Basically, you do have to be compensated......... sm
Posted By: m on 2009-02-13
In Reply to: Don't you have to be compensated - sm
but if you want to keep your land because, for example, it is family land or your source of income, etc., you would lose it anyway.
Eminent domain
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Don't you have to be compensated
if your land is taken like that? It isn't like they kick you off and that is that.
Basically,
Get off my back is about as simple as I can put it. I never said Laura Bush was drunk, so I don't see why you keep responding to my posts asking me to post a credible link to prove this.
There are "internet rumors" about her being drunk, mostly on liberal sites.
The link I posted in this thread is for liberal entertainment a "what if it was Hillary idea" so to speak. What I find ironic and even hypocritical is how you boast on the "TRUTH" in the "you probably are a liberal if..." article on the neocon board, but then come over here and throw your weight around about my post (the thread we're in now - let's not get it confused).
Hope you can understand this better, or even better you are staying on the conservative board so you will not get this response. Geez Louise.
You basically got that right.nm
x
Okay, so basically what you are saying is that
in a nutshell... 
I think we need change and I'm sure Obama will make mistakes, but McCain might as well said "I totally disrespect women." By picking Palin with no experience tells me he doesn't really care. JMO.
Protestwarrior.com is basically pro-war.
Read their website. Many of the conservatives are members on the conservative board.
Basically, that is what I am digging for...what you just said...
I am a registered Independent as well. I am a conservative, registered as an independent, and towing party lines for the sake of doing so is not for me either. When I said the "far left wing of the Democratic party"....I meant within that party are so-called far left wing, moderate Democrats and Conservative Democrats...according to the Democrats I have spoken with. And, as you say...it is the same with Republicans. Not all Republicans are conservative...Guiliani isn't. Thank you for your honest answers. Just trying to learn. Whatever we call ourselves politically, we are all Americans...just wanting to understand individuals and what they believe. Thank you again.
So basically anyone who does not agree...
with Mr. Obama is talking garbage....how open-minded of you. If Obama stood up and said "destroy all who disagree with me" would you be the first one to go after your shovel to storm the castle? LOL. Geeezzzzz. lol.
Basically what that means is (sm)
that the Dems have a majority so the Repubs can fillibuster all they want to, but when it comes to the final vote, if every Dem votes yes and every Repub votes no, the yes vote goes through because there would be more yes votes. It's just that there are more Dems than Repubs - they have the majority vote, just not enough to stop a fillibuster.
That's basically it in a nutshell. - sm
It truly doesn't matter. None of it. We citizens lose, no matter what happens.
Basically we do only have 2 choices s/m
Our whole election process needs to be revamped. To start with how about doing away with the electoral college? The popular vote should do just fine. Then there was the matter of redistricting under Clinton? Bush Sr? Junior? Bush Sr, I think, since the redistricting made it easier for the Republicans to win the electoral college vote. Our government corruption, I believe, begins with the election process.
So basically we are screwed either
way this plays out? My biggest fear is having democrats in total control of everything. I don't like idea at all. I know a lot of people are just wanting to get republicans out of the way since they blame Bush for everything.
The big picture is that government as a whole (all parties) were involved in this crisis and it really is going to take all parties to pull us out. We need a split to keep things under control. Our country cannot afford to let everything go extreme left like it appears to be doing. We need some contrast and balance. If Obama were more middle of the road and not so extreme left.....I might consider voting for him. But he is way too extreme left for me. As a conservative.....I don't like that at all.
So, you would basically destroy the US, (sm)
I think splitting the country up like that would do much more harm than good. We would wind up in the same situation as in the middle east....just a bunch of small factions (if you will) and total loss of control. Not one of these individual factions would be able to fend off foreign threats, much less threats from other factions. Individual factions would not be able to compete in a global economy. We have gained the power that we currently have by being a united country, and that would be totally lost. This would put us back to civil war days and in my opinion would not serve any real purpose other than to appease those who encourage separation of the country now.
What you just said is basically racist.
nm
They e basically being saying the same thing for days, that is why I am...
.
So basically the poorer I stay
the more I get?
Talk about your backwards logic!
Here is a whole list that basically fits
antichrist which some believe it could be the O. I had a study if this in the Book of Daniel, not only in Revelations. No matter who it is, better be ready. Some state middle age, 40's and 50's.
http://www.theprophecies.com/antichrist.html
Basically, it is the Democrats' fault...
if they would stop with the "gimme" programs and attach all of it to the public works that Obama is concerned about, make them accept a little responsibility with the free health care, foodstamps, and welfare checks...in hopes of getting them OFF those things...THEN Democrats would be doing something GOOD for people. Try lifting them OUT of poverty and teach them to work for what they get instead of REWARDING them for staying in poverty?? Hellooooo???
Basically it is the dems fault.
They are the ones who pushed the bailout of Wall Street. They are the ones who is giving more towards the bailout. They are the ones who made up this whole stimulus package that they are trying to push through by FRIDAY.. tomorrow. They promised O that this will pass with or without pub support. So, who's fault is it? The independent party?
Ogden basically feels that
censorship is unconstitutional. That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools. However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up. If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see. Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models. Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do. Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts.
I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography.
Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults. Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.
This is not a personal attack on Obama. I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography. I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub. I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.
So basically we shouldn't capture
anyone for fear of picking up an innocent person. Kind of hard to do that since most of these terrorists blend right in with civilians and have no problem using civilians as human shields.
You still have not answered my question about how many in Gitmo were "tortured."
So there are no innocent people in our local prisons? I'm sure there are some but the majority of them are guilty.......just like Gitmo.
What was done was done in an attempt to protect Americans whether you want to believe that or not. Terrorists are NOT covered under the Geneva Convention. How fast we forget the horrible things that were done to use by terrorists. We weren't waterboarded or electrocuted. We were either beheaded or just simply blown up. Which would you prefer?
I believe that it refers to the work ethic basically...
not everyone is born rich, and we all have choices in life. We can "pull ourselves up with our bootstraps," work hard and try to get head, and it has worked for generation after generation of Americans. It worked for Barack Obama. He is someone who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, came from a very middle class family, worked through school, worked for scholarships, borrowed money, got an education and he is running for President of the United States.
Sarah Palin grew up as a child of two teachers in Alaska. She worked her way up, eventually worked as a sportscaster, then decided to work in public service because she wanted to serve. She started as a community advisor (same way Obama did), moved up to City council, to Mayor, then to governor, and now she is running for Vice President of the United States.
That is pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and succeeding, working hard for everything you got and not expecting someone to hand it to you.
That is what bootstrapping means to me.
Obama is basically a socialist. Look at his record
nm
Obama's tax plan basically takes away any
nm
So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
So basically it's a freedom of speech thing?
That's a scary thought! It would be illegal to say you're against people who are pedophiles? Because according to this bill (if this is what it means) they have the same rights as gay people.
That's right China. We basically support China in everyway, and
don't hear two words uttered about their communist society. But, no mention of any wrong doing from China, I mean where else can you get a shirt made for ten cents?
Robertson though has hijacked a good Christian show (I guess it's his show), but it would be a good show to watch if he wasn't on there throwing politics everywhere. I don't like the mix.
|
