tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post2395171483391665787..comments2024-03-29T07:18:10.425-04:00Comments on Rational Nation USA: Property Rights -vs- Progressive StatismLes Carpenterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-76613007803764861522012-06-15T05:56:19.229-04:002012-06-15T05:56:19.229-04:00At times people's right is neglected specially...At times people's right is neglected specially when it comes to land owners and properties. We have to deal with a long process just to make sure we are entitled to the land we are owning. Government should not overlook this kind of concerns.Mile Highhttp://www.milehighrealestate.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-61011793115830490372011-06-29T09:46:53.438-04:002011-06-29T09:46:53.438-04:00TAO - Your useless "blogging welfare" co...TAO - Your useless "blogging welfare" comment aside I take you at your word that you are not posting as ANON. <br /><br />Since anon is not you TAO, based on comment content it is likely it is Tom from that site, what is it, Stay Awhile?<br /><br />Site policy as amended 6/23/11 remains in effect.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-55635645604126954452011-06-28T23:18:49.261-04:002011-06-28T23:18:49.261-04:00Anon lied: "As far as deficits go, then you s...Anon lied: "As far as deficits go, then you shouldn't have let GWB destroy the economy...."<br /><br />Actually, it was the Democrats. They were the ones who encouraged the real estate mess with Fannie Mae, which derailed the economy (all going back to the racist Community Reinvesment Act). Bush tried to stop it, but he should have tried harder.<br /><br />Blame the people actually responsible.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-7643489500549397312011-06-28T23:16:51.555-04:002011-06-28T23:16:51.555-04:00Anon said: "The idea that the Constitution ca...Anon said: "The idea that the Constitution can not, or would not change, is laughable."<br /><br />Actually, all conservatives recognize that the Constitution can change, and there is a process for it called the amendment process.<br /><br />However, liberals tend to think that the way to change the Constitution is for people to lie about what it says and wish sections of it into nonexistence. This is exactly what the liberal judges did in the "Citizens United" decision when they supported punishing individuals who criticize politicians.<br /><br />"There's another comment you can censor."<br /><br />Anon, RN is incapable of censoring here. This is HIS forum. He can choose what is published her or not. Just like the New York Times is not censoring if it chooses not to publish letters to the editor.<br /><br />You have things very backwards.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-22775587397773030272011-06-28T20:21:12.398-04:002011-06-28T20:21:12.398-04:00tao - Excuse me, what I meant to say was this... E...tao - Excuse me, what I meant to say was this... Even given you Ivy League education your remain ignorant.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-13152515177366832082011-06-28T20:16:50.727-04:002011-06-28T20:16:50.727-04:00tao - Kiss off dude!tao - Kiss off dude!Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-9875251257471501162011-06-27T18:08:40.586-04:002011-06-27T18:08:40.586-04:00Sorry, but you're wrong on this one, Tao. In 2...Sorry, but you're wrong on this one, Tao. In 2005, the Supreme Court voted in favor of eminent domain in "Kelo vs. the town of New London (I remember it well - I'm from CT)". The four justices who voted against it were O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. All of the liberals voted for it.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-63329929662097459882011-06-26T18:45:36.698-04:002011-06-26T18:45:36.698-04:00By the way, there are 435 House members and 100 se...By the way, there are 435 House members and 100 senators for a total of 535 members of congress. You might want to reread your posts and get your facts straight before you go and lecture anyone. It also might helpt if you yourself read a little history from time to time rather than relying on the talking point memos that you get daily....the folks most likely to take away your property, like in emient domain, are the conservative justices of the supreme court.<br /><br />If you worry about government spending and statism then realize that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both dramatically increased the size of government, more more so than Clinton or Obama....so, the statists always end up being the people you vote for and support.<br /><br />As far as deficits go, then you shouldn't have let GWB destroy the economy....<br /><br />But then again, that would require you to take PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY....but then again by creating something like a "independent conservative" and speaking up for gay rights from time to time....which since that has to be legislated does that fall under "statism" and or under the concept of "tyranny of the majority?"<br /><br />Not real sure because you spend so much time hurling terms around its hard to figure out what is what or who is who.....<br /><br />By the way, don't blame me for posting as ANON...its blogger...so why not spend some big bucks and create your own blog rather than relying on blogging welfare?<br /><br />TAOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-15730143100178662132011-06-26T17:08:10.393-04:002011-06-26T17:08:10.393-04:00The founding fathers had no such "property ri...The founding fathers had no such "property rights" in mind. Blacks were non-persons and could not own land. Women could not own land, most whites could not own land.<br />The idea that the Constitution can not, or would not change, is laughable.<br />States have less say now, because the federal Constitution has been defined by the Supreme Court as applying equality to laws.<br />People do have rights and those rights should be uniform throughout all States. The definition of free speech cannot be different from one State to another, and that idea projects to all laws, that must meet equality standards.<br />Are you suggesting Gov. Wallace should have had the "right" under the Constitution, to deny blacks entry to public education, even though the Supreme Court decided they must be allowed, or should we have had separate black and white public schools?<br />States rights do not trump the Federal Constitution, or individual rights. <br />There's another comment you can censor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com