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 : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (11532)	11/29/2007 5:27:16 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 25737

Re: "lol... but you didn't disagree with me. :)" True... I sure didn't disagree. (Mainly, because you were correct. :-) Re: "I'm still furious about the 2005 eminent domain case in the Supreme Court." As am I. But, IMO, the asset forfeiture rulings dating from the early 1970s were probably far more serious an erosion of our liberties --- because, for the first time in American history I believe, they TOTALLY reversed the legal proscription of 'innocent until proven guilty', and replaced it with 'your 'money' is guilty if we say it is --- and it's up to YOU to go through the expense of proving it otherwise... against the full weight and power of the federal government.' As if anything could be worse... the rulings also sanctified a FINANCIAL INCENTIVE for governments (small ones, State-sized ones, and the Feds) to seize private property. Those two legal changes make for very bad Mojo --- if you want to keep the government from expanding ever larger.