The Worst President in History?

Okie- Have you noticed that when people like Mr. Edgarblythe write, they rarely give proof and almost never give links. I,of course, don't believe a word that he said and would only consider it if he gave a reliable link. Then I would examine the link and alternatives to it to see if I could determine whether his evidence was wrong.

Why is it, Oike, that the left wing liberals think that all they have to do is to say---"because I said so, that 's why" and they prevail in the argument?


Your link, Okie, is right on target and shows that Mr. Edgar Blythe is wrong. The liberals on the USSC adjudicated the case concerning the right of governments to seize private property,but, as usual, Liberals want to blame the Republicans--Good Post-Okie

I'm off to Fargo, how about you?

edgar is a poet, not a journalist.

Please cut him some slack.

What fools these Liberal be.

Finn wrote:
I'm off to Fargo, how about you?

I'm home bound until September when my wife and young son will head to Washington DC for six nights. We're hoping our older son will be joining us from Austin.

Hey finn....

zzzz....

Watching conservatives talk about how ignorant and naive liberals are...is like watch wart hogs talk about how ugly water buffalo are.

What a pathetic bunch of losers!

But the laughs they provide have to be considered...and they do provide them in abundance.

What is the difference between voicing opinion without links and Bernard's miles upon miles of mostly useless links? My word against his. For all his wordiness, in the final analysis, Bernard has no better arguments than anybody else, and his conclusions based on them are laughable.

edgar, That's because BernardR is Mr massagatto; his writing style never changed.

Do you care to back up your statement about eminent domain being the fault of Republicans with any facts, or does it matter to you? I pointed out it was primarily liberal judges on the Supreme Court that determined the matter.

edgarblythe wrote:
What is the difference between voicing opinion without links and Bernard's miles upon miles of mostly useless links? My word against his. For all his wordiness, in the final analysis, Bernard has no better arguments than anybody else, and his conclusions based on them are laughable.

okie wrote:
Do you care to back up your statement about eminent domain being the fault of Republicans with any facts, or does it matter to you? I pointed out it was primarily liberal judges on the Supreme Court that determined the matter.

I now understand the problem with conservatives writing in these forums. They ask questions that doesn't even relate to a statement made by the previous poster. edgar talks about "links, arguments, and conclusions," while okie talks about "eminent domain" that isn't even mentioned by edgar.

Read the posts imposter. Edgar did address the eminent domain issue. That is what this discussion was about in the last page or two. Edgar made an assertion about eminent domain, with no links to back it up. Bernard pointed this out. I then asked for him to provide evidence for his claims about the eminent domain issue. Now, you post this nonsensical accusation, cicerone, highlighted in blue no less, as if it is some grand truth. Again cicerone, read the posts. Good grief!

Sorry, okie, but you didn't reference your post to an earlier discussion. I'm not a mind-reader or in the habit of going back pages upon pages of past discussions. Reference please! You guys want links? I want references. Otherwise, quit your belching!

I did obviously reference it to the eminent domain assertion made by Edgar. You don't have to be a mind reader. Just read the post.

I will give you a break, as the threads sometimes go pretty fast and a couple of pages can go by quickly. Have a good day.

okie, Thanks for the consideration. I owe you "one."

No more than a year or so back, it became possible for businesses to take private property for commercial use, against the owner's will. I don't have a link to what I heard on TV news back then. It happened with Republicans in control.

Here, edgar, is probably what you're looking for.

Homeowners Lose
Eminent Domain Case

Institute for Justice Warns: Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners Vulnerable To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats & Land-Hungry Developers
WEB RELEASE: June 23, 2005
CONTACT:
John Kramer
(703) 682-9320
[Private Property]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susette Kelo: "I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests."



Scott Bullock: "With today's ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word."


Washington, D.C.?- Today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to home and small business owners throughout the country by allowing the government to use eminent domain to take homes so that businesses can make more money off that land and possibly pay more taxes as a result.

The Institute and its clients issued the following statements after learning of today's decision.

Chip Mellor, the president of the Institute for Justice, said, "The majority and the dissent both recognized that the action now turns to state supreme courts where the public use battle will be fought out under state constitutions. The Institute for Justice will be there every step of the way with homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully theirs. Today's decision in no way binds those courts."

"The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result," said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. "With today's ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word."

"One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O'Connor," Bullock said. "Justice O'Connor wrote, ?'Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.'"

Dana Berliner, another senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, "It's a dark day for American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And according to the Court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain."


Mellor said, "Today's decision doesn't end the Institute for Justice's fight against abuses of eminent domain. We will work to ensure not only that the property owners in New London keep their homes, but that all home and small business owners are protected from these unconstitutional land grabs by governments and their business allies. This is a terrible precedent that must be overturned by this Court, just as bad state supreme court eminent domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those courts."

Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners challenging eminent domain abuse, said, "I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution."

Mike Cristofaro, another one of the homeowners whose family has owned property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years, said, "I am astonished that the Court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money. Although the Court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans."

Read more about this case

Thanks, CI. I don't generally do many links on political threads, because nobody really gives them credence, except when they fit their preconceived notions.

That, Mr. EdgarBlythe is not a Republican Decision. It was a decision of the Supreme Court. Written by O'Connor( thank God she is gone) and seconded by the LIBERAL members of the Court.

I respectfully suggest that you keep up on your reading so that you do not make such egregious errors as attempting to blame this decision on the Republican Administration.

Okie- Have you noticed that Mr. Imposter no longer gives Job Approval Rating Numbers for the President of the United States?

Do you know why?

Mr. Imposter thinks that my reams of useless information means nothing. I am sure that, as a left wing liberal, who does not wish to meditate on the truth, he has a reason for that statement.

I wonder, Okie, what he will think of the information below?


**********************************************************
Much of the attention paid to public opinion polls on a president's performance in office focuses on the percentage of Americans who approve of the way that person is handling his job. But what insights can be gained by looking at presidential disapproval ratings?

George W. Bush

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted June 24-26, finds that 45% of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, while a slim majority, 53%, disapprove. Since he took office, Bush's lowest disapproval ratings occurred in September 2001, a little over a week after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. A Sept. 21-22 poll found 90% of Americans approving and only 6% disapproving of Bush. In contrast, the current results represent the worst ratings of Bush's presidency. The current approval rating ties Bush's lowest (45% in March 2005), but this poll finds his highest disapproval rating ever.

An analysis of Bush's disapproval ratings on a year-to-year basis shows that just about a quarter of Americans, 24%, disapproved of Bush across 31 polls conducted in 2001. This disapproval average declined by two points in 2002, to 22%. Beginning in 2003, Bush's disapproval average started to increase sharply. About a third of Americans (35%), on average, disapproved of Bush in 2003. This jumped once again in 2004, when 46% of Americans, on average, disapproved. Across the 20 surveys conducted since the start of this year, 47% say they disapprove of Bush -- not much different from what Gallup found last year.

Republicans and Democrats vary significantly in their views of Bush: although the vast majority of Republicans approve of Bush's job performance, there are just as many Democrats who disapprove. The June 24-26 poll finds that 89% of Republicans approve of Bush, while just 10% disapprove. This compares with 11% of Democrats who approve of Bush and 88% who disapprove of him. Among independents, 37% approve and 58% disapprove.

If Mr. Imposter wants a link, Okie, he can find it easily by going to the
CNN/USATODAY/GALLUP POLL website.

Bernard, you are a dynamo of churning out information. Thanks for the support here.

In regard to polls, they are pretty much a non-starter for me. They become more interesting as an important election nears, but beyond that, I am frankly tired of polling. Especially polling about selected issues with leading questions.

I think I've mentioned this already, but I saw one poll where a majority thought the U. S. Government was withholding information on the existence of alien spacecraft or aliens. The poll perhaps happened to catch a few Art Bell listeners?