XPost: misc.rural, triangle.general, nashville.general   
   From: kentfinn@bellsouth.net   
      
   "Olin"  wrote in message   
   news:ELSdnZntFpKyHVranZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >   
   > "Kent Finnell"  wrote in message   
   > news:ruKxj.261$rC6.87@bignews4.bellsouth.net...   
   >>   
   >> "Olin"  wrote in message   
   >> news:ndGdnTaeJaGg7SfanZ2dnUVZ_sCtnZ2d@comcast.com...   
   >>>   
   >>> "jakdedert"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:rptuj.91784$_m.60105@bignews4.bellsouth.net...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Obviously, there are other rivers and other cattle   
   >>>>> regions, but I frankly just fail to see the logic in   
   >>>>> destroying Americans to protect Americans.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Just more collateral damage--or to make Kent happy,   
   >>>> 'unintended consequences'--of the War on Terror.  A   
   >>>> small price to pay for our freedom....   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >> Well, Olin, there jak went again, attributing attitudes   
   >> to me that I don't have.  He must be taking lessons from   
   >> Blackie the Liar.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No comment regarding jak's comment. He can defend himself   
   > if he chooses.   
      
   Sorry to butt in.  Before the name of this thread was   
   changed to "Border Fence" it seemed to be an on-going   
   conversation between you and Joseph with occasional coments   
   from jak.  There is a difference between "collateral damage"   
   and "unintended consequences", at least to me.   
      
   >   
   >> Now back to your scheduled bemoaning of the supposed fate   
   >> of the United States.   
   >>   
   >   
   > However, this does beg some comment. When a nation takes   
   > to stealing property for such a dubious value as that   
   > border fence, I'm not so sure the "supposed fate" is all   
   > that supposed.   
   >   
   > You are aware, are you not, that the fence will not be ON   
   > the border, but as much as a mile inland, and as such it   
   > will traverse back yards, in at least one case, a family's   
   > living room and the lion's share of an American's   
   > five-thousand acre farm... all taken by eminent domain and   
   > unless the property owners there are aware that they have   
   > rights to challenge the confiscation, they'll be paid a   
   > fraction of their property's worth.   
   >   
   > With regards to that farm, it's the property of a family   
   > that's worked land on the border for generations, and only   
   > relatively recently gotten the wherewithal to purchase   
   > their own dirt. They've been told by Homeland "Security"   
   > that it's not their problem that most of their land will   
   > be on the wrong side of the fence.   
   >   
   > Just like it's not "their problem" when they claim an   
   > American-born detainee is an illegal alien and refuse to   
   > believe proof that would stand up practically anywhere to   
   > the contrary.   
   >   
   > See, there's another issue with that land on the wrong   
   > side of that fence. In Texas, and most likely in many   
   > other states, if you allow land to lie un-tended and allow   
   > free use of it, it can easily become public property. I'd   
   > doubt Chertoff and his henchmen will allow that farmer to   
   > make gates so he can work his land south of the fence, so   
   > essentially he loses all control of it, in fact, all   
   > rights to it except, I'll wager, the right to continue   
   > paying property taxes on it.   
   >   
   > At this point, known facts being what they are, that's   
   > hardly a "supposed fate." And, it's precisely the kind of   
   > land grab real conservatives have correctly bemoaned for   
   > decades, but about par for the course since before the   
   > last election, it was reported that it's now allowed for   
   > your home to be condemned for "the greater community good"   
   > so somebody can build a more useful structure on your   
   > former property... i.e. a commercial venture of one sort   
   > or the other.   
      
   The eminitate domain perversion didn't come from the   
   administration IIRC.  It came from a narrow decison (5-4) by   
   the USSC and the majority decision was written by John Paul   
   Stevens.  There was a movement of sorts to have his family   
   estate seized under the ruling.  It didn't get anywhere.   
   And the border seizure is justified (to some and certainly   
   not me) in the same manner as siezures for highways,   
   schools, hospitals, and "blighted areas" ... for the public   
   good.   
      
   In any case you and Joseph are certainly among the most   
   cynical and pessimistic pair I've ever read.  I think I've   
   said before that I consider myself a realistic optimist.  In   
   my life time I've seen a world war, countless skirmishes and   
   "police actions", double digit inflation with double digit   
   unemployment combined with double digit interest rates (the   
   Carter years ... not counting the embassy held hostage in   
   Iran), LBJ, Nixion, the bursting of the dot com bubble ...   
   the country did survive.   
      
   I've heard from the 4th grade on the comparison of the U.S.   
   and the Roman Empire and the end is near.  It might be if   
   Barrack (no middle name) Obama is elected, but I kind of   
   doubt it.  Hillary, OTOH (grin)...   
      
   But Congress and the FBI are going to save us from  ...   
   Roger Clemens??? WTF!!!   
      
      
   --   
   War is absolute hell ... but to give in   
   to terrorism is much, much worse.   
      
   Kent Finnell   
   From the Music City, USA   
      
      
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)