THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

Nealz Nuze ^ | Friday, March 12, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[steve-b]

Does your radio not have an 'off' knob?

Yes, but he is too stupid (no lesser word will do) to use it.

[steve-b]

i have no DESIRE to make anything about government bigger. I WOULD like the FCC (which by the way, has been around for a while)to enforce the rules

It's traditional to insert padding between mutually exclusive assertions. Then you can at least maintain the pretence of rising above the level of mindless babble.

[BabsC]

Neal should look in his own back yard.

The constitution of the State of Georgia essentially gives ownership of the state's real estate to the transmission companies and allows the citizens to reside on the pieces they don't want, yet.

[gdc61]

sorry i'm bad about form, ... or... i don't need padding, i wear a 48" suit jacket ;)

[RightWhale]

There's a lot to this. The Constitution doesn't explicitly guarantee either private property or privacy. Both could be under attack by the Forces of Evil.

[Reagan Renaissance]

"the three monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, is accomplished by covering ones ears, eyes, and mouth. being blind deaf and dumb to evil doesn't make it go away."

There is an old adage about glass houses and casting stones. And legend has it that vampires do not reflect an image in mirrors. I have seen the evil and heard the rationalizations and lies when taking the first step to put limits on rights for moral reasons; have you? If you want to teach your kids to acquire moral responsibility and accountability, teach it to them. Trusting the state to pass and intelligently enforce a law to impose morality on your kids is, IMO, the epitome of dumb.

[Kieri]

And JFnKerry wants to give up military control to the UN, therefore handing them our soveriegnty (sp?)!

That's not all he wants to give up.

On February 5th, Kerry was asked about his position on protecting the Great Lakes from siphoning. His response?

"The water rights issues have been guided by the court decisions, states and the compacts between states. But it is also important to understand that we have national needs. It's a delicate balancing act. There are different ways of managing water rights with remunerations and the appropriate respect to states' rights."

If they're good for "national use," I'm sure he'd be happy to let the UN oversee them as well.

[gdc61]

"enforce a law to impose morality on your kids"?

huh? what are you smoking?...I TEACH morality to my children. what i DON'T want , like most caring loving parents, are ultra-rich media elites, hollywood fags, pedophiles and sick perverts with a mic, spewing filth, twisting their minds and what i say, just like you did. you anarchists make me laugh.

[Reagan Renaissance]

"..you anarchists make me laugh."

When all else fails, at least you haven't lost your sense of humor. I see nothing further to be gained by continuing this dialogue. You offer nothing that I want to learn. Nor do I offer anything to you that seems capable of changing your mind.

[gdc61]

Humor is my friend. I am sure we have many like views. I too fear big government, But I also fear uncontrolled media warping our childrens minds to believe evil is good and good is evil. I have learned through the years that anything unrestrained goes wild. Unregulated, I predict the media will warp the minds of our youth, resulting in a nation of fat lazy government dependants. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and I'm not so worried about WHAT Howard Stern says, just WHO he's allowed to say it to. I believe unrestricted TV and radio transmissions is the same as standing and speaking in Town Square, and bet you agree that foul language is not appropriate in public, and we both know the airways must always remain public. I have enjoyed our little discussion and share you admiration for President Reagan... By the way, what is your view on eminent domain? I guess thats what this thread was originally about LOL!

[Reagan Renaissance]

"By the way, what is your view on eminent domain?"

I have no problem with eminent domain when the state exercises the right to purchase private property with just compensation and that property is then used for public purposes, as in building a road, a post office or a library. But if as is being done now, the state uses this power to purchase from a private property owner and then tranfers this property to another private property owner who plains to put the property to a higher best use that will increase the tax base of the state, then the state has abused its Constitutional rights and should be taken to task.

My personal fight with the state is a far different scenario. I own what could be an immensely valuable tract of land that is located in the COBRA Zone. The state has devalued my property by making it ineligible to buy proper insurance, insurance I might add that is sold only by the state at substantial discount, giving it an effective monoply with which private insurors cannot compete except on ludicrous premiums since ever body else is buying at a very significant discount from the state. In addition to the prohibition on flood insurance other rules and regulations effectively preclude development on our tract. I bought the property to build our home in 1992. I have not been able to obtain permits to build a house. There were some political venues open plus another option-(I was told that $10,000 contribution to the right party would immediately get me the permits). The courtroom approach is expensive and very time consuming with no guarantees. I took a bullet proof case to the court immediately below the Texas Supreme Court and had it sent back for trial. Check your freep mail, I will send you a link to a website that I built some time ago and that should have gone away a couple of weeks ago since I am no longer paying for the space. For whatever reason, it is still there today, but tomorrow could be another day.