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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (276566)	10/19/2010 5:48:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 281500

Sun, you are obviously not up with eminent domain as now in action in the USA where property can be taken and sold to a company which will do something more valuable with it such as build a mall which will pay more taxes to the government than the recalcitrant landowner of the property was doing. My mentioning how eminent domain works doesn't mean I'm in favour of it as it's done. You seem to think that Libertarian means Anarchist. I recommend some reading to update your concepts: libertarianz.org.nz How are you getting on with obtaining my rights of return to ancestral homelands? Yes, I am kidding, I know you couldn't care less because I'm not a fashionable victim. Islamic Jihadism is where your love lies. You seem unable to observe the difference between Germany attacking all sorts of people and Israel defending itself against attack. When a rapist attacks a lone woman and leaves her dead in the drain, it's different from when a lone woman is attacked by said rapist, pulls out a gun and leaves him dead in the drain. She and he have not both committed the same crime. It's a very tricky concept with linguistic perils and logical condundrums, but you might get the difference. She is innocent, alive, he is guilty, dead in the drain. He was guilty in both instances. When Germany attacked surrounding countries and also Jews within the country, it was not "eminent domain" in any sensible form. It was not legal in any legalistic way. It was just might makes right - law of the jungle. It is perfectly reasonable that Jewish property and the property of other people be returned to the survivors as much as that can be done [bearing in mind that rewinding history is only possible to some extent - for example people can't be undeaded and bombed buildings can't magically reappear though land mostly is still in situ. When Egypt attacked Israel, it was reasonable that Israel keep the conquered territory. They didn't. They handed it back. How are you getting on with getting Jews who were pogrommed and evicted with property stolen fixed up with their rights of return and return of the stolen property? Mqurice