Comments on: Nancy Pelosi on Property Rights: Who Needs ‘Em

By: J Wahlert

J Wahlert — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:14:47 +0000

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi is just ignorant? Isn't her husband a real estate developer?

By: charlotte

charlotte — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:56:54 +0000

The right to own property is fundamentally a right given to the people of the USA from the founding fathers.
Moreover, when the right to own property is taken from the citizens - socialism is fast approaching. By tampering with our property rights in effect the courts have said that our unique sysytem of formal property law ...the conversion process in that law that allows our citizens to create capital is being diminished.
In other countries ( Haiti, Peru, Brazil, Egypt etc) how property is own directly effects how much capital can be made. With assets not really yours or subject to take over from the State, banks, investors and creditors will not loan, barter or trade in any great quantity, the results are dead capital, the loss of energy from the assets owned. _"The Mystery of Capital, Hernando De Soto."

By: the musings of Brandon Jaynes » Nancy Pelosi on Property Rights

the musings of Brandon Jaynes » Nancy Pelosi on Property Rights — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:00:07 +0000

[...] Outside the Beltway has some excellent commentary on Pelosi’s remarks. So that load of incoherent blabbering holds that if you don’t fund something you don’t support it. So if a Democrat doesn’t vote to fund the troops in Iraq they really don’t support the troops. Gotcha Rep. Pelosi, thanks for clearing this up for us. [...]

By: Random Thoughts From Marybeth

Random Thoughts From Marybeth — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 04:55:04 +0000

I Am So Smart, S-M-R-T

(Title quotation from Homer Simpson because, really, who can better illustrate the point?) Transcript of a press conference by Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. She talks about building evacuations when planes enter Cap...

By: mike jones

mike jones — Sat, 02 Jul 2005 02:43:47 +0000

Reporter question to Nancy Pelosi. If the Supreme court ruled to push California into the Pacific Ocean. Would you go along with their ruling? Her reply would be "Well, the Supreme Court has ruled on it, So they must be right."
I am so glad she is Minority Leader.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:19:33 +0000

Billy, Here is a helpful hint, don't post while off your meds. Anderson, Yes, one could spin it as a state's rights issue, but the problem is that property rights are part of the constitution (5th Amendment). Your argument can be applied to church and state, freedom of speech/press, due process, the right bear arms, etc. In short, your argument would toss the entire bill or rights and all other amendments back to the states and nullify any and all federal laws. I don't think that is reasonable. Further, simply because I might favor a "states rights" approach to issue A, B and C does not mean I must therefore favor that view for any and all issues. Property rights, IMO, is one of the founding institutions that helped with the amazing economic growth we have in this country. Look at countries in Africa and one of the things you'll note throughout the region is a lack of property rights or very ill-defined property rights. As for the TRO and the three daughters, I'm sorry that is a local issue. I sure don't expect Justice Souter to run around in his robes enforcing TRO's and other local laws and ordinances. So this is a strawman and red herring.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:39:35 +0000

Steve, is it really so impossible to think that there are some injustices which simply aren't for the Supreme Court to redress? Look at the case about the woman who desperately tried to get the cops to enforce the TRO against her ex-husband, only to have them sit on their hands until he'd murdered their 3 daughters. TERRIBLE outcome. TERRIBLE behavior. And did the Supreme Court fix it? Nope. They said "this is a local problem, and if people don't like it, they need to fix it locally." Same with eminent domain. If it's so outrageous to use eminent doman the way New Haven did, then why blame the Court? Why not turn some of that outrage into voting out the local officials and into getting state legislatures to pass eminent domain laws that protect homeowners? I thought *liberals* were the ones who thought the courts were the solution to everything. I guess that changed around the same time as "torture is un-American." Lots of new developments to keep up with, these past 4 years ....

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:11:36 +0000

I guess Pelosi is OK with combining religion and politics then, seeing as her hands are tied because "God has spoken."

By: Wine-aholic

Wine-aholic — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:53:01 +0000

Wow, it's like Billy has known me all my life!

By: billy

billy — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:28:38 +0000

this post is a bunch of nonesense. once again right wingers show they hate america. they hate the court. they hate the people we elect. they hate everything about our democracy. why don you just move to iran you fascists.

By: Wine-aholic

Wine-aholic — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:04:13 +0000

Nancy, you ignorant slut.

I think she needs to take a American Government 101 refresher course... saying that she ever did know how the government functions to begin with. Wow. And Bush is supposed to be the moron?