybe a little of both are in order here. If you just take things as they come and constantly vote between the lesser of two evils, evil is what you will eventually arrive at. Lets take the bull by the horns and make our own future. Our own destiny. Gee... am I getting unpractical or what! I think James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and The Sons of Liberty might have been a little unpractical as well.
Corporate America seems as willing to sell uw down the river as the Dems. Is there anything that is still "Corporate America"?
It just seems to me that all "class warfare" on the part of socialists, communists, fascists, "intellectuals", "liberals", "progressives" or whatever they call themselves, is directed at one class, that is the bourgeoisie or middle class. And that it all has the same objective, to destroy the breeding ground of political freedom, individual rights and economic opportunity, which is what the middle class is, in the interest of installing a totalitarian unitary state directed by an elite vanguard, which is how rich corporatists, communists, intellectuals etc. see themselves.
The problem with her argument is that it is the GOVERNMENT (through liberal judges) who takes the land away.
This is why we (conservatives) want as little govt as needed.
Big Business WILL benefit (the author is right about that), but only because runaway GOVT. now can take the land away.
SEE??...LIBERALS???...What your good intentions via the govt do???
See my tag line.
Nonsense - most liberals I know are totally in favor of our lives being run by the largest and most impersonal conglomerate of all - the Federal Government
There were horrible, nasty arguments that lasted for years and in the end several of them (Madison and Jefferson, I think) would not even speak to each other. So you can't tell me that they each got exactly the country they envisioned. They ended up compromising on some things in order to create a reasonable facsimile of the country they'd hoped for. In fact, that is the entire essence of our country.
We agree on some things more readily than others. For instance most of us, conservatives and liberals alike, think that this weeks SCOTUS takings law is really bad. So I have a feeling that will be fixed though legislation shortly, because it's easy. But the harder stuff, we have to take on one step at a time and it may require some compromise. President Reagan did this very well, although he was roundly criticized by conservatives at the time.
Anyway, for right now, I support the president in the two areas he emphasized in the campaign: the war and social security. I am not going to stand for a compromise on the war; I am willing to take a slight compromise on SS as long as it moves the ball in the right direction.
Gotta go. I don't entirely disagree with the concept of voting on principles—it's just that I think sometimes that can send us further away from the goal. JMHO though. No hard feelings.
Sorry you are not correct. A ruling by the Supreme Court overrides all LAW unless the congress and the states pass an amendment to the Constitution. Which the left will never allow and for which the people we elected do not have the backbone to do. "No Spine Not One Dime."
While the Constitution gives to power to make law to the Congress, and the Congress alone, the court has taken that power from the congress.
Whoa, tortured and convoluted thinking, even from a liberal!
This woman makes no sense whatsoever. Nice try, though!
Ken Lay was a fool who bankrupted his company. No one likes a fool.
thats pretty good
Ken Lay is a man who merely took advantage of a business climate which allows him to reap benefits that far outweigh his actual contribution (allegedly). If this is not a perfect summation of "liberal" policy initiatives, I do not know what is. If this is not, conversely, a perfect summation of free-market economics, then I do not know what is.
Pick your poison. The point is, the politician he supposedly "bought" didn't pick up the phone when he called.
I just read this. Do you know if its true?
George Bush and Eminent Domain
The Supreme Court ruling allowing eminent domain by private entities must seem like old news to George W.
Way back when he was running the Texas Rangers baseball team rather than the country, he used eminent domain to steal property from landowners to build among other things a parking lot next to the Texas Rangers new stadium. From what I understand many home owners who had their homes taken against their will are still pissed.
Here are some of the gory details, courtesy of Dissident Voice:
Back in 1989, Bush hauled in the moolah on the stadium built in Arlington, Texas for the Texas Rangers. What's interesting about this one is that the Texas legislature passed a bill allowing the private corporation that owned the Rangers to exercise eminent domain, normally a power reserved for public entities.
We're all pretty familiar with condemnation for public projects. It's what the Army Corps of Engineers does to build flood-control dams or Municipalities do to construct water mains or Highway Authorities do to obtain rights-of-way. In the Texas Rangers case the condemnation was on behalf of a handful of private individuals, one of whom was George W.
This surprising form of socialism with baseball teams condemning private property for new stadiums is now quite common in the US. It had a particularly sordid ring in the Texas deal.
This private corporation condemned not only enough land for a spanking new baseball stadium, but also took an additional 300 acres - yes 300 acres - of surrounding land for commercial development. Arlington residents floated most of the package with jacked-up taxes. These paid for the bonds needed to buy the land. It seems that our no-tax President wasn't ideologically opposed to increasing taxes if it padded his own bank account.
The padding was generous: Bush made out like a bandit with his initial investment of $640,000 zooming to a cool $15.4 million in 1998 when he sold out.
Bush is responsible for waxy buildup and static cling.
"George Bush turned me into a NEWT!" :)
Are you making the same argument as John Edwards that we live in a "two Americas" country?
"I am Blaming Bush and our Repub buddies in Congress for they're deafening silence. "
I haven't noticed any 'dims' in Congress stating outrage over this. Could it be that left up to them, all property would be government owned?
Absolutely, But thats what I expect out of the Dims. I expect better from the Repubs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.