The Texas Unmiracle

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313553856' post='2289676']
I concider waste a symtom of over saturation, having taught in Catholic schools where we saved our scaps of construction paper becuase we could not afford more, and having taught in public school where I got handed a P card and told to go down an buy up to 600 bucks of stuff for my room. Yeah I think it is got way more money than it needs. Money is notthe answer to education.
[/quote]

I agree, money has little to do with success in education.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313557974' post='2289730']
[img]http://exportingblue.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/2987025203_fc2c517522_o.jpg[/img]

It seems the majority of the states that Texas is supporting are the states that would be going with it in a seccession. the same states that have been fiscally conservative, "smart with money" right wing upstanding fellows.
the Typically liberal states are actually supporting most of the country, along with texas and a few others.



what in the hell are you saying here?
pitiful whining??? about soldiers lifes needlessly lost, about rampant friendly fire and coverups? about millions(!!!) of dead iraqi and afghanistan [i]civilians[/i]. if you arent unhappy with the casualty level in these wars then something is wrong with you.
[/quote]


Well i would be okay supporting Oklahoma, Mississippi and Lousiana for a while, if you understand the economic geography of the area you would understand why. Control of the mouth of the Mississippi alone would be worth supporting Mississippi and Lousiana. The economic zone of control into the Gulf would certainly pick up a great deal of slack.

I am saying that america has become a nation of wusses which cry and whine about a miniscule number of casualties in long and brutal war. We have lost fewer troops in afghanastan in 10 years than we people died on Sept 11, a lot fewer. I opposed the Iraqi invasion, I opposed it vocally, ON PHATMASS for that matter ( oh how I wish the old board had survived the move) but we invaded and we beat the tar out of them and held the entire country for years with a level of casualties that is unprecedented in history. We should have applauded our military leaders as increadible instead we vilified them and actually acted as if we were losing.

Can you please direct me to a reputable source forthese milliaons of civilian casualties? The best i can find even from obviously slanted sources is fewer than 30,000 afghan dead and credible accounts on Iraq are near 100,000, that is including all indirect death and deaths resulting from excess crime causedby the disolution of public authority. Even if you tripled them, and then added them together you wouldn't reach 400,000 much less a million.

[Lil Red]

moving to debate table.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1313528363' post='2289344']
Back to Perry, we have only covered one decision (not really even a policy) that Catholics disagree with. Why else is he the wrong choice? What makes Obama a better option? Where does he stand on the 5 non-negotiable issues for Catholics? What about national defense? How will he fix our fiscal problems? Immigration policy? Does he pull the full republican party line or deviate from it and where?
[/quote]

He stands with the Church on the 5 non negotiables.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1313557974' post='2289730']
what in the hell are you saying here?
pitiful whining??? about soldiers lifes needlessly lost, about rampant friendly fire and coverups? about millions(!!!) of dead iraqi and afghanistan [i]civilians[/i]. if you arent unhappy with the casualty level in these wars then something is wrong with you.
[/quote]

Yeah the kind of attitude and disregard for human life makes my stomach churn. I guess that's because I'm a wuss? Can't stomach even one needless and unnecessary death too well it seems. If a few people minding their own business get their homes and lives blown to hell no boo-hooing that's the way the cookie crumbles.

If you (not you J_lol) think lamenting the loss of human life is likened to "whining" then I hope that God will soften your heart a bit more. That attitude is sad and kind of disturbing.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313560319' post='2289751']
I am saying that america has become a nation of wusses which cry and whine about a miniscule number of casualties in long and brutal war. We have lost fewer troops in afghanastan in 10 years than we people died on Sept 11, a lot fewer. I opposed the Iraqi invasion, I opposed it vocally, ON PHATMASS for that matter ( oh how I wish the old board had survived the move) but we invaded and we beat the tar out of them and held the entire country for years with a level of casualties that is unprecedented in history. We should have applauded our military leaders as increadible instead we vilified them and actually acted as if we were losing.
[/quote]

So by your own admission "America" basically came in and bullied a country into submission for ten years and, congratulations, it didn't cost [i]that[/i] many lives? What did the American military really accomplish at the cost of (at least) hundreds of thousands of lives? If this many lives were lost and a reciprocal amount of positive progress were to be made I can understand how people could tolerate the body count a little bit better. But can you tell me what good the Iraqi invasion has done, or what "we" accomplished other than coming in with guns blazing and pwning their asses? That to me is what makes the number casualities even [i]harder[/i] to swallow. Apparently I shouldn't be upset about "America" coming into a country like a thug on a power trip and beating up on whoever is weaker. I don't understand your point.

[quote]Can you please direct me to a reputable source forthese milliaons of civilian casualties? The best i can find even from obviously slanted sources is fewer than 30,000 afghan dead and credible accounts on Iraq are near 100,000, that is including all indirect death and deaths resulting from excess crime causedby the disolution of public authority. Even if you tripled them, and then added them together you wouldn't reach 400,000 much less a million.[/quote]

I don't know what will pass your test of what is reputable, but why is the sheer number of deaths so important to you? I guess the Giffords shooting wasn't a big deal. Only six people were killed, what's the big deal? Is it because of the witnesses, the details, the faces of the victims made the occasion intimate enough for us to mourn the deaths? When we're talking about thousands of faceless Iraqis, Afghans, and US servicemen it becomes "whining"? Part of me wants to understand your point of view, while the other part of me just wants to write you off because I become disturbed when I try to ponder the logic behind what you're trying to say.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Quote

Should the nation follow the shining example set by liberal states such as California or Michigan?


I'd guess that Germany is more the sort of backwards, socialist hell-hole that Krugman has in mind.

----

he actually mentioned massachusetts specifically, and how it's faring better than texas, and he mentioned a couple other states, too. while noting massachusetts has obamacare implemented at its state level, essentially, and etc, yet still does better.
and, he noted that much of texas not doing as poorly, was due to the fact that texas has a highly regulated real estate industry... preventing what happened everywhere else. this is the opposite of 'government regulation is bad'.
of course, it's not as simple as regulation is good, or it's bad. common sense good reguation is good, and non is bad. it's not so black and white people.

Edited August 17, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

The main problem with Krugman's theory is that Perry didn't really apply the free market principles that Krugman claims to understand and oppose. But I do think it's funny that Krugman admitted government property control leads to higher prices.

And he also indicted easy credit, which is a cornerstone of his economic theory of printing tons of fiat money and giving it to people so they can drive the economy by spending every dime. If only the money attains the proper velocity!

Edited August 17, 2011 by Winchester

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313568409' post='2289798']

Yeah the kind of attitude and disregard for human life makes my stomach churn. I guess that's because I'm a wuss? Can't stomach even one needless and unnecessary death too well it seems. If a few people minding their own business get their homes and lives blown to hell no boo-hooing that's the way the cookie crumbles.

If you (not you J_lol) think lamenting the loss of human life is likened to "whining" then I hope that God will soften your heart a bit more. That attitude is sad and kind of disturbing.

[/quote]

War is an unpleasant buisness, having it happen in your own country is also quite unpleasant. However, and this may be a shock to you, people get killed in war, it is strange I know, but it happens. As a Catholic, death is not the worst thing I can think of, many many things are worth going to war over, this is knowing, in advance, that people will, shockingly, die in those wars.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313568409' post='2289798']
So by your own admission "America" basically came in and bullied a country into submission for ten years and, congratulations, it didn't cost [i]that[/i] many lives? What did the American military really accomplish at the cost of (at least) hundreds of thousands of lives? If this many lives were lost and a reciprocal amount of positive progress were to be made I can understand how people could tolerate the body count a little bit better. But can you tell me what good the Iraqi invasion has done, or what "we" accomplished other than coming in with guns blazing and pwning their asses? That to me is what makes the number casualities even [i]harder[/i] to swallow. Apparently I shouldn't be upset about "America" coming into a country like a thug on a power trip and beating up on whoever is weaker. I don't understand your point.

[/quote]

Well As I said, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the miniscule casualties we have suffered was not the reason, I was concerned that hussein might still have some sarin stashed away and that our casualties would be much higher, but that was not the reason either. We do not draft anyone, if you join the military you know what you are getting into, armies exist to fight, not as humaitarian organizations, when armies fight, casualties occur, if you do not want to fight, do not join the military.


Wht the iraqi invasion accomplished--- it removed Saddam Hussein from power, he was a monster who put children into wood chippers in front of thier parents to make a point. He ruled there for 25 years or so, and would still be ruling had we not removed him. That seems like a fairly serious accomplishment to me. He was also unfinished buisness, we made conditions in 91 which were simply untenable for him, and he could not comply with them, however, his lack of compliance made America look weak, and that realisticly had to be dealt with eventually.

I opposed the invasion because Hussein, monster that he was, protected his Christians, more than any other ruler in that area, and I figured when he was gone the Chaldeans would be persecuted, unfortunately I was right.

However there was not hundreds of thousands of deaths, in both wars, if you include all possible deaths, direct, indirect,crime etc, all military deaths on all sides, etc, then you still only get to 175,000 or so. That just isn't all that many for what amounts to 17 years of war ( 10 in one country and 7 in the other).

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313568409' post='2289798']
I don't know what will pass your test of what is reputable, but why is the sheer number of deaths so important to you? I guess the Giffords shooting wasn't a big deal. Only six people were killed, what's the big deal? Is it because of the witnesses, the details, the faces of the victims made the occasion intimate enough for us to mourn the deaths? When we're talking about thousands of faceless Iraqis, Afghans, and US servicemen it becomes "whining"? Part of me wants to understand your point of view, while the other part of me just wants to write you off because I become disturbed when I try to ponder the logic behind what you're trying to say.
[/quote]

Well Saddam husein was responsable for hundreds of thousands of deaths of his own people, far more than have dies in our invasion, so the number of deaths directly relates to Proportionality, which is a serious concideration for one when discussing war. The number of deaths is important.

Mourning deaths is one thing, crying out to withdraw for the "quagmire" of Iraq is something else all together. the entire Iraq war cost fewer american lives than the first day of Tarawa, in a country of 300,000,000 people 4500 deaths over a 7 year occupation of a hostile country is just not a crisis. We should have been yelling "Veni, Vedi, Veci" fro the roof tops, instead we were having a national crisis about it. America has apparently lost its stomach for war, you may find that an acceptable social development, I did not argue aboutthat at all, I only commented that the north seemed to have lost it more than say Texas, and I thought that should an actual attempt at secession occur I did notthink the average urban northerner would be up for a civil war. I do not see anything in your post to make me reconsider that postion.


I fail to se what a crazy persons shooting of civilians on the street has to do with casualties of war.

[dairygirl4u2c]

he admitted that zoning can cause prices to increase on houses. at the most fundamental level, it's not secret that regulations, or taxes etc, can cause economic activity to be hindered. that's not what makes him a liberal, or not, that he might or might not concede to that point. that's econ 101
what makes him a liberal, is that foremost, he'd say sometimes those costs are worth it, liberal 101... and secondarily, and more characteristic of krugman and the smart liberals, is that he says sometimes regulations and such are actually good for economics, and that sometimes things like low wages can be more problematic, or that it's not always true that if only we gave the rich or those who pay taxes, everything they asaked for, that we'd all be better for it. (to exaggerate.), that economics are only maximized that way. and of course keynes is the econ 101 that many conservatives forget actually works, as much as they dont like it.

Edited August 17, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

What makes him a progressive is that, worth it or not, he believes the State has the right to pass whatever regulations it likes in its attempt to control society.

They don't believe it's "sometimes" worth it. They believe they always have the right to attempt to make our lives better through their decisions about how we will live our lives.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313610697' post='2290025']
War is an unpleasant buisness, having it happen in your own country is also quite unpleasant. However, and this may be a shock to you, people get killed in war, it is strange I know, but it happens. As a Catholic, death is not the worst thing I can think of, many many things are worth going to war over, this is knowing, in advance, that people will, shockingly, die in those wars.
[/quote]

Thanks for the condescension . I'm honestly just trying to engage in your thought process, if I come off as being snarky or rude it is unintended. I'm slightly baffled by your attitude yes, but I simply want to know the thinking behind it.

As for death not being the worst thing you can think of . . . I don't know I sorta get that. People who join the military well that's what they sign up for and there are some things worth fighting, and thus dying, for. But when we're talking about civilian casualties (be it 100 or 100,000) to say "death is not the worst thing" seems kinda callous. And as I'm sure you understand, people sign up for service thinking that they are fighting for a noble cause when in reality they are not. So they're losing their lives over something they wouldn't have necessarily believed in.

That's kind of sad. You don't need to belittle people's grief and desire to avoid the same needless waste of life over and over again by calling it "whining."

[quote]Well As I said, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the miniscule casualties we have suffered was not the reason, I was concerned that hussein might still have some sarin stashed away and that our casualties would be much higher, but that was not the reason either. We do not draft anyone, if you join the military you know what you are getting into, armies exist to fight, not as humaitarian organizations, when armies fight, casualties occur, if you do not want to fight, do not join the military.[/quote]

So wait, you opposed the invasion of Iraq primarily because you thought there would be a higher death toll among US military? I don't want to get in a debate about just war theory and all, but for me and many others that would have been the first reason to oppose the invasion. You seem to have decided on sort of a risk vs. reward and I can't say I admire that. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[quote]Wht the iraqi invasion accomplished--- it removed Saddam Hussein from power, he was a monster who put children into wood chippers in front of thier parents to make a point. He ruled there for 25 years or so, and would still be ruling had we not removed him. That seems like a fairly serious accomplishment to me. He was also unfinished buisness, we made conditions in 91 which were simply untenable for him, and he could not comply with them, however, his lack of compliance made America look weak, and that realisticly had to be dealt with eventually. [/quote]

He WAS a monster, but for the most part Iraq was fairly stable upon the time of the invasion wasn't it? Creating that power vacuum is probably going to do more harm than good. Time will tell. For now I would hesitate to call it an "accomplishment" because it might turn out to create more havoc than it was trying to avoid.

And another accomplishment is: making America look like a BAMF? So making sure we don't look weak is worth thousands of lives? I don't get that.

[quote]I opposed the invasion because Hussein, monster that he was, protected his Christians, more than any other ruler in that area, and I figured when he was gone the Chaldeans would be persecuted, unfortunately I was right.[/quote]



[quote]


However there was not hundreds of thousands of deaths, in both wars, if you include all possible deaths, direct, indirect,crime etc, all military deaths on all sides, etc, then you still only get to 175,000 or so. That just isn't all that many for what amounts to 17 years of war ( 10 in one country and 7 in the other).
[/quote]

This http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html would suggest that there were more. Now I haven't researched its verifiability yet, but jsyk perhaps this is where people are getting their numbers from. If you have an issue with the consistency and reliability of that report that's all well and good, this is more of just a heads up as to what people might be talking about.


[quote]

Well Saddam husein was responsable for hundreds of thousands of deaths of his own people, far more than have dies in our invasion, so the number of deaths directly relates to Proportionality, which is a serious concideration for one when discussing war. The number of deaths is important.
[/quote]

Ok but, you would have to demonstrate how US military intervention [b]prevented[/b] more death than it caused. That would be hard to do I admit, but I do understand where you're coming from.



[quote]

Mourning deaths is one thing, crying out to withdraw for the "quagmire" of Iraq is something else all together. the entire Iraq war cost fewer american lives than the first day of Tarawa, in a country of 300,000,000 people 4500 deaths over a 7 year occupation of a hostile country is just not a crisis. We should have been yelling "Veni, Vedi, Veci" fro the roof tops, instead we were having a national crisis about it. America has apparently lost its stomach for war, you may find that an acceptable social development, I did not argue aboutthat at all, I only commented that the north seemed to have lost it more than say Texas, and I thought that should an actual attempt at secession occur I did notthink the average urban northerner would be up for a civil war. I do not see anything in your post to make me reconsider that postion.
[/quote]

To be honest I'm not thinking about Texas or secessation or any of that at all. I know that's the thread topic, but I was sort of taking off on a tangential discussion. I don't disagree with the above position, but I don't think civil war in the US is a real concern.

[quote]I fail to se what a crazy persons shooting of civilians on the street has to do with casualties of war.[/quote]

I could draw parallels but my main contention was that lamenting war casualties is nothing but whining. You probably wouldn't call the national upset about 6 civilian casualties "whining" but you are able to make light of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths.

It's unimportant I suppose. I would urge you to choose your language a bit more carefully when talking about war so that you don't seem like such a jack arse (cause I'm not the only one who preceived it that way) but the choice is yours.

God bless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what's sad, is that in my last post, i was in truth vague enough that even a conservative could agree with me. general principles, i've always said, are not where most people dont see eye to eye on. it's the details, or how and when to apply those principles.
half the disagreements that do occur, are mostly on talking past each other in filling in the theory details, or on general dispositions, nothing monumental.
what's sadder is that the rhetoric ya hear in presidental races, never develops even close to my even my last post. no details. that's how the population is often upset, not knowing what to expect from so little being offered.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1313616317' post='2290080']
what's sad, is that in my last post, i was in truth vague enough that even a conservative could agree with me. general principles, i've always said, are not where most people dont see eye to eye on. it's the details, or how and when to apply those principles.
half the disagreements that do occur, are mostly on talking past each other in filling in the theory details, or on general dispositions, nothing monumental.
what's sadder is that the rhetoric ya hear in presidental races, never develops even close to my even my last post. no details. that's how the population is often upset, not knowing what to expect from so little being offered.
[/quote]
Well, if one assumes the government may zone in the first place. Which I don't. The government does not own the land within the borders of the United States--it has the obligation to protect the life liberty and property of those within the United States. We do not live in the type of nation that owns all the land within its borders. Government has no right to zone. That can and should be settled on a private level with private contracts--which will be protected against violation by the government.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']


So wait, you opposed the invasion of Iraq primarily because you thought there would be a higher death toll among US military? I don't want to get in a debate about just war theory and all, but for me and many others that would have been the first reason to oppose the invasion. You seem to have decided on sort of a risk vs. reward and I can't say I admire that. Please correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]

Did you actually read my post, I said quite explicitly that I thought there would be higher casualties but that that was NOT the reason I opposed the war. Soldiers die in war, that is the way of it, if you are not prepared to die, or to kill, don't go for a soldier.

I opposed the invasion becuase he protected his Christians, and no one else over there,, including our "allies" could say that.
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
He WAS a monster, but for the most part Iraq was fairly stable upon the time of the invasion wasn't it? Creating that power vacuum is probably going to do more harm than good. Time will tell. For now I would hesitate to call it an "accomplishment" because it might turn out to create more havoc than it was trying to avoid.
[/quote]

Yes, as i said, I opposed the invasion, but we invaded, once that was done we were commited. We shouldn't make it out like things were going badly when things went better than any conquest in modern history.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
And another accomplishment is: making America look like a BAMF? So making sure we don't look weak is worth thousands of lives? I don't get that.

[/quote]

Yes, that is, looking weak would only cost more lives, do you have any idea how many wars are prevented by people thinking that we are the baddest guys on the block? Why do you think there has been no cession of the Ceasefire in Korea., that China stays out of Tiawan, that in genral our enemies don't attack our friends? If we look too weak, the world becomes a shoot fest. I think taking out a small country and providing a place to fight our enemies that was not our own country was worth it. even if that cost thousands of lives.

You are free to disagree.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']

This [url="http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html"]http://www.unknownne...casualties.html[/url] would suggest that there were more. Now I haven't researched its verifiability yet, but jsyk perhaps this is where people are getting their numbers from. If you have an issue with the consistency and reliability of that report that's all well and good, this is more of just a heads up as to what people might be talking about.


[/quote]

Their methodology is laughable, and the report which they used as the basis of there numbers ( which they then extrapulated from at a consistant basis) has been widely discredited. The fact that they say it ihas not been means nothing, it has been, people say the Nazis didn't have death camps too, that doesn't make them credible.
[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']

Ok but, you would have to demonstrate how US military intervention [b]prevented[/b] more death than it caused. That would be hard to do I admit, but I do understand where you're coming from.
[/quote]

Well actually I don't, I would have to sho that the reaction was proportional, to the evil that was being done. That said its not hard, Hussein killied more than 1/2 a million of his own people, ( some say 800,000, but I cannot verify those numbers credibility) that means he killed approzx. 20,000 + people for each year he was in power, having him out of power means that approx 140,000 people were not killed by him, and that the party which did things like cripped athletes who lost at the olympics and feed children into wood chippers was removed from power. Those death rates are for his own peole and do not count the casualties of the 2 wars he started, nor the Kuwaiti civilians killed during the occupation of that country.

However human dignity does not mesh well with a simple math spread, by your logic we should have never gotten involved in teh war against Hitler ( which by the way we were involved in in 1939, way before he declared war in support of the Japanese).



[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
To be honest I'm not thinking about Texas or secessation or any of that at all. I know that's the thread topic, but I was sort of taking off on a tangential discussion. I don't disagree with the above position, but I don't think civil war in the US is a real concern.
[/quote]

well I don't think secession is a real possibility, but i actually think civil war in the US is a very real concern, We are balkanized inthe extreme, and tensions are running higher. I cannot see how a civil war cannot happen in the next 30 years or so unless we break off into different countries peacably, the issues dividing us very serious, and I don't see them going away anytime soon.


[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1313615761' post='2290071']
I could draw parallels but my main contention was that lamenting war casualties is nothing but whining. You probably wouldn't call the national upset about 6 civilian casualties "whining" but you are able to make light of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths.

It's unimportant I suppose. I would urge you to choose your language a bit more carefully when talking about war so that you don't seem like such a jack arse (cause I'm not the only one who preceived it that way) but the choice is yours.

God bless.
[/quote]

But you see I am not talking about lamenting war casualties, I am talking about whining. The fact that your son or daughter came home in a body bag and you and yours are sad, is not whining, the fact that as a country we honor those who dies in our militaries service is not whining. Going on national tv demanding to know why your _________ who joined the military of thier own free will had to go to war, and how we have taken [i]so many casualties, [/i]when we have achieved a military victory greater than alost any in history [i]IS WHINING[/i]. The portrayal of our casualties as terrible and heavy when they have been lmost magically light [i]is whining. [/i]

If one opposes the war that's fine, but saying it is because we have taken so many casualties is simply ridiculous and the way people have spoken about it is whining. Whining is a disrespectful way to mourn the death of the brave.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313617573' post='2290096']
Well, if one assumes the government may zone in the first place. Which I don't. The government does not own the land within the borders of the United States--it has the obligation to protect the life liberty and property of those within the United States. We do not live in the type of nation that owns all the land within its borders. Government has no right to zone. That can and should be settled on a private level with private contracts--which will be protected against violation by the government.
[/quote]


Well I am not sure that is true, some States own the land. If they did not then there could be no confiscation of land for failure to pay property taxes. Our government claims ownership of everything, and it always has, that is the basis for the idea of eminent domain.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1313619045' post='2290111']


Well I am not sure that is true, some States own the land. If they did not then there could be no confiscation of land for failure to pay property taxes. Our government claims ownership of everything, and it always has, that is the basis for the idea of eminent domain.
[/quote]
A claim is not always valid. They claim there is private property, but, like most States, violate their laws when it is convenient to do so.

[dairygirl4u2c]

half of conservatives, including most of our founding fathers, think regulating private lives was more than okay, eg, gays doing what they do in their private time. it shouldnt be wrong by extension to regulate a little about how you use the property.
eminent domain is permissible by the US constitutin... it doesnt seem like it's be wrong to have a less worse tool, zoning.
i agree too much is too much, though.
and can even effectively amount to eminent domain, ironically, yet where's the 'just compensation' as required with eminent domain?

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1313619464' post='2290121']
half of conservatives, including most of our founding fathers, think regulating private lives was more than okay, eg, gays doing what they do in their private time. it shouldnt be wrong by extension to regulate a little about how you use the property.
eminent domain is permissible by the US constitutin... it doesnt seem like it's be wrong to have a less worse tool, zoning.
i agree too much is too much, though.
and can even effectively amount to eminent domain, ironically, yet where's the 'just compensation' as required with eminent domain?
[/quote]
Do you have a reason for repeatedly bringing up conservatives?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1313619192' post='2290114']
A claim is not always valid. They claim there is private property, but, like most States, violate their laws when it is convenient to do so.
[/quote]

They pay lip service to private property, but have made it very clear that they do not acknowledge that there is.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1313619464' post='2290121']
half of conservatives, including most of our founding fathers, think regulating private lives was more than okay, eg, gays doing what they do in their private time. it shouldnt be wrong by extension to regulate a little about how you use the property.
eminent domain is permissible by the US constitutin... it doesnt seem like it's be wrong to have a less worse tool, zoning.
i agree too much is too much, though.
and can even effectively amount to eminent domain, ironically, yet where's the 'just compensation' as required with eminent domain?
[/quote]


Zoning is a violation of property rights. I do not feel that zoning is " less worse" it is worse as it does not give me the option to go somewhere else, at least with eminent domain they are supposed to pay you for what they have taken, but if they zone my property residential, when I planned to put a buisness there, then I am just hosed.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Don John of Austria