Navigation

How about a topless joint? That would be a pip. This could become the most expensive little piece of land around!

Maybe a combination Jiffy Lube/topless car wash. We came up with that idea after one (very long) happy hour after work, and were going to name it "Boobs and Lubes" :lol:

LQ

"Boobs and Lubes" :lol:

My favorite quote from when I worked in a garage was
"And would you like your rear end lubed as well?"

102 posted on 07/06/2005 5:36:52 PM PDT

Bump. Thanks for this post. Bravo! I e-mailed the originator of thsi porpsoal offering to invest last week. I think he was swamped (after being featured on both Rush & Drudge the same day!)!

It is great to see Americans so aware of, & energized in defense of, private property rights by addressing threats, this terrible precedent (Kelo v. New London), and becoming aware of the downside of activist Judges. I have been concerned with both of these related issues for about a decade. I even had brief, separate, conversational encounters with two of the "good" Justices (Scalia & Thomas) in the Kelo case about 6 or 7 years ago re: "The Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment designed to protect private property from arbitrary seizures, but providing for Eminent Domain for certain "public use" (NOT "public purpose") . It was clear they were anxious to see some good cases walk toward them. I doubt if they would have predicted the bizarre outcome in Kelo, though.

For those of us who are deeply concerned with protection of Private Property from improper application of Eminent Domain in contravention of the Original Intent of the Founders in the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, I am registering a warning or a concern:

I think AG (& potential USSC Nominee) Alberto Gonzales is very weak on Private Property Rights and lacks an understanding of orignainl intent of the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause (Eminent Domain) based both upon some cases when he ws at the texas Supreme Ct. (e.g., FM Properties Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000))

and, more recently and significantly, upon his NOT having joined in the Kelo case on the side of property owner. My understanding ws that he had sided with the League of Cities against Kelo while WH Counsel.

As some have frequently observed, he certainly believes in a "Living Constitution" and is NOT a strict constructionist or an Originalist, but rather tends toward the Activist side, per National Review Online and others.

He has been sharply critical of Priscilla Owen in some Texas Supreme Ct. decisions when they were both on that Ct. as Justices, and he has been quoted as being sharply criticial fo Janice Rogers Brown, including being quoted by People for the American Way in their ultra-leftist propaganda.

103 posted on 07/06/2005 11:08:15 PM PDT

it just appears his motives are more self-serving than for the good of the nation

But isn't it the whole point? He is a developer who wants to make profit and the town will benefit.

"He is a developer who wants to make profit and the town will benefit."

Who's to say the town would benefit? In all probability more than one home would have to be taken (you've just taken away someones home.) Consider the strain on municipal services, ie., water, sewer, electric, roads. A small "hotel" simply can't generate the revenues necessary to compensate for the strain on a small community. Perhaps a better idea would be to have the locals submit a plan to acquire the property to use as a city park or historical home. An appropriate plaque explaining how the property was obtained would be in order.

105 posted on 07/07/2005 8:59:53 PM PDT

Has Souter been questioned yet as to what he thinks of this project?

Would love to see him challenged for a judicious response.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. It may give you a better understanding.

I have a perfect understanding.