• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FDR's Greatist Blunder

FDR's Greatest Mistakes


  • Total voters
    49
It would be nice it if could work out that way. However, some people are like that guy in the movie UP.

Those cases are rare and it is easy to avoid one house like that. Besides, he might be more keen on moving when he sees his neighborhood destoyed.
 
Those cases are rare and it is easy to avoid one house like that. Besides, he might be more keen on moving when he sees his neighborhood destoyed.

True, but most projects wont start until they are sure about the availability of the land.
 
They indeed did use eminent domain, but for the simple reason that they had purchased all of the available land in the area and had extended the airport to the back door of the neighborhoods. Now most of the eminent domain land is vacant and was simply purchased to allow the residents to move away from the noise and prevent the loss of their property value due to having warehouses and fly-overs in the near vicinity.

So they were forced to leave their property so that they could leave their property for their own benefit. Lol, that's a quirky explanation. They knew what was coming, they could have moved if they wanted to. I can understand the government compensating these people since they wouldn't have been able to leave without losing a ton of money, but forcing them to leave? I can't justify that.
 
True, but most projects wont start until they are sure about the availability of the land.

Then maybe these projects should be planned better beforehand to avoid problems like grumpy old men.
 
Then maybe these projects should be planned better beforehand to avoid problems like grumpy old men.

I think where possible they should. So I agree in principal.
 
So they were forced to leave their property so that they could leave their property for their own benefit. Lol, that's a quirky explanation. They knew what was coming, they could have moved if they wanted to. I can understand the government compensating these people since they wouldn't have been able to leave without losing a ton of money, but forcing them to leave? I can't justify that.

They were not "forced," there are those who still live in the areas. Lone houses that did not want to move. But they will not get the same deal the others got in the beginning if they should now choose to move. They will only receive market value.
 
They were not "forced," there are those who still live in the areas. Lone houses that did not want to move. But they will not get the same deal the others got in the beginning if they should now choose to move. They will only receive market value.

Then that's not an example of eminent domain. Eminent domain is when the government forces someone to leave and pays them what they consider fair. It's a lopsided deal. However, what you described just sounds like fair compensation. It seems like a plan I would have supported. In effect it was like paying for the noise pollution.
 
Then that's not an example of eminent domain. Eminent domain is when the government forces someone to leave and pays them what they consider fair. It's a lopsided deal. However, what you described just sounds like fair compensation. It seems like a plan I would have supported. In effect it was like paying for the noise pollution.

I am aware of what eminent domain is and the thing is that these people "will" eventually be forced to move, the hold-outs I mean, but the way the government and company went about it, I feel was a very fair process.
 
I am aware of what eminent domain is and the thing is that these people "will" eventually be forced to move, the hold-outs I mean, but the way the government and company went about it, I feel was a very fair process.

I don't see how they would be forced to move if the government isn't actively forcing them to move. They are being given money, but not forced to leave as far as I can see.
 
These remaining residents are on the edges of the properties and UPS has not yet had use for it. But they are ever building new warehouses and when they do reach the areas where these people are, they will be forced out.
 
These remaining residents are on the edges of the properties and UPS has not yet had use for it. But they are ever building new warehouses and when they do reach the areas where these people are, they will be forced out.

I see then, well it's that which I don't agree with. They should just be able to get people to leave with an offer (voluntarily) or they should find a new place to build the warehouse.
 
I see then, well it's that which I don't agree with. They should just be able to get people to leave with an offer (voluntarily) or they should find a new place to build the warehouse.

I can see both sides of this argument but in the end I suppose it all comes down to the rights of the individual versus the people as a whole, which supercedes? I admit I do not know the answer.
 
Does the possibility exist that your hatred for FDR is even greater than than your hatred of Barack Obama, RonPaulVoter???
I'll give you an "A" for the quantity of lies and a "F" for twisting the truth, so obvious that not even I am falling for it.
And, of course, no "vote".
 
I can see both sides of this argument but in the end I suppose it all comes down to the rights of the individual versus the people as a whole, which supercedes? I admit I do not know the answer.

The people as a whole have no right to the land that the individual owns. If the people want control, then the people can buy it from the individual.
 
The people as a whole have no right to the land that the individual owns. If the people want control, then the people can buy it from the individual.

I would agree if an "individual" ever truly owned land. In my opinion, as long as there is a property tax on land and vehicles, we merely rent from the government.
 
I would agree if an "individual" ever truly owned land. In my opinion, as long as there is a property tax on land and vehicles, we merely rent from the government.

That's the way it seems like since we allow ourselves to be subject to zoning laws, property taxes, eminent domain, etc. We have allowed the government to infringe on our property rights.

But then you get into a discussion of the role of government in people's lives which is a little beyond the scope of this discussion.
 
Then maybe these projects should be planned better beforehand to avoid problems like grumpy old men.

Here I agree.
Even today there is an abyss between the people and the governments.
Many in government are poor communicators and have a bad attitude.
But far too many people will not participate in government, nor even vote.
They just care about themselves and have no interest in the welfare of their area nor state..
Quite the problem..
 
What do you consider FDR's gravest mistakes?

Poll is multiple choice. Vote for all that apply.

his greatest hurt inflicted on this nation was creating a lapdog judiciary that allowed him and his party to completely disregard the limited nature of a federal government intended by the founders. He is most responsible for the out of control government and massive taxes and deficits we have today
 
his greatest hurt inflicted on this nation was creating a lapdog judiciary that allowed him and his party to completely disregard the limited nature of a federal government intended by the founders. He is most responsible for the out of control government and massive taxes and deficits we have today

I disagree, I think Obama is responsible.
 
You should have split up the 1st choice, because taking peoples gold was a bad move and devaluing the currency was an excellent move.
 
his greatest hurt inflicted on this nation was creating a lapdog judiciary that allowed him and his party to completely disregard the limited nature of a federal government intended by the founders. He is most responsible for the out of control government and massive taxes and deficits we have today

He was pushing back, ironically, against Activist Judges who were denying his laws due to a nebulous and unfounded "Right to Contract" they found in the ninth amendment.
 
The people as a whole have no right to the land that the individual owns. If the people want control, then the people can buy it from the individual.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

The bill of rights disagrees with you, buddy.
 
Define just compensation. I've pointed out that market value is not just compensation since the property owner values his home more than market value minus the hassle of moving.
 
Back
Top Bottom