The Left Wing Wins One
 

I find it amusing to see all the lefties howl at this decision. This is left wing ideology in action. Remember, us conservatives believe that the INDIVIDUAL owns the rights & responsibilities and grants some to the govt. The left believes the govt owns the rights & responsibilities and grans some to the people. Welcome to the brave new world of Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry, Ginsberg & Beyer. Blaming this on Bush makes as much sense as blaming him for kidnapping the Lindberg baby.

To quote Butch from PULP FICTION: "Feel that sting big boy, that's pride f**kin' with you!"

Um, what has the left wing one?

Re: The Left Wing Wins One
 

Great response Thom. You focus on the important stuff like flag burning & homosexual marriage. Property ownership ranks a little higher on my importance scale.

It seems there a crucisl piece of informstion missing here, Mule old man.

See the "Coming for your house" thread.

Actually I think the crooks won....

Crooks is defined as Big Business and Politicians.

Re: The Left Wing Wins One
 

Mule would be correct if this were true. And lots of talk show guys say it, so lots of people are going to believe it. But it just ain't so.

Sorry Supe, you need to look into your own ideology & find out what it is you are actually in favor of.

Re: Re: The Left Wing Wins One
 

No Supe, it is true. The left tends to favor the group, collective rights, if you will, over the liberties of the individual. Whether property is corporate or individually owned, liberals favor Government having control over it, while conservatives do not.

I thought those were synonyms?

OK, I'm confused. The ruling that states that local government can take my house if it's in the best interest of creating revenue for the local government, is a liberal ruling? But then, big business is the one who will be making profit off the venture (typcially) and the local government will be making tax revenue (which they usually give incentives in the first place to make it happen).

The line gets so fuzzy that glasses won't help. I can understand how a road can help the greater good (liberal cause) but tax revenue? Maybe I should read the other thread.

Mule, I know what I like. And frankly, a lot of the notions I hold are very similar to those of folks that consider themselves to be conservative. As far as I'm concerned, if two same-sex people want to get married, grow and smoke pot, burn a flag, represent workers in grievance processes, have abortions, etc., then that's fine by me. But those activities are not fine under conservative thinking. Now, I know you'll disagree with my mischaracterization just like I disagree with your mischaracterization of liberalism. The truth has been a major casualty these days. Politics is pure smoke and mirrors today, and all negative values have been rolled together into "liberalism" in peoples' minds, and all positive characteristics have been rolled into "conservatism." That's bunk.

And as I said before, if everyone who understands gubmint and land use issues disappeared, you self-labeled "copnservatives" would be left to handle this issue on your own. And you know what? You'd have to deal with it.....you'd be the new "gubmint," and you'd regulate land use. Pretending that you wouldn't, and that everyone would be totally free to behave as they pleased, is eigher dishonest or ignorant.

We have examples of unregulated land use. It's not pretty, as they say.

Dude, you're trippin'. Your right to swing your arm stops where my nose starts is a conservative statement. I know there are plenty of religious fanatics in the republican party who have shifted it awa from conservative positions. The state having superior rights to a piece of property for the purpose of increasing tax revenue is a liberal position. If you disagree with that, do some research and find the definition of the terms.

This is not about land use regulation. Not even close.

It sounds to me as though the Court has determined that the State's rights to determine policy regarding this issue should trump Federal control!? Yes/No?

If this is true, the conservative position of less Federal involvement should be appeased by this decision. (I know, poor sentence structure!)

Whereas, the reported liberal view of "put the Feds in control of everything" is being undermined by this decision.

If these are the views that conservatives feel about themselves (and about the nature of liberalism), then why aren't the conservatives happy and the liberals upset??

Wrong, if the court believed it was up to the States they would have:

1. Not taken the case

2. Mentioned it in the decision maybe????

This was not a "States rights" case, it was brought to the Supreme court to decide if the actions of the local governments were Constitutional. Those against it said "This action is unconstitutional" Those for it said "Hmm, we don't really care if it is or isn't, we happen to like the policy so we'll OK it". That's the problem.

States rights? Please.

The right to swing your fist......etc. is a liberal statement, not a conservative one. The fool is not me. I have watched conservatives, all my life pass and enforce and support "victimless" crime laws and I'm not what you would call a young man. And all during that time, the libs have been fighting for drug decriminalization. And supporting groups like ACLU. Now, tell me again about how liberals are about controlling peoples' personal lives and conservatives are all about freedom. It looks to me like that's a false costume that conservative legislatures have thrown on recently. And temporarily, I might add. There is a great deal of confusion out there about what a liberal believes, and it has worked quite well for the Republican Party. Apparently, some folks here are deeply indoctrinated.

And yes, Len. This not just close to being about land use. It is ALL about land use and it is about NOTHING ELSE. (except of course, it might be about pretending that liberals are something they are not)

I do not favor the type of decision we are discussing here. But more importantly, I wonder who believes they have all the relevant facts before them. To be declaring this decision a travesty of justice. It was a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and I suspect the issues raised in that decision are more complex than many of you care to consider. If you hate something enough, then you will certainly not get a little detail like the FACTS to get in your way. One of the things I notice in my industry (public works construction) is that developers creat huge financial messes for the taxpayer, if we let them. They will build fifteen 300-unit housing developments on a two-lane country road, if you let them. Leaving the local municipality (city, county whatever) scrambling to find the cash to widen that road, expand sewer and water capacity, electrical, fire, police, etc. When those ugly, nasty, mean-spirited communistic lazy ignorant gubmint workers see this coming and get a chance, permit approval will encompass these issues. My preference is for those incidents where the developer is required to build those infrastructure improvements, to the specifications of the municipality, as a condition of going forward with the project. At any rate, I wonder if this problem was part of the dispute and the decision. And I wonder which ones of you don't give a flying **** about this issue because it might make decisions like this seem like something other than an ignorant brain fart.

No, the problem is bull**** statements like this. Even the most retarded dunce can see that this statement is internally inconsistent. Again, everything evil is "liberal" and everything good is "conservative?" That's not only hogwash, it's hogwash that's impossible to buy into unless you are ignorant, or not the slightest bit rational. The statement above makes it sound like there were a few sensible, responsible justices sitting up straight on the bench with a clear view of their role and responsibility......and that they were shouted down by an unruly bunch of anarchists with no respect for the Constitition of the United States of America. Nice try at serving up a wholly dishonest mischaracterization.

whats that other name for a mule again? not donkey, but there's another one i think....