Posted on 06/25/2005 9:41:53 AM PDT by SmithL
Ditto to your entire post.
I totally agree. Someone was complaining on one of the numerous threads about the decision that it shouldn't be our job to to see that changes are made.
I beg to differ - it is absolutely OUR job and duty as American's to do just that.
As far as I am concerned I lay much of the blame for situations such that led to this horrible decision squarely at the feet of the antis by changing the definition of "public places" to include private property.
And a very good rant it was.
Yes, but now, WITH compensation!
The holes in my brain are filling up again...I am becoming a little more coherent these days, and lots less hormonal, lol!
Glad you liked it...felt good to get that off my chest. It seems like all the news coming out of DC and the state governments these days is bad news. :(
At least, if you're not a lib, that is.
GMTA, then. :)
Compensation had nothing to do with this ruling, that part of the 5th amendment was not touched. What this ruling did was change the definition of "public use." In the past that meant roads, schools, bridges, municipal utilities, etc. Now what this did was to add tax revenue to the definition.
Much the same as how the antis have gotten people used to the idea that private businesses are actually "public places."
A park is a public place - a bar is not. A road is a public use - condominians are private use.
I'm glad the hormones are starting to balance out :)
Is there no depths to which he won't sink? If he ever goes to San Francisco there'll be orders to shoot on sight.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!
Never happen! To those pseudo-conservatives, the daily encounter with the hated smoker is real to them while they view the chance of their respective cities confiscating their property as something that is only going happen to the other guy.
Chances are they have only given minimal thought to this SC decision and 2 weeks from now they will have forgotten all about it......while still pissing and moaning about cigarettes.
I read that if they come for my house and property they have to give me compensation. They can't just kick me out on the street.
My prayers go out to him and you. =)
I totally agree with you! The anti's are so ate up over smokers and cigarettes they can't think of anything else.
They call us the scourge of the earth when in all truth, they are the scourge of the earth.
If believing in personal freedoms make me the scourge, then that is fine, let them call me what they will. I've got a few names for them and they ain't too pretty either.
It has always been that way and the folks in this case were not fighting about the compensation - they were fighting because their property was being taken not for public use (roads, bridges) but for private use (condos and offices).......in other words they felt the city had over stepped the bounds on using eminent domain
In all of the battles against smoking bans we have fought the idea that private businesses were public places what this ruling basically says is they are right, because creating tax revenue and jobs (economic development) is a "public use" according to this ruling, even if it is a private developer.
Thankfully we live in a very conservative county :)
Speaking from the viewpoint of a man. I am pleading the fifth.
If I were to write what I really think the reasons socialism appeal to a vast number of women, I would be excoriated as a sexist pig all the while being totally misunderstood.
I will say the biggest reason is most men care way too much what women think, not their wives, but women in general.
I already said too much.
I hear you! And the anti-smokers call us the scourge of the earth because there is nothing worse then a smoker, you know.
Oh well. I have quite a list of my own that I consider far worse then being a smoker could ever be!
I fully expect this expansion of ID to be used and abused with increasing frequency by politically motivated liberal city governments. Keep in mind that where most of the local smoking bans have been created, they were highly liberal and the people who actually voted represented a vast minority of the population.
With that in mind, you may very well see Bob Smith's controversial bar coming up for discussion at the next city council meeting. Or for that matter, any establishment owned by a vocal conservative in a liberal town......
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.