Site Cleared Of Homes By Eminent Domain Remains Empty Eight Years Later (part II)

Rune, link us up to evidence that people who owned these houses were minorities or just admit you spouted off without knowledge. It's helpful to have information rather than speculation when forming opinions about something that happened in the past.
 
Dantès said:
You're only half right and that for the wrong reasons. In other words, like almost everyone here, you are mostly full of shit, too! What a surprise. The woman whose name the case bore was a minority because for legal purposes, which are all that count in the current conversation, women are considered minorities. But this was not a minority neighborhood because the other houses weren't owned by single women exclusively. Some of the houses were owned by married couples. But you are still full of shit for all the reason cited in my response to Rune.
Click to expand...

LMAO; someone who is full of shit claiming others are full of shit. You just can't help yourself even when you are right about the topic.

Dunce.
 
Rune said:
Yes, Bravo, most people become more liberal as they age and or gain wisdom. He was still a conservative, just not right enough for you, or ILA or Dantes.
Click to expand...

LMAO; you really are too stupid for prime time. One thing is certain, no matter how old you get, you'll still be a fat old ugly moron.
 
Rune said:
Moron; ever been to New London? Didn't think so. I have been there an average of 25 times a year since 2010.
Click to expand...

All those visits don't seem to have helped you identify the people who lived in this particular neighborhood though, did they?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol......hate to break it to you Bingo, but at least half the people on this planet are women....they may be a protected class, but they are certainly not a minority, and also certainly not the minority Ruuunie was thinking of when he fucked up......
Click to expand...

For legal purposes which is all that matters in a court of law women are a minority and they have minority status under the law. Had it been a neighborhood of single women rather than just a woman who gave her name to the case because she happened to be one of the one's who were fighting this taking, it would have constituted a minority neighborhood. This was a class action suit, a neighborhood of people fighting city hall. But even though they were a class in that they owned single family dwellings in the area, they appear to have been a mixed group. They were various ages and married status. Further, since in spite of what the idiot posting as ugly Taft said, "Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly"

This list of amicus briefers might explain some of Rune's confusion, here, I don't know. Since he continues to maintain that I didn't "prove" him wrong perhaps he thinks that some of the elderly who owned homes there constituted a minority community, but since he did cite the woman or at least showed her picture, he appears to think that so who know what he thinks. I did demonstrate beyond a doubt that Justice Souter didn't write the opinion, a claim he also made. The New York Times called Souter "a liberal judge" when he retired after Obama became president, again without explaining what they meant by that. The Supreme Court being basically a conservative institution none of the Justices on the Supreme Court are "liberal," as I understand the term, all of them are free market capitalists who generally rule in favor of business interests with business before the Court. This was another of those instances. Liberal is a word I despise. It is as loaded as any word in English, in fact it means almost nothing without a healthy helping of further explanation. Most people don't give that additional help and leave the word dangling almost as an empty container waiting to be filled in by whatever the reader or listener wants to project into it and pretend they know what the person means. So what is Rune basing his continued insistence and stubbornness on--hell if I know! Nor do I really care! I was once told if Rune was wrong he would admit it. He was and he didn't! So I, like Bogart's character, Rick in the film Casablanca (1942), was misinformed. But the fact that he was wrong isn't as egregious as the fact that no one else knew or called him on it! Certainly with all the brilliant conservatives here I thought someone besides me would remember this case and who wrote it.

Sources for these claims:

Labeled as "liberal judge" a claim I didn't originally make; what I said was Souter became more moderate during his tenure.

The Wire called him a "liberal Justice" here.

The New York Times said he "became one of the most reliable members of the court’s liberal wing" here

And the long quotation on who contributed amicus briefs to the case can be found here.
 
Threedee said:
I guess if you're corrupt enough to actually do it, then it stands to reason you are incompetent enough to let the land sit there undeveloped. It all goes to character.
Click to expand...

The developer couldn't get funding for the project and the main tenant Pfizer fled the town after the million dollars in tax breaks they were given expired and weren't renewed. The area has become now according to one source I read, a land fill for debris from Hurricane Sandy. If a developer is denied loans for development it might have little to do with character and much to do with how the banks sees their chances of recouping their money. The developer might be an excellent risk but the banks might think the project itself is a loser. After Pfizer left that seems to have been what happened.
 
Dantès said:
For legal purposes which is all that matters in a court of law women are a minority and they have minority status under the law. Had it been a neighborhood of single women rather than just a woman who gave her name to the case because she happened to be one of the one's who were fighting this taking, it would have constituted a minority neighborhood. This was a class action suit, a neighborhood of people fighting city hall. But even though they were a class in that they owned single family dwellings in the area, they appear to have been a mixed group. They were various ages and married status. Further, since in spite of what the idiot posting as ugly Taft said, "Kelo became the focus of vigorous discussion and attracted numerous supporters on both sides. Some 40 amicus curiae briefs were filed in the case, 25 on behalf of the petitioners. Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services. The latter groups signed an amicus brief arguing that eminent domain has often been used against politically weak communities with high concentrations of minorities and elderly"

This list of amicus briefers might explain some of Rune's confusion, here, I don't know. Since he continues to maintain that I didn't "prove" him wrong perhaps he thinks that some of the elderly who owned homes there constituted a minority community, but since he did cite the woman or at least showed her picture, he appears to think that so who know what he thinks. I did demonstrate beyond a doubt that Justice Souter didn't write the opinion, a claim he also made. The New York Times called Souter "a liberal judge" when he retired after Obama became president, again without explaining what they meant by that. The Supreme Court being basically a conservative institution none of the Justices on the Supreme Court are "liberal," as I understand the term, all of them are free market capitalists who generally rule in favor of business interests with business before the Court. This was another of those instances. Liberal is a word I despise. It is as loaded as any word in English, in fact it means almost nothing without a healthy helping of further explanation. Most people don't give that additional help and leave the word dangling almost as an empty container waiting to be filled in by whatever the reader or listener wants to project into it and pretend they know what the person means. So what is Rune basing his continued insistence and stubbornness on--hell if I know! Nor do I really care! I was once told if Rune was wrong he would admit it. He was and he didn't! So I, like Bogart's character, Rick in the film Casablanca (1942), was misinformed. But the fact that he was wrong isn't as egregious as the fact that no one else knew or called him on it! Certainly with all the brilliant conservatives here I thought someone besides me would remember this case and who wrote it.

Sources for these claims:

Labeled as "liberal judge" a claim I didn't originally make; what I said was Souter became more moderate during his tenure.

The Wire called him a "liberal Justice" here.

The New York Times said he "became one of the most reliable members of the court’s liberal wing" here

And the long quotation on who contributed amicus briefs to the case can be found here.
Click to expand...

I would say "don't be an idiot" but I realize that's too much to ask......there is no one on this board who thinks that Rune was thinking of women when he said "minority neighborhood".......not even you.......
 
Dantès said:
The developer couldn't get funding for the project and the main tenant Pfizer fled the town after the million dollars in tax breaks they were given expired and weren't renewed. The area has become now according to one source I read, a land fill for debris from Hurricane Sandy. If a developer is denied loans for development it might have little to do with character and much to do with how the banks sees their chances of recouping their money. The developer might be an excellent risk but the banks might think the project itself is a loser. After Pfizer left that seems to have been what happened.
Click to expand...

The bankers must know these guys are scumbags (i.e. Read the news).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No it wasn't and that's not why the city did it in the first place. The neighborhood was a solidly middle class neighborhood that had the unfortunate luck to have a nice view. Developers convinced the city managers of New London that they could generate lots of jobs and revenue for the community if they confiscated the property from home owners who either did not want to sell or wanted market value for their property.

Kelo was a disgusting decision but it was not focused on a minority neighborhood.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Click to expand...


Really Mott? So you are saying 2 things,
1. A solidly middle class area can't be a minority area.
2. That you know anything at all about what you are talking about. Almost every place in New London is waterfront, the city is more than 1/2 water.

You really should look into the decay of old post industrial New England cities before you open your cute mouth and shit out of it. Anyone "solidly middle class" left New London years ago.
 
NOVA said:
Silent Generation Turns More Republican

The proportion of independents among the two youngest age cohorts – Millennials and Gen Xers – also has grown in recent years. Meanwhile, the oldest age group – the Silent generation – is turning more Republican

http://tinyurl.com/czx8ldl
Click to expand...

There is a difference between gaining wisdom and going senile. You are a perfect example
 
Damocles said:
Rune, link us up to evidence that people who owned these houses were minorities or just admit you spouted off without knowledge. It's helpful to have information rather than speculation when forming opinions about something that happened in the past.
Click to expand...

Whether I find links to something which may or may not have been reported on 8 years ago has little to no bearing on whether I am right or not. See my post to Mott to help allay your ignorance.
 
Dantès said:
The developer couldn't get funding for the project and the main tenant Pfizer fled the town after the million dollars in tax breaks they were given expired and weren't renewed. The area has become now according to one source I read, a land fill for debris from Hurricane Sandy. If a developer is denied loans for development it might have little to do with character and much to do with how the banks sees their chances of recouping their money. The developer might be an excellent risk but the banks might think the project itself is a loser. After Pfizer left that seems to have been what happened.
Click to expand...

The developer couldn't get funding because the world economy collapsed asshole.
 
Taft2016 said:
And yet the Robert Moses/Caro bitchslapping has gone unaddressed.

Interesting...
Click to expand...

Likely because you are wrong in every aspect except the bridge heights over the L.I.E. The rest of the argument is speculation at best. Books don't provide proof, they provide opinions and theories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top