The Principles of Freedom vs. Public/Private Partnerships-CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

www.canadafreepress.com/ ^ | August 15, 2007 | Tom DeWeese,

[B4Ranch]

Property Rights activist and ranger, Wayne Hage said, "Either you have the right to own property or you are property." The backbone of the plan was a call for "public/private partnerships."

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What you're practicing is called hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration.

I've seen that somewhere before. ..."one million Texans are about to lose their land..."

LOL!

[Petronski]

"one million Texans are about to lose their land..."

[philman_36]

I've seen that somewhere before. ..."one million Texans are about to lose their land..."
Can you show that they won't lose their land?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some people will lose some land.

[philman_36]

I'll ask the same thing of you...Can you show that they won't lose their land?
(or is a .jpg all you got?)

[Petronski]

You are asking me to prove a negative? You know it cannot be done, right?

It’s your premise, YOU prove it.

[philman_36]

Some people will lose some land.
How many people will lose some land?
And I see that you've moved from your "thrown out of their home and off of their land" spiel.

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many people will lose some land?

Why don't you ask the author?

[philman_36]

It’s your premise, YOU prove it.
No it isn't. It's the author's. It should be your job to disprove what the author is saying in the article if you don't believe what has been written.
Throwing out some stupid, pathetic .jpg hardly does that.
And if you'll look at the change of tune in #164 you'll note that it was hyperbole.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I see that you've moved from your "thrown out of their home and off of their land" spiel.

Please try to be accurate.

"If one million people were going to be thrown out of their homes or off their land"

[Petronski]

It should be your job to disprove what the author is saying in the article if you don't believe what has been written.

No, it should not. I cannot prove a negative.

If you agree with the premise, prove it. If you do not agree with the premise, do not prove it.

But with a premise so ludicrous, don't expect anything from me but the ridicule it so richly deserves.

[philman_36]

Why don't you ask the author?
I don't have to because he's already stated how many he believes will lose land. You should know, you've copied and pasted it.
And as for myself I believe it'll eventually be more than that as more and more of these multi-corridor roads are built.

[philman_36]

Fine. Whatever. It changes little in that you've still backtracked.
And I see that you've moved from your people being thrown out of their homes or off their land.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where do you think I’ve backtracked?

[philman_36]

If you agree with the premise, prove it.
I don't have to because others already have.
An example...
Proposed route released for Trans-Texas Corridor Texas Farm Bureau
Approximately 1 million Texans potentially affected by the TTC can now look at a map of the proposed route and see if their land, business or home could be potentially affected by the huge project.
Trans-Texas corridor is a big issue for the state legislature to address KCEN-TV/DT via FR
Anything along the path, up to several hundred thousand acres, and as many as one million people could be affected.
They've even got the video up at their website story site...

[philman_36]

Where do you think I’ve backtracked?
Right here...
Some people will lose some land.
That's sure not the same as...
If one million people were going to be thrown out of their homes or off their land, no politician in Texas would even touch such a plan.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I stand by both those statements.

If one million people were going to be thrown out of their homes or off their land, no politician in Texas would even touch such a plan.

Do you disagree?

If the road is built, some people will lose some land.

Do you disagree?

[philman_36]

If one million people were going to be thrown out of their homes or off their land, no politician in Texas would even touch such a plan. Do you disagree?
No, I don't disagree with that statement. It would indeed be political suicide for a Texas politician to support such a thing.
However, what I do disagree with is your disengenuous attempt at making it seem as if that is going to happen to all of the people affected by the TTC, which isn't the case at all as you tried to imply.
Do you agree?
If the road is built, some people will lose some land. Do you disagree?
No, I don't disagree. I'm 100% behind you on that one.

[1rudeboy]

Another FReeper posted some images from the anti-SPP protest here. Note the illegal immigration banner.

[Toddsterpatriot]

However, what I do disagree with is your disengenuous attempt at making it seem as if that is going to happen to all of the people affected by the TTC

I said homes or land. Some will lose land only, some will lose land with a home on it.