Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (134075)	3/29/2001 1:34:55 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

As much as we may decry "eminent domain" and it's abuses, it (Texas) was at least "due process";) Davis doesn't have the guts to seize the plants or he would have done it already. The only fix for CA is the painful one of a free market. If we waited for the courts to fix the blame and assess the damages it would be years down the line. Of course living in CA, I don't think we will see a free market any time soon.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (134075)	3/29/2001 1:37:53 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

Dear Patricia, I see a very silly attempt to compare the two. The stadium was build using public funds and was owned and built by the local government. One can argue if those who sold the land were forced to. Should they have been forced to. If they were I suspect if they were the were compensated fairly. But the city did not own the enterprise that leased the stadium. The city did not run enterprise. In the stadium case It seem to me that it is an acceptable practice for Governments to provide money or facility incentives to lure capitalists to invest their money and time in a particular location as over time the taxes generated directly and indirectly pay for the investment. You are advocating the the state nationalize an enterprise and take the land. The business of government is not going into business. Again, One can loosely make the case that a government can fund a facility that is going to be used or leased for use for some enterprise. This is a far cry from taking over a private enterprise. So to me your calling Smart Business Man Mr Bush's use of free speech to create a valuable profitable enterprise using voter approved funding to create a facility for the public good as communistic antics just shows you don't have a clue about what communism is and why you have a mind meld with communist philosophy. An aside comparing the vacant liberal mind leadship council. mr. bill , SOre, LOserman, and shrillary never had any experience in running a private enterpise. Their work experience is confined to flipping hamburgers and investing in bogus land deals. They all have Rich extensive training as under bosses in the democrat party mafia though. tom watson tosiwmee

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (134075)	3/29/2001 5:20:28 PM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 769667

Patricia, I will admit that there were probably some hard nosed business tactics used to acquire the land for the stadium, but that sort of thing happens almost anywhere the sports faction of a city makes demands for a stadium, instead of a worthwhile project. Check into the shenanigans done by Lee Brown, Mayor of Houston, who is a very liberal Demo, and was once in Clinton's cabinet as drug czar. All that being said, when you used Molly Ivins as a source, everything said became totally incredible. MI slobbers at the mouth as she writes her columns accusing Republicans of causing the down fall of the Roman Empire. To her, anything bad, horrible, or distasteful, that ever happened on the face of the Earth, was caused be the Republicans. ~H~