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.

[nicmarlo]

LOL!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right back at ya Nikki.

[nicmarlo]

You never have anything of substance to post...just quibbling over whether the “i” is dotted or the “t” is crossed....as you attack patriotic conservative Americans.

You and your ilk are disgusting.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, it’s just a quibble when someone says the Supreme Court passed a law about eminent domain.

You and your ilk are stupid.

[Calpernia]

Wow, I keep trying to read, and there is the obnoxious fly on my screen.

Much better.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you’d like a chuckle, check out this thread.

[nicmarlo]

They did. It's called Kelo v. New London, and it is being used to steal private property away from American citizens via legislation from the bench. Quibbling over what it is called or not called, it is, in fact, a law, case or otherwise.

But....I've had all I can stomach of your kind today.

[nicmarlo]

Whatsa matter, toad...need help from your ilk?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Comedy is better when shared.

[1rudeboy]

Piss off, nic.

[1rudeboy]

for your lists . . . don’t let the ankle-biters get you down

[1rudeboy]

I think the article was pretty well-written, and its indicative of the argument these folks must make when they have to stoop to suggesting that the impetus for privatizing certain governmental functions (even imperfectly) dates back to the Clinton Administration, and not the Reagan Administration.

See, the problem with admitting that Reagan wanted to privatize non-essential governmental functions is twofold: first of all, a conservative icon takes it on on the chin, and second, it exposes the nay-sayers for what they are--statists.

I mean, how can one argue that because certain things such as the building/operating/maintaining of roads cannot completely be privatized, they must necessarily therefore be completely the province of government? What sort of a conservative argument is that?

[Toddsterpatriot]

What sort of a conservative argument is that?

A poor one.

[1rudeboy]

Speaking of weak arguments¹, what about nic's apparent insistence that the U.S. Supreme Court has made the Kelo a matter of settled case law? Let's take a look at the conclusion of the Kelo Court:

We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline.

How can this be, if the Supreme Court has spoken (more accurately, if the people who claim to be conservatives on this website claim to know what they are talking about with regard to Kelo)? Here is an interesting website from the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding Kelo and eminent domain. It does not appear that the issue is closed, as nic suggests.

_____
¹Please note that I am not arguing that Kelo is correctly decided. Any attempt to paint me with that brush will be met with the ridicule it deserves.

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can this be, if the Supreme Court has spoken (more accurately, if the people who claim to be conservatives on this website claim to know what they are talking about with regard to Kelo)?

So nic was wrong when he said once the Supreme Court passed (LOL!) a law, that was it? I'm shocked!

[1rudeboy]

It’s simply not a closed matter, and to suggest otherwise is, well . . . .

[nicmarlo]

take a hike, ilk.

[1rudeboy]

Read on, my friend. I’m lambasting you.

[nicmarlo]

No globalist shill, such as you, as any friend of mine. You’re far from lambasting anyone with your trite crap.

Even Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Like Kelo:
Even Congress’s “lone self-described socialist, Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont” doesn’t like Kelo:

I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London,” Mr. Sanders said. “I believe that the result of this decision will be that working families and poor people will see their property turned over to corporate interests and wealthy developers.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, “California Democrat and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she is ‘outraged’ by the decision. ‘It’s the most un-American thing that can be done.’”

And when is the last time those two agreed with Tom DeLay?

“The Supreme Court voted last week to undo private property rights and to empower governments to kick people out of their homes and give them to someone else because they feel like it,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. “No court that denies property rights will long respect and recognize other basic human rights.”

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1120223955.shtml#contact

[nicmarlo]

Kelo is being used to continue property removal.

Why is it you prefer to quibble over a poster not/dotting “i’s” and not/crossing “t’s” rather than concern yourself with the substance of this article?

Don’t answer....it’s because you, as usual, have nothing but empty arguments as you attack CONSERVATIVE PATRIOTIC AMERICANS....globalist shill.