Dracula...for governor?

[Perfection]

Um, sorry but that's a wrong interpretation of the Amendment. My interpretation is the correct one (why? because I say so. my opinions are always right).

I'm sticking to the supreme court on this one

I'm pretty right/wrong, black/white on most things

Develop some gray matter.

Really, though, black & white thinking usually brings poor results. I found that keeping the principle of balance in your mind is very beneficial.

 

[Drewcifer]

Why Circle Pines?

Ten to fifteen years ago when I was younger that was where all the death metal bands and their fans seemed to come from in the cities. It seemed that Circle Pines was all about Slayer, Carcass, Bolt-thrower, etc, etc. We would go up to Circle Pines for crazy metal parties. I assume that as those kids have gotten older they have become the prime voting bloc for the Satanist ballot outside of the Wiccan community in Mpls which, though it is large, would never go for mass impalement as a policy.

 

[bhsup]

I'm sticking to the supreme court on this one

I can almost guarantee that decision will be overturned the first time it is brought up under the Roberts court with Alito.

Develop some gray matter.

Good one, I'll give you that!

 

[mdwh]

Or what about a holdout who is just doing it so they'll offer him a large amount of money? Is that right?

Yes. Who says what is "large"? The market value is the amount that he's willing to sell it for.

This is what gets me - even if you could argue that forcing people out of their own homes is good, it's totally against the principles of capitalism, which I thought is what America stood for. It bleats on about the wonder of capitalism all the other time - I guess the reality is that it's only in favour of capitalism when it favours big business, and against capitalism when it doesn't.

I heard someone was planning to build something on the home of the Judge who made this ruling, I'm not sure what happened to that...

 

[Perfection]

I can almost guarantee that decision will be overturned the first time it is brought up under the Roberts court with Alito.

It won't be. If it were there would be a whole lot of problems.

Yes. Who says what is "large"? The market value is the amount that he's willing to sell it for.

Well, let's say that everyone but one guy agrees to sell for a reasonable price, the one guy wants $3,000,000 for is single bedroom ranch home. He thinks that the deal would be so valuable that they'd be willing to grossly overpay him.

I think we can both agree that it is "large"

This is what gets me - even if you could argue that forcing people out of their own homes is good, it's totally against the principles of capitalism, which I thought is what America stood for. It bleats on about the wonder of capitalism all the other time - I guess the reality is that it's only in favour of capitalism when it favours big business, and against capitalism when it doesn't.

Yes, there are some aspects of it that go against capitalistic ideology, but what in government doesn't? Do you anarco-capitalism?

The government certainly should and does advocate capitalism, but the government also reserves and deserves the right to step in on certain occasions.

 

[mdwh]

Well, let's say that everyone but one guy agrees to sell for a reasonable price, the one guy wants $3,000,000 for is single bedroom ranch home. He thinks that the deal would be so valuable that they'd be willing to grossly overpay him.

I think we can both agree that it is "large"

If they're willing to pay that price, then that _is_ the market value.

If they're not, well tough. I think lots of things cost a lot, but I either pay them or don't.

The government certainly should and does advocate capitalism, but the government also reserves and deserves the right to step in on certain occasions.

But usually it's when extra rights or benefits need to be given to individuals - not to take them away!

 

[Perfection]

If they're willing to pay that price, then that _is_ the market value.

A redicoulously inflated one.

If they're not, well tough. I think lots of things cost a lot, but I either pay them or don't.

So it was right for some gas stations after hurrican katrina to gouge people with $5.00 gas simply because they could get away with it? Should companies that have a monopoly on a vital drug be able to charge extremely high prices that far exceed devlopment and production costs?

But usually it's when extra rights or benefits need to be given to individuals - not to take them away!

Then, perhaps this is an unusual circumstance.

Capitalism is well and good, but it's far from perfect.

 

[amadeus]

Ten to fifteen years ago when I was younger that was where all the death metal bands and their fans seemed to come from in the cities. It seemed that Circle Pines was all about Slayer, Carcass, Bolt-thrower, etc, etc. We would go up to Circle Pines for crazy metal parties. I assume that as those kids have gotten older they have become the prime voting bloc for the Satanist ballot outside of the Wiccan community in Mpls which, though it is large, would never go for mass impalement as a policy.

You haven't been to Circle Pines lately.

 

[The Yankee]

I remember my parents telling me about that one.

Recently in Oak Grove (my home town), our city council used emminant domain (basicly says that a city can take your land for public good) to build a high-rise senior center in palce of a restaurant. The restuarant was recently purchased, and the owner sunk in $100,000 in repairs which was never compensated for by the city. Then it suddenly turns out that the senior center really wasn't a senior center, but actually a subsidized housing facility (Who knew?). Now, Oak Grove folk like Oak Grove because it's not covered in tract homes and apartment buildings, that's why all lots must be 2.5 acres or larger. Suddenly there's a project being constructed and everyone gets majorly POed. In the end the entire city council was booted out of office by the voters and the project got torched.

I've heard about such things from my very good friend over in Minnesota. Like older homes that had been passed down for a couple generations being destroyed for private mansions. It's disgusting. I'd be angry if someone tore down my home for a highway, but there's more benefit in that rather than just handing it back to some private developer.

Still can't believe the Supreme Court dropped that ball last year...

 

[Dida]

If I live in Minnesota, I will vote for him.

 

[The Yankee]

Why not a a Count Dracula who has a bad Eastern European Accent like Count von Count to be governor .

He is better than Pataki! Send him to Albany!

 

[Perfection]

I've heard about such things from my very good friend over in Minnesota. Like older homes that had been passed down for a couple generations being destroyed for private mansions. It's disgusting. I'd be angry if someone tore down my home for a highway, but there's more benefit in that rather than just handing it back to some private developer.

Still can't believe the Supreme Court dropped that ball last year...

While I'll agree that ED is often abused, I'm not going to say that using it for private developers is always bad.

 

[The Yankee]

While I'll agree that ED is often abused, I'm not going to say that using it for private developers is always bad.

Although, on entire lots where they'll just toss out the people that were there, such as the case that made it to the Supreme Court, IIRC, especially if it's just to build upscale housing, I find that rather distasteful.

I'd have to research the case of building a new arena in Brooklyn to get the New Jersey NBA team over here to see if it's that kind of case. Even so, they're choosing an awfully gridlocked area to put it...

 

[mdwh]

A redicoulously inflated one.

In your opinion - in the opinion of the home owner, the price offered by the Government is too low (how do they decide the price, anyway?)

So it was right for some gas stations after hurrican katrina to gouge people with $5.00 gas simply because they could get away with it?

That was bad. Now ask, why it was bad?

I would say it was bad because they had a surplus of gas.

Are we talking about people with a surplus of homes? No. We're talking about someone's only home, so the analogy is not valid.

Should companies that have a monopoly on a vital drug be able to charge extremely high prices that far exceed devlopment and production costs?

They can charge what they like, because in a free market, someone else can produce it for less if they are willing.

The only reason other companies can't is because of patents, which is Government intervention! So your example here is one against Government intervention, and in favour of the free market!

Capitalism is well and good, but it's far from perfect.

I agree, but I do not consider forcing people out of their homes to be a property of a good system.