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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (7014)	2/25/2002 10:48:27 PM
From: Peter van Steennis	Respond to of 206110

Give him Hell KB, you are right he has only a couple of places left to go (Cuba & North Korea), to find those of his ilk. I am glad that someone can keep Ray honest, if not humble him. Peter

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (7014)	2/25/2002 11:35:24 PM
From: whitepine	Respond to of 206110

Kb, Point 2 was so clear! The mystery to me is the left can understand ex post facto and the concept of eminent domain, but they fail grasp the notion of 'just compensation.' If society wants to take the property at issue, fine. However, I can't fathom why 'just and fair' compensation for such is unreasonable. (To the hard core communists, of course, their reply is an axiom of faith> "property is theft." It is the failure of the liberals to appreciate the logic of 'just compensation' that confounds me.)

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (7014)	2/26/2002 12:37:40 AM
From: Mark Adams	Respond to of 206110

2) A guy who owns property and has it taken by the "county" is not the same as the guy who buys a bond and sees it go down in value in the marketplace. The guy, X, is taking all the investment risk in the property, just not the government theft risk. If the bondholder had his bond confiscated by the county, then you've got a parallel. Perhaps a better example. The Federal govt changes the rules on Muni's, removing their tax exempt status. This causes a plunge in their value, a 'taking'. The bond owner still holds the paper, as the land owner still holds the land. Neither can sell it to others for what it would otherwise be worth. I was thinking on this taking issue just the other day, as chance would have it. It came up for a vote in Oregon a year or two ago. My thought was that if we are to compensate those harmed by land use planning, we should create an offsetting windfall tax on those who benefit from zoning changes. Comments? Wait a minute, this is a bit off topic. ?Oh well?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (7014)	2/26/2002 3:07:21 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206110

Communistic? That ones funny CB. What? Have I got you that flummoxed for a good argument that you have to revert to red-baiting? To say I'm disappointed in you wouldn't be quite correct. To say that my respect for your debating talents has diminished would be true. The rest of your argument will require some more time to skewer. Just let me say for now, that generally when a scoundrel suggests I move to North Korea, I put him on "ignore". (No women around SI have been quite such testosterone-crazed buffoons to date). I'll make an exception for you. You actually have a brain, and occasionally engage it. Just not consistently. A flaw that others have abundantly pointed out that I might be accused of as well. My twinkie defense, is that in looking at classes of speculations, I'm just like that Republican dufus Secretary of Commerce in the first reign of the Shrubbery. His comment was: "Potato chips, computer chips.... makes no difference to me."