[geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: "Jonathan C. Patschke" <jp at celestrion.net>
>Date: 2007/10/28 Sun PM 03:11:12 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>>> You mean like using shadow real estate companies to buy land Wal-mart
>>> is forbidden to develop, and then renting it to them and other
>>> tricks, which also frequently results in Wal-Mart not paying normal
>>> taxes to the local area?
>>
>> Wal Mart can't exercise Eminent Domain, local/state/federal
>> governments impose it to bring Wal Mart in - Wal Mart benefits, but I
>> can't blame them for it...
>
>I certainly can.  There are numerous instances where Wal*Mart attempted
>to buy land from the current owners, the owners refused (even at above-
>market prices), so Wal*Mart convinced the local authority of increased
>tax revenues, and the local authority took the land from the owners at
>the tax-assessed price and sold it directly to Wal*Mart at that price.
>
>If a Wal*Mart executive walked up to you, pointed a gun to your head,
>and said "You WILL take X dollars for your property and you WILL sell
>it to me, and I WILL build here," you'd hold it against that guy and the
>company behind him, wouldn't you?  Why is it any different if they get
>the government to hold the gun and make the demands on their behalf?

You and your neighbors voted in the spineless twit politician that caved to Wal-Mart and picked up their gun (in your example), that's a big difference - you could have voted in politicians with spines...

People tend to get the government they deserve here in America, not the government they want.

>This is why the Constitution says "public use".  There has to be a
>really compelling argument to uproot a person from his home or business.
>That the Supreme Court perverted "public use" to "corporate use" based
>solely on tax revenue is sickening.  Just because the Court says it's
>lawful doesn't make it -right-.

Activist Judges are bad, period.

Many decisions the Supreme Court makes are bad, esp. when they look to foreign countries for guidance, rather than oour own documents...

>And before you say that the gun comment is extremist, try saying "no"
>when the government wants your land.  It makes no difference whether the
>land is for a school, a highway, a fire station, or a Super Wal*Mart;
>the local sheriff or his deputy will be there, guns will be drawn, and
>they will "help" and "persuade" you find the means to vacate the
>property.

I didn't say that - and I wouldn't, but you can't diminish the role of the Gov't in that exchange - it can't rest solely on Wal-Mart...

>> Is Wal Mart squeaky-clean? No, of course not, but local/state/federal
>> politicians play thier part as well...
>
>Politicians are corrupt; this is a constant.  Most are little more than
>hitmen and purchased thieves, but you can't just blame them; some of the
>blame has to land on the client, as well.

Agreed - plenty to go around, but it takes both to achieve their result, we can't just focus on one or the other...

Lionel