How true. Anddddd….the worst part of all this is she'll get away with it.

(02-12-2016 02:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

What about that which serves the private interest?

As a byproduct of serving that which is public. That's not an issue. You could say the same thing about when the government builds a road, it uses a private contractor.

I have some apples and oranges for you to compare as well...

When the government builds a road, it owns the road.
When the government gives your land to a guy like Trump, it's owned by trump.

(02-12-2016 03:31 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

What about that which serves the private interest?

As a byproduct of serving that which is public. That's not an issue. You could say the same thing about when the government builds a road, it uses a private contractor.

I have some apples and oranges for you to compare as well...

When the government builds a road, it owns the road.
When the government gives your land to a guy like Trump, it's owned by trump.

To use the words of the Supreme Court, with all do respect so what?

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.

Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.

When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

Define "Public interest".

Point being it could be made to mean just about anything. It's as ripe for abuse as something like "General Welfare".

(02-12-2016 03:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.

When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

Define "Public interest".

Point being it could be made to mean just about anything. It's as ripe for abuse as something like "General Welfare".

:very loud golf clap:

(02-12-2016 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.

The spirit of the document is for it to be used to build roads, government buildings and pubilc services, and utilities, not to build strip malls, hotels, and parking lots to enrich private developers.

I don't want to derail this thread, because it is pretty good with the Damn It Feels Good To Be A Clinton song, but I don't agree that is a fair and accurate description of its intent, roads and bridges. The intent is to serve the public interest and economic development does that.

building things was fun

caring for......not so much

in that context, money now matters more than before....

(02-12-2016 03:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.

When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

Define "Public interest".

Point being it could be made to mean just about anything. It's as ripe for abuse as something like "General Welfare".

The welfare of the general public.

It's a broad idea but one that is at the heart of just about everything.

Believe it or not the foundation for our legal system is made up of multiple broad sweeping ideas, this being one of them.

You can see the eminent domain cases and see their well reasoned and appropriate commentary on this.

It's good for the general public therefore it is in the public interest which is the overall goal.

(02-12-2016 03:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

Define "Public interest".

Point being it could be made to mean just about anything. It's as ripe for abuse as something like "General Welfare".

The welfare of the general public.

It's a broad idea but one that is at the heart of just about everything.

Believe it or not the foundation for our legal system is made up of multiple broad sweeping ideas, this being one of them.

You can see the eminent domain cases and see their well reasoned and appropriate commentary on this.

It's good for the general public therefore it is in the public interest which is the overall goal.

agree....human consolidation can only be the end result as the litter increases.......narrowing.....they're gonna git it up the arse whether they like it or not...

hence, my selfish ability to hopefully survive to see costa in permanence....

The idea that one's property rights are inviolate is more of a modern right-wing fiction than anything else.

(02-12-2016 03:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

Define "Public interest".

Point being it could be made to mean just about anything. It's as ripe for abuse as something like "General Welfare".

The welfare of the general public.

It's a broad idea but one that is at the heart of just about everything.

Believe it or not the foundation for our legal system is made up of multiple broad sweeping ideas, this being one of them.

You can see the eminent domain cases and see their well reasoned and appropriate commentary on this.

It's good for the general public therefore it is in the public interest which is the overall goal.

It's not believe or not with me, I'm well aware of it's genesis. It is the overly broad interpretations that, in some limited, often unfortunate or side-ways looking instances gives one pause. I wish it were better and more narrowly defined, but I guess that's what the courts are for...

So, we should take away seniors Social Security and give it to big business, because big business can use it to create jobs which is for the common good?

And since our roads need repair, no problem. Kick everyone off food stamps and use that money to repair roads and bridges. More people wll be helped with better roads and bridges than the few that get to use the foodstamps. Its for the greater good, after all.

(02-12-2016 04:14 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, we should take away seniors Social Security and give it to big business, because big business can use it to create jobs which is for the common good?

And since our roads need repair, no problem. Kick everyone off food stamps and use that money to repair roads and bridges. More people wll be helped with better roads and bridges than the few that get to use the foodstamps. Its for the greater good, after all.

Non sequitur

(02-12-2016 04:08 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 03:44 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:24 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  So you think it's within the spirit of the constitution for a company to take your land and give it to a private business? Really?

I could understand if you're talking public works, that *can* fit within a reasonable use of eminent domain. But what you're talking aboutis pure cronyism.

As long as I am reasonably compensated I have no right to stand in the way of economic development which serves the public interest.

Define "Public interest".

Point being it could be made to mean just about anything. It's as ripe for abuse as something like "General Welfare".

The welfare of the general public.

It's a broad idea but one that is at the heart of just about everything.

Believe it or not the foundation for our legal system is made up of multiple broad sweeping ideas, this being one of them.

You can see the eminent domain cases and see their well reasoned and appropriate commentary on this.

It's good for the general public therefore it is in the public interest which is the overall goal.

It's not believe or not with me, I'm well aware of it's genesis. It is the overly broad interpretations that, in some limited, often unfortunate or side-ways looking instances gives one pause. I wish it were better and more narrowly defined, but I guess that's what the courts are for...

In general I agree. But, wouldn't you agree it should be fact specific? A general rule that eminent domain is bad and property rights are sacrosanct is bad for everybody. It creates the exact situation the idea of public good strives to defeat. And, after all, is the goal of government, regardless of scope, not the general welfare?

Was the lady playing Clinton the porn star in the ad they had to pull?

The Clinton ad gets an 8 from me (out of 10). Not bad - actually a catchy song but I'm not sure if they should have used the word Damn so much in it (at least I think it was that word).

The Trump ad gets a 9.

But he's setting himself up for some anti-Cruz ads from Trump (I could picture Bob and Doug McKenzie endorsing him for like, President or chief beer buyer or something, eh?).

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.

Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.

When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

Where do you live? I think a Dairy Queen would go nicely there.

(02-12-2016 10:50 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't agree. It's perfectly in the spirit of the document.

Taking land from one private entity and giving it to another is not within the spirit of the Constitution.

When viewed through the lens of your ideology maybe not. But, it is your ideology not the Constitution saying that, just keep that in mind.

Where do you live? I think a Dairy Queen would go nicely there.

I live on the UAB campus. I agree; I think a Dairy Queen would be an upgrade.



No chill!

I spent a week in Tuscaloosa one morning.