Re: The UN and property rights

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:33:55 GMT, "David Hartung"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"The Frog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:17:01 GMT, "David Hartung"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"The Frog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On 29 Nov 2003 03:15:31 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> (George W Bush) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Captain Compassion) wrote in message
>> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >> The UN and property rights
>> >> >> To the framers of the U.S. Constitution, property was as sacred as
>> >> >> life and liberty. The inalienable right to own -- and control the
>use
>> >> >> of -- private property is perhaps the single most important
>principle
>> >> >> responsible for the growth and prosperity of America. It is a right
>> >> >> that is being systematically eroded.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Private ownership of land is not compatible with socialism,
>communism,
>> >> >> or with global governance as described by the United Nations.
>Stalin,
>> >> >> Hitler, Castro, Mao - all took steps to forcefully nationalize the
>> >> >> land as an essential first step toward controlling their citizens.
>The
>> >> >> UN, without the use of military force, is attempting to achieve the
>> >> >> same result.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nor is private ownership of land compatible with Bush style crony
>> >capitalism.
>> >> >Where do you think Bush got the land to build a baseball stadium for
>his
>> >Texas
>> >> >Rangers? If you guessed through forceable taking (by the City of
>> >Arlington) you
>> >> >guessed right.
>> >>
>> >> Not true. How do I know? I live here.
>> >> This was decided by the most democratic of processes, the referendum.
>> >> The citizens voted for this to stimulate the economy. I might add that
>> >> this is common practice among cities and sports franchises.
>> >>
>> >> Peddle the lies elsewhere or else learn the truth before running your
>> >> mouth.
>> >
>> >Did the city of Arlington buy the land from willing sellers, or did they
>> >take the land through the misuse of Eminent Domain?
>>
>> Mostly bought. Some were forced.
>> Same as the Dallas Cowboys with Texas Stadium in Irving, TX. Same as
>> every other sports arena. So what?
>> How is this any different and don't you think it is pretty weak to try
>> to make this standard practice across the counrty something sinister
>> that only the business that Mr. Bush was involved in is somehow
>> managed evil?
>> Weak argument that depends on the ignorance of the reader......as is
>> most of the "I HATE BUSH" posters do. And I understand why. There is
>> just not that much to oppose with Mr. Bush. The pickin's are slim.
>
>Yes, it is standard practice for the government to take privatre land for
>other private purposes, this does not make it any less wrong, and it is not
>an attempt to make a case against the president. Simpl;y put, it is wrong
>for any government to take private land for other private purposes.

I don't like the practice either. However, it is there to get
watermains, electrical lines and other infrastructure done.
My point is that you have wrongly singled out a common and standard
practice to beat up Mr. Bush with.
So what evil practices that were standard stuff would you like me to
single about Mr. Clinton's dealings that I could sway the ignorant
with??




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."

 --Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.