Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Just desserts


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:05:05 AM

Posted 28 June 2005 - 07:09 PM

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.


That's how you fight the power elite, and is a direct retaliation for this Suprem Court Decision:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-0...-property_x.htm

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 tg1911

tg1911

    Lord Spam Magnet


  • Members
  • 19,274 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Louisiana
  • Local time:05:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 12:11 AM

I LOVE it!!!!!
MOBO: GIGABYTE GA-MA790X-UD4P, CPU: Phenom II X4 955 Deneb BE, HS/F: CoolerMaster V8, RAM: 2 x 1G Kingston HyperX DDR2 800, VGA: ECS GeForce Black GTX 560, PSU: Antec TruePower Modular 750W, Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1, Case: CoolerMaster COSMOS 1000, Storage: Internal - 2 x Seagate 250GB SATA, 2 x WD 1TB SATA; External - Seagate 500GB USB, WD 640GB eSATA, 3 x WD 1TB eSATA

Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

#3 KoanYorel

KoanYorel

    Bleepin' Conundrum


  • Staff Emeritus
  • 19,461 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:65 miles due East of the "Logic Free Zone", in Md, USA
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 04:37 AM

I found an interesting poll at MyWay dot com. It is unscientific and there are no
figures on the total number of respondents to the poll.

Mon, Jun. 27, 2005


By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that local governments can seize property to make room for private development projects in an effort to boost the economy. The ruling gave the court's blessing to U.S. cities that have sought to use their powers of eminent domain for private developments involving hotels, offices and retail centers. (AP)

Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision allowing governments to seize property for economic development?

4%
Yes

91%
No

4%
I'm not sure

© *The My Way Poll is provided by Rosner Interactive Services. It is a voluntary poll for our users, and is not scientifically projectable to any other population.


The only easy day was yesterday.

...some do, some don't; some will, some won't (WR)

#4 Pandy

Pandy

    Bleepin'


  • Members
  • 9,559 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 07:05 AM

Well I vote a big fat NO also... Imminent Domain is bad enough. Leave property alone..

Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight.

Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What's a sundial in the shade?

~ Benjamin Franklin

I am a Bleeping Computer fan! Are you?

Facebook

Follow us on Twitter


#5 frankie12

frankie12

  • Members
  • 941 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Michigan
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 11:55 AM

I would also vote for NO

#6 efizzer

efizzer

  • Members
  • 360 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 09:06 PM

I'd vote no too.... not that it matters, our current imperial government will do as it pleases.
Posted Image

We're going to make the merry-go-round go faster, so everyone needs to hang on tighter-just to keep from being thrown to the wolves.

#7 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Bleeping Diva


  • Members
  • 7,479 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 10:43 PM

Poetic Justice!



The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.


Just Deserts. :thumbsup:

Justice Souter, would you like a piece of pie?

Oh, no room for desert now? :flowers:

What's a matter, are your eyes bigger than your stomach?

Edited by Scarlett, 06 June 2006 - 03:37 PM.

Posted Image

#8 groovicus

groovicus
  • Topic Starter

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:05:05 AM

Posted 29 June 2005 - 10:54 PM

All kidding aside though, I would like to see the argument the lawyer used to get that thing passed.... The sad thing is that when you take the fifth amendment literally, it is indeed within the scope of the bill of rights.

[sic] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


So if I am in business, and my competitor is kicking my ass on a daily basis, then by his ruling, if I can prove a greater public good, I can theoretically take land my competitor owns. It is an interesting contradiction, since the wealth in this country is largely founded on private ownership... and determining what is just compensation is completely subjective. If I run a brothel in an extremely conservative city, the courts there might consider me a nuisance, and $1 be fair compensation.

The American Dream is work hard, and some day you may own something of which you can be proud. OF course, if it doesn't serve the public interest, the government can take it for the greater public good.

Where is the incentive to own property then?

#9 Pandy

Pandy

    Bleepin'


  • Members
  • 9,559 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 09:26 AM

The American Dream is work hard, and some day you may own something of which you can be proud. OF course, if it doesn't serve the public interest, the government can take it for the greater public good.

Where is the incentive to own property then?

Sounds vaguely like Communism.

Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight.

Hide not your talents. They for use were made. What's a sundial in the shade?

~ Benjamin Franklin

I am a Bleeping Computer fan! Are you?

Facebook

Follow us on Twitter


#10 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Bleeping Diva


  • Members
  • 7,479 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 10:19 AM

The American Dream is work hard, and some day you may own something of which you can be proud. OF course, if it doesn't serve the public interest, the government can take it for the greater public good.

Where is the incentive to own property then?

Sounds vaguely like Communism.

Yes, communisim. Just last week, while in a cab. The driver was telling me about this. And that is excactly how he put it. And to be honest, I tend to agree.

Edited by scarlett, 30 June 2005 - 10:20 AM.

Posted Image

#11 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Bleeping Diva


  • Members
  • 7,479 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 06 June 2006 - 03:54 PM

SOUTER GIVEN SPECIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST HIS OWN RULING

http://www.freestarmedia.com/

One hundred and ninety Weare voters signed a petition to this end while only twenty five were needed. Two candidates ran for town council as supporters of the project. The story was picked up by media across the nation and around the world. The issue of eminent domain abuse was now at the top of the news.....

.......So, I regret to inform all those across America who supported this project that both pro-LLH candidates, Joshua Solomon and Keith Lacasse lost in their bid to become members of the Weare, New Hampshire Board of Selectmen (Town Council). The vote count was: Clow 955, Methot 853, Lacasse 452, Bohlin 354, Solomon 284. The top two vote-getters became Selectmen.

......Worse yet, the voters passed initiative 48, the re-worded version of our original petition, which says "Shall the town ask its selectmen not to use their Eminent Domain powers to take David Souter's home for an inn. . ." It seems that David Souter may now be the only person in America protected from his own ruling.


AP’s Kelo-New London June 5 Coverage, Part 1: What Is Their “Thing” with Water?

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2333

AP’s Kelo-New London June 5 Coverage, Part 2: They “Forgot” to Show Us the Money Council Wants

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=2329

Castle Coalition
http://www.castlecoalition.org/

About Us

The Castle Coalition is the Institute for Justice’s nationwide grassroots property rights activism project. We help home and small business owners protect themselves and stand up to the greedy governments and developers who seek to take private property for their own gain. And thanks to the gracious generosity of our donors, we're able to do this for free.


Edited by Scarlett, 06 June 2006 - 03:55 PM.

Posted Image

#12 rms4evr

rms4evr

  • Members
  • 812 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:East Coast
  • Local time:07:05 AM

Posted 06 June 2006 - 08:26 PM

My government teacher in high school called eminent domain "the worst form of tyranny of the government," and I agree with him. The deed you hold should allow you to keep your land until you don't want it anymore, or you die.

As for the newly afforded "protection" for the judge, I'm not suprised; those in power always protect their own.

#13 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 27 June 2006 - 05:27 PM

Well I vote a big fat NO also... Imminent Domain is bad enough. Leave property alone..

Exactly. Imminent Domain is just an excuse for the government to push around the little guy. I just hate the fact that if the state wanted to put a highway through my city, all they would have to do is pay us off and we'd have to move out. :thumbsup:

#14 yoopergirl

yoopergirl

  • Members
  • 54 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 10 July 2006 - 12:27 AM

This is just soooooooo sad.

#15 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Bleeping Diva


  • Members
  • 7,479 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)
  • Local time:06:05 AM

Posted 08 August 2006 - 03:49 PM

"Communism can be summarized in one sentence: The abolition of private property."
~ Karl Marx
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users