Does this scare anyone else?

[SoulOnIce]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

[bartl]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
The key here was not just that the local government was using eminent domain. It was that they were giving far less for the land than the developers would have if eminent domain had not been evoked.

[fumetti]

These are the End Times for Freedom in America. All is lost.

No joke.

This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and by the Supreme Court itself no less. This ruling allows eminent domain to be used for private use. The constitution only allows E.D. for "public" use.

The King can seize our lands because the barons say they can make that land more profitable? Doesn't that apply to EVERY PIECE OF PRIVATELY OWNED LAND IN THIS NATION?????

My house would generate more tax dollars and local commerce if it was turned into a gas station. So... I no longer *OWN* anything. All a baron has to do is say "I want it" and it's his.

And he doesn't even have to bother trying to buy me out. He gets Big Gov't to do all his work for him.

Christ, I'm off to buy bullets.

[outlander78]

Wow.

I'm thankful I don't live in the land of the free, and I wish those who do all the best and a better future than their current present.

[WatsonGlenn]

My mother lost her home to the city a few years ago when the city needed to expand a drainage ditch to prevent flooding. She got a better than fair price.

But I agree that no one shold be forced to sell just so another private citizen can build a health club.

Still I kind of agree that it is not the job of the Federal courts to decide this. The local elected officials should do the right thing or be kicked out of office in the next election. That is how it is supposed to work.

[Wig of Doom]

I'll be damned. This is the first time I've ever agreed with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas when the court was split. I'm embarrassed.

Of course, I can take ironic comfort in the thought that George W.'s personal fortune was in part built up by the use of eminent domain.

[fumetti]

Property RIGHTS is at an end. Now you will only own your property at the whim of local politicians and/or the disinterest of local (or not so local) businesses. There's no "right" to be claimed. Not anymore.

And right-wingers should be SCREAMING about Big Gov't interfering in the Free Market. The Connecticut situation was clearly a matter of Big Business not being able to buy the property themselves, and then running to the local gov't to IMPOSE the deal for them.

[WatsonGlenn]

And right-wingers should be SCREAMING about Big Gov't interfering in the Free Market. The Connecticut situation was clearly a matter of Big Business not being able to buy the property themselves, and then running to the local gov't to IMPOSE the deal for them.

I agree but I would not be folding up the tent just yet. The solution is local government standing up for what is right not the Supreme Court, IMO.

[blast_front]

The solution is local government standing up for what is right not the Supreme Court, IMO.

Sadly, the local government in this case is on the developers' side.

[Charles RB]

Does this scare anyone else?

Judging from the reaction on other forums at CBR, it scares everyone.

[steeler80]

Like I posted in another forum, stories like this (and the Downing St. memo and even the proposed cut in public television) are really scaring me. There is a gradual but steady (I couldn't begin to pinpoint its starting point) decrease in our individual freedoms.

Maybe I'm just super-sensitive to all of this because I'm in the middle of reading V for Vendetta but that story doesn't appear far-fetched at all. Maybe we'll be hearing the voice of fate in the next few years.

[bartl]

These are the End Times for Freedom in America. All is lost.
Not quite. The Supreme Court simply was that the federal courts could not overrule the states. There are a number of states where using eminent domain to get land for private developers is illegal. We have to work on getting it illegal in our own states.

Unfortunately, I live in New Jersey, which has the best government money can buy.

[bartl]

And right-wingers should be SCREAMING about Big Gov't interfering in the Free Market. The Connecticut situation was clearly a matter of Big Business not being able to buy the property themselves, and then running to the local gov't to IMPOSE the deal for them.
That's why the homeowners can continue to fight; they are now doing it on the basis that they are not being offered fair market value for their houses.

[WatsonGlenn]

I heard more about this story today on NPR. There were 90 homes involved. Only seven famlies felt the need to not sell. Its their right I guess but they seem selfish to me. We are talking very small lots here in a blighted area and the develpment will be good for the area.

I am not sure what to think.

[blast_front]

We are talking very small lots here in a blighted area and the develpment will be good for the area.

The "blighted" part is in the eye of the beholder by all the accounts I've read. The neighborhood isn't a jumble of half-ruined tenements and brownfields, but an older, non-glamorous section of town that happens to be on some much desired real estate.

I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with what happened to the West End of Boston a few decades back, but the government and the developers used the same tactic. A thriving, diverse working class neighborhood was suddenly labeled as a "blighted slum area", then got razed and its (still-bitter to this day) residents scattered to the winds. Luxury high-rises went up on the site.

Today, whole residential areas in the East Side of Woburn, MA (my hometown) are being encircled and seized to make room for office parks and big box stores.

In these cases, the excuses are the same: improved tax revenues represent a greater good that outweighs the individual families' rights. To hell with that. If the developers want the land so badly, then they should offer a price that the owner won't refuse. It's simple supply and demand, and if that makes the process of buying up lots en masse more costly and complicated, fine. That's business in a free market for you. (And I'm an unapologetic leftist, too.)

Of course, I might be biased a bit by my own (taxing, yet ultimately successful) adventures in buying and refurbishing a house last summer...

[bartl]

Today, whole residential areas in the East Side of Woburn, MA (my hometown) are being encircled and seized to make room for office parks and big box stores.
One problem, as I have mentioned is determining what a "fair market price" is. It often isn't. There was a case a few years back where some run-down houses in a beachfront area were taken over by the state, who gave the owners about $50,000 apiece for the houses, no appeal. The houses built on the land went for more than a million dollars each. And there was no way the owners could find alternative housing for $50,000.

On the other hand, I work on a block where there is an apartment building on the corner. The owner wants to gut and refurbish the building, but there is one elderly woman who, so far, has turned down an offer of $600,000 to move out, and there is no legal way the landlord can evict her. And she doesn't even own the apartment.

[fumetti]

Not quite. The Supreme Court simply was that the federal courts could not overrule the states.

But they based that decision on a SECONDARY matter: that the SCOTUS can't decide whether the decision is good or bad.

They COULD have decided the local gov't had no Constitutional authority to use eminent domain for PRIVATE use. And that is PRECISELY what is at issue. Even if that private use will generate more tax money, that's irrelevant. It's still using ED to take private land and give it over to private interests.

[fumetti]

I agree but I would not be folding up the tent just yet. The solution is local government standing up for what is right not the Supreme Court, IMO.


Unfortunately, local gov't is by far the easiest tier of gov't to buy.

And even if one local gov't stands up to Big Money, they won't ALL do it. THAT is why we need the Supreme Court to stand up to Big Money shenanigans. Their rejection would actually get results.

[blast_front]

The owner wants to gut and refurbish the building, but there is one elderly woman who, so far, has turned down an offer of $600,000 to move out, and there is no legal way the landlord can evict her. And she doesn't even own the apartment.

Yeah, renter vs. owner rights tend to be a tangled mess solely geared toward enriching the lawyers involved. It's all a question of circumstance whether to side with either, both, or neither side(s) involved.

My girlfriend (now wife) and I had to attend a homebuyer's workshop as a condition of securing a mortgage through our credit union, and lawyer who gave the lecture on rental properties couldn't decisively answer 75% of the attendees' questions.

I do know that 'round these parts there are provisions regarding refurbishing and/or demolition of rental properties that can streamline the eviction process. I wouldn't hazard a guess how it works elsewhere, though.

[Inkthinker]

It's worth reiterating that "fair market price" means little when the market is becoming more and more clearly screwed up by inflated prices and a housing bubble. When it goes "pop" there may be a lot of homes that go on the market, and it's often easy to prove that more could be done with a property then merely raising families and providing a home for one's future. Why, you can do that any old place, right?

I own a piece of property (two empty, full-sized lots, side-by-side, with a well separate from the city water supply) along with my father. We plan to sell it and divide the profit amongst my three sisters and myself, but now I have to wonder if we'll get the chance before an apartment or condo developer with ties to the local government decides they'd like to drop a block of cheap flats onto the lots.

This whole thing stinks of potential corruption. The ways in which this can (and likely will) go to hell are ridiculously obvious to anyone.

[bartl]

They COULD have decided the local gov't had no Constitutional authority to use eminent domain for PRIVATE use. And that is PRECISELY what is at issue. Even if that private use will generate more tax money, that's irrelevant. It's still using ED to take private land and give it over to private interests.
Well, we happen to be in agreement there. I was just being more specific about what the specific decision was, and pointing out that there are other fronts to which the fight can be brought (in that the Supreme Court's decision does not in any way invalidate state laws forbidding eminent domain for private use).

[fumetti]

Well, we happen to be in agreement there. I was just being more specific about what the specific decision was, and pointing out that there are other fronts to which the fight can be brought (in that the Supreme Court's decision does not in any way invalidate state laws forbidding eminent domain for private use).

I don't trust state gov'ts any more than federal or local gov'ts.

I live in coal mining country. This ruling could result in my home or my family's homes AT ANY MOMENT being handed over to a coal mine simply because the coal corporation can argue they would generate more money with it (an argument they will win EVERY time). Why would the state gov't, which is heavily beholden to Big Coal, ever tell them no? I shouldn't have to wait years or decades to finally vote out the pro-corporation administration(s)--at any level of gov't--to get justice on this issue. My home would be long gone before that day. And what good does it do anyway, once the home is razed and the land converted to corporate use?

This is real, PALPABLE fear for me. And I imagine it has just become palpable for anybody who might be "noticed" by Big Money.

I have never felt less free.

This decision is arguably not at all related to the right-wing agenda to hand this country totally over to corporations, since the staunchest right-wing judges opposed it. But it still fits perfectly into the whole trend. I grew up believing--and still believed until Bush took office--that I could get justice in the courts no matter how big the guy was who brought me harm. Bush, and this ruling, has wised me up. The American public is losing ground and losing FAST.

[blast_front]

The American public is losing ground and losing FAST.

You can take some consolation in the fact that these sort of actions can and will turn the most complacent people into full blown radical activists (and not on the left/right scale, either). The property tax revolt in 1970's California is one example of this, and similar movements spread throughout the US (with mixed consequences, for sure).

The silver lining to this cloud might be that the large numbers of Americans who don't vote out of apathy, laziness, or a feeling of disconnect from large abstract events, will wake up and start participating in politics.

I can dream, can't I?

[fumetti]

This should be a big open door for the Democrats. Even though the decision is not along expected party/ideological lines, it doesn't matter. It's a clear unconstitutional gift to the rich.

If Howard Dean and the Dems can't ride this pony to victory, they're even more pathetic than they seem.

[WatsonGlenn]

If Howard Dean and the Dems can't ride this pony to victory, they're even more pathetic than they seem.

How is it that when something like this happens in a democratic controlled state and is allowed to stay in force by liberal judges its the fault of the Republicans?

[Adam Crocker]

How is it that when something like this happens in a democratic controlled state and is allowed to stay in force by liberal judges its the fault of the Republicans?

Where did he ever refer the Republicans in that sentence?

[WatsonGlenn]

Where did he ever refer the Republicans in that sentence?


What else is there to take from this sentance?

"If Howard Dean and the Dems can't ride this pony to victory, they're even more pathetic than they seem."

Who do you think the "Dems' would achieve victory over, the libertarians? Are you purpose trying not to understand? Come on now.

[fumetti]

How is it that when something like this happens in a democratic controlled state and is allowed to stay in force by liberal judges its the fault of the Republicans?

How come when a Republican raises taxes or expands gov't spending or power it's always the fault of the Democrats?

I wasn't directly blaming the Republicans for this property theft. I was saying it's a good issue to bludgeon them with in national elections.

(Furthermore, in all my years of life I've never experienced a Republican congress or administration who ever acted on behalf of the working class. They always favor the rich, and tell us it's in our benefit that they keep all the money. The Democrats would be stupid--just as they've been stupid recently--to not beat this fact like a drum.)

[Adam Crocker]

Who do you think the "Dems' would achieve victory over, the libertarians? Are you purpose trying not to understand? Come on now.

Even though they are the Dems top competitors doesn't necessarily mean that they have to blame the Pubs for this. Believe it or not there are other ways of motivating in an election people beyond saying, "look at the bad thing the other guy did!" (Though I agree it's becoming all too common as opposed to defining one's principles and actual stances on the issue.) Any minimally smart political party, particularly one that needs to win, could win support for themselves by taking the initiative on this issue and drum up populist credibility on opposition to this decision.

[WatsonGlenn]

How come when a Republican raises taxes or expands gov't spending or power it's always the fault of the Democrats?

I never noticed that to be the case.

I wasn't directly blaming the Republicans for this property theft. I was saying it's a good issue to bludgeon them with in national elections.

Thats right and I asked how Republicans could be fairly bludgeoned for something Demcrats did? Instead of answering you did whatever.

[Adam Crocker]

Congress aims to blunt courts' eminent domain ruling (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-30-seizing-property_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers are trying to blunt a Supreme Court decision that says local governments can seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls and other private development.

[...]

The House on Thursday approved by a 231-189 vote a bid by conservative Scott Garrett, R-N.J., to bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.

Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision.

Well I am surprised, and gratified that the Republicans are actually taking a stand on this issue against the court's decision. (And I don't think there's much more they can do as eminent domain legislation is the jurisdiction of the states.) Though in regard to Fumetti's statement about the Democrats using this in the next election...

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California says she is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

Argh! Why don't they just disband the party and get it over with?

[WatsonGlenn]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers are trying to blunt a Supreme Court decision that says local governments can seize people's homes to make way for shopping malls and other private development.


Well its already in the Constitution that governments can't do this so I'm not sure what else the Feds can do other than send in the troops.

On one hand the SC is right in that this is a local matter.

On the other hand no government should take a guy's house to build a hotel.

The solution is to vote those guys out of office and refuse to go to that hotel or whatever it is.

If the people of Maryland won't do these two simple things then they must not care that much.

[WatsonGlenn]

Argh! Why don't they just disband the party and get it over with?

I feel your pain.

[bartl]

Argh! Why don't they just disband the party and get it over with?
Nancy Pelosi seems to not understand that the Supreme Court didn't say that states HAVE to take away property for transfer to other people; in fact, they specifically did not invalidate any state law prohibiting it.

There is a problem with "just compensation"; many people who have collected insurance on a totaled car would be familiar. With a car, let's say that you have an old, beat-up car, that you have carefully maintained so that it is excellent running condition. The problem is that the Blue Book value is probably nowhere near what it would cost for you to replace it with an equivalent car, since that level of maintenance is not accounted for in the Blue Book. Similarly, the "book value" of a home may be somewhat less than its replacement value. On the other hand, you can often have a holdout, who won't sell for any amount of money, and is blocking a project that can save a failing municipality.

I have a proposal that would fix another problem: unequal assessment. Often, in an inflationary market, properties are assessed in such a way that people who have been living in the area for a long time pay far fewer taxes than newcomers, who paid more for their homes. So, how about the following: When a home is assessed, a person may require a locality to purchase their home at the assessed value. Conversely, if a locality chooses to purchase a house, they will pay the assessed value. A homeowner may have their home reassessed once a year. It's kind of like "one cuts the other chooses", where if a homeowner gets a higher assessment, they have to pay more taxes, but the locality has to pay more for the property should they choose to take it over.

[Brenz]

This is my hometown, and everybody's ticked. My parents work on the city paper's editorial and regional news pages, so every visit home turns into a discussion on this thing (or rather, me getting infuriated and my parents patiently explaining the setup as Steven put it in the column this week).

Yeah, the city's been skidding for awhile, but for pete's sake, the real reason they're taking this land is because Pfizer's corporate headquarters is right there. They want an adjacent hotel for business as much if not more than tourism. There's a pretty big Radisson about a mile away, maybe a little less. Me, I say public good and public use are two very different things.

[WatsonGlenn]

Alabama is about to hold a special session of the Legislature in order to pass a law to prevent such a land grab from happing here. The system will sort this out in the long run I think.

[fumetti]

Though in regard to Fumetti's statement about the Democrats using this in the next election...



Argh! Why don't they just disband the party and get it over with?


Ugh, that just doesn't sound good at all. But as you say, the GOP's legislation is more gesture than substance.

As for Pelosi, she's talking about a lot of issues in that statement. She's overtly saying we must abide by the Supreme Court's decisions. Covertly, she's positioning to keep this GOP gesture from carrying over into other issues. But she's outsmarting herself. All people are going to see is that she's agreeing with corporate barons stealing people's homes.

This is why I can't support the Democratic Party (except as an opposition to the GOP). They've lost their ability to fight. More precisely, they've completely lost track of WHERE these battlefields actually are. They're not fought among columned arches or in ivory towers. They're fought in living rooms and office break rooms.

If the Dems had proper leadership, they'd have had a bill made public by the end of the day the SC ruling came out.

[fumetti]

I asked how Republicans could be fairly bludgeoned for something Demcrats did?

"Fairly?" "...Fairly?" Fair's got nothing to do with it. The Dems have been bringing knives to a gunfight for twenty years--and they've gotten their asses whipped for their "fairness".

Is it "fair" to say the Dems hate God and Christians because Dems don't want religion exploited for political gain?

Is it "fair" to say the Dems are immoral because they fight for civil rights? (The idea that civil rights are immoral is particularly stomach-turning.)

Is it "fair" to say the Dems want to "take away your gun rights" when the ONLY weapons the GOP & Dems disagree about the legality of are CERTAIN (not all) semi-automatic rifles? Of the spectrum of weaponry that qualify as "arms," this is a microscopic difference.

The Dems are by far more "fair" than the GOP. It's in their liberal nature to see matters from multiple points of view. (Dems being "fair" to businesses has led to workers getting no labor representation at all in Washington.) But is this responded to as trying to be understanding? Nah. The GOP just paint it as Dems not knowing what they stand for.

So, yeah, it might not be "fair" (in your view) for the Dems to bludgeon GOP politicians for what corporate executives do. But it's all the same in the end. Beat one and you beat the other.

[WatsonGlenn]

"Fairly?" "...Fairly?" Fair's got nothing to do with it.

Good answer. That was very honest.

Is it "fair" to say the Dems hate God and Christians because Dems don't want religion exploited for political gain?

No thats not fair. Is it fair to say Republicans are exploiting religion for political gain?

Is it "fair" to say the Dems are immoral because they fight for civil rights?

No that is not fair. Is it fair to say Republicans are against civil rights for all?

(The idea that civil rights are immoral is particularly stomach-turning.)

Is it right to assign that sentiment to Republicans?

Is it "fair" to say the Dems want to "take away your gun rights" when the ONLY weapons the GOP & Dems disagree about the legality of are CERTAIN (not all) semi-automatic rifles? Of the spectrum of weaponry that qualify as "arms," this is a microscopic difference.

I think its fair to say many Democrats would like to severly restrict gun rights. And I do not think that is smart or fair.

The Dems are by far more "fair" than the GOP.

Then why would they blame the Republicans for Maryland. You cannot have it both ways.

It's in their liberal nature to see matters from multiple points of view.

Is it fair to say that Conservatives do not look at matters from multiple points of view?

So, yeah, it might not be "fair" (in your view) for the Dems to bludgeon GOP politicians for what corporate executives do.

Clearly I do not think its fair. You seem to be waffling on the issue. You seem to want the Republicans to be fair but you are not so concerned about your own side being fair.

[bartl]

This is why I can't support the Democratic Party (except as an opposition to the GOP). They've lost their ability to fight. More precisely, they've completely lost track of WHERE these battlefields actually are.
I'm more in agreement with the latter than the former. Just as the far right has been leading the Republican party in unhealthy (for the country) directions, the far left has been leading the Democrat party in unhealthy (for the country) directions, and those who are trying to move away from compartmentalized thought, hidden agendas, and ends justify any means thinking are labeled as not standing for anything.

[Inkthinker]

Just as the far right has been leading the Republican party in unhealthy (for the country) directions, the far left has been leading the Democrat party in unhealthy (for the country) directions, and those who are trying to move away from compartmentalized thought, hidden agendas, and ends justify any means thinking are labeled as not standing for anything.


I believe I'd agree with this...

[fumetti]

I'm more in agreement with the latter than the former. Just as the far right has been leading the Republican party in unhealthy (for the country) directions, the far left has been leading the Democrat party in unhealthy (for the country) directions, and those who are trying to move away from compartmentalized thought, hidden agendas, and ends justify any means thinking are labeled as not standing for anything.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. I have criticisms of the Dems in terms of marketing, but not policy. I agree with the latter part of your post. in GOP-speak, not being an extremist means you don't stand for anything.

I also don't see where the extremists are running the Dem party, unless supporting the SC's Roe v Wade ruling is "extreme." The most extreme position I can find is supporting the Constitutional right of equality under the law for homosexuals. Since the sole argument against gay marriages is religious dogma, there's no secular argument at all. So is it extreme to reject a wholly-religious-based policy of sexual discrimination regarding marriage licenses? Isn't that precisely what the First Amendment is designed to prevent: religious laws?

I actually don't see ANY "extreme" left push at all. If anything, the Dems are moving to the RIGHT, not the left. The "new Democrats" of the Clinton mold are social liberals and fiscal moderates. They push tolerance and aid for big business. What's so extremely left about that?

[fumetti]

It upsets Steven when we go at it, so I'll keep this to a minimum.

Is it fair to say Republicans are exploiting religion for political gain?

This explains everything: the GOP panders to the religious right by justifying their policies by saying "we're a Christian nation." Even though Christ would NEVER fight against feeding the poor or healing the sick, nor would he support the death penalty and the starting of wars (esp. one based on lies). Conning Christians into supporting war and death is definitely exploiting them.

Is it fair to say Republicans are against civil rights for all?

Simply put: who demonizes the ACLU? Who's trying to amend the constitution to deny certain Americans their rights to marry? Who's trying to amend the constitution to prevent symbolic political dissent? Who's trying to impose religious-laden ceremonies on atheists' kids? Here's a hint: it ain't the Democrats.

I think its fair to say many Democrats would like to severly restrict gun rights.

Quibbling over banning "some" or "no" semi-automatic rifles hardly rates as a "severe" difference. The only difference I see is this: the Dems don't want us reg'lar folks killing each other. The GOP doesn't much care, just so long as we don't kill "the producer class." They BOTH don't want us armed well enough to challenge the state or federal gov't. Otherwise I could go buy fully auto rifles, live hand grenades, and some SAMs.

Is it fair to say that Conservatives do not look at matters from multiple points of view?

If you could introduce me to one, I'd appreciate it. I live in a region chock full of Republicans, and it's a moment of illumination any time I show them an alternate POV. It's not that they can't, it just never occurs to them.

You seem to be waffling on the issue. You seem to want the Republicans to be fair but you are not so concerned about your own side being fair.

No waffling here. I made no demands that the GOP be fair. (I know it's beyond their abilities, like asking a toad to fly. So there's no point in asking.) YOU are the one who wanted ME to be fair.

I suggested Dems not worrying about fairness because the GOP hasn't been fair. That's not the same thing as me saying the GOP must be fair but the Dems don't have to.

[TomGun13]

I say we should eliminate the homeless cause they don't pay taxes on their cardboard boxes too!

Wow way to look out for the little guy. This is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.

[WatsonGlenn]

It upsets Steven when we go at it, so I'll keep this to a minimum.
Its too bad your own self control is not enough

Conning Christians into supporting war and death is definitely exploiting them.
Gee its a good thing we have all these non-Christians around to set us straight.

Simply put: who demonizes the ACLU?
Disagreeing with a group on some issues is demonizing now? Whatever.

Who's trying to amend the constitution to deny certain Americans their rights to marry?
Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Its Democrats who are trying to make up a new right here.

Who's trying to amend the constitution to prevent symbolic political dissent?
If by that you mean flag burning then I agree but its a small minority of Reps that want that and it will never pass. Find a real issue like the smale minority of Dems that want the draft.

Who's trying to impose religious-laden ceremonies on atheists' kids?
It ain't the Reps either unless you mean the passive act of listening to a prayer now and then.

the Dems don't want us reg'lar folks killing each other.
The Dems postition seems to be, do as I say not as I do. When the Dems give up their guns I will give up mine.

I live in a region chock full of Republicans, and it's a moment of illumination any time I show them an alternate POV. It's not that they can't, it just never occurs to them.
You really must get over this self low self-esteem problem you have. Shucks, Maybe if you used smaller words we all could understand you better.

YOU are the one who wanted ME to be fair.
Thats true. Life is full of little disapointments.

[Steven Grant]

It upsets Steven when we go at it, so I'll keep this to a minimum.

Don't mischaracterize it: it doesn't upset me, it annoys me. And I couldn't care less if anyone wants to argue what the Republicans or the Democrats are really like until the cows come home.

It's this "Jane, you ignorant slut" horseshit that's really starting to piss me off, and I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of it. I was about this far yesterday from telling Jonah to ban the whole lot of you.

Argue all you want, but leave the sanctimony at home.

Is everyone clear on that? Because I will start banning people if this crap is still going on when I get back from San Diego.

[WatsonGlenn]

It's this "Jane, you ignorant slut" horseshit that's really starting to piss me off, and I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of it. I was about this far yesterday from telling Jonah to ban the whole lot of you.

I hope you are not talking about me because I have not called anyone on this board anything. But having said that its your board. No need to ban me. If you say go, I'm gone. No hard feelings.

[bartl]

It's this "Jane, you ignorant slut" horseshit that's really starting to piss me off, and I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of it. I was about this far yesterday from telling Jonah to ban the whole lot of you.
And here I was, about to say, "The Enterprise should be hauled away, AS garbage!"

[WatsonGlenn]

And here I was, about to say, "The Enterprise should be hauled away, AS garbage!"

I love that line.

[badMike]

And here I was, about to say, "The Enterprise should be hauled away, AS garbage!"I don't get it. What's that from?

[fumetti]

Disagreeing with a group on some issues is demonizing now? Whatever.

"Some" issues? Are you even aware of the political discourse that goes on in this country? The GOP/cons use the ACLU as a symbol of excessive liberalism and licensiousness. "Some" issues... that's like saying the US gov't only violated "some" of the Indian treaties...


Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Its Democrats who are trying to make up a new right here.

Show the where that restriction is in the constitution. Or any of the amendments. (Suddenly, arguments of "strict" interpretation go straight out the window.)


It ain't the Reps either unless you mean the passive act of listening to a prayer now and then.

Is it "passive" when the prayer is imposed?

[fumetti]

Don't mischaracterize it: it doesn't upset me, it annoys me.

No intention to mischaracterize. Upsets, annoys--I was just saying you don't like it.

[bartl]

I don't get it. What's that from?
Star Trek; THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES. When the Klingon says that the Enterprise should be a garbage scow, Mr. Scott says, "Perhaps you should rephrase that." And the Klingon said, "I didn't mean to say that the Enterprise should be hauling garbage. I meant to say that it should be hauled away AS garbage" (I looked up the exact quote). In any case, it's a cute non-sequitur to use when an argument gets simultaneously hot and ridiculous, because it catches people by surprise, and, with any luck, exposes how ridiculous the argument has gotten.