Uh, yeah but why should the possibility of B make us avoid the possibility of A? (Paladino's use of eminent domain, if he did, has nothing to do with anyone else's use... these laws are already on the books. The hypothetical you're talking about could be used by liberals at any time, with the same likelihood, without paladino ever getting elected or anyone doing anything with "the mosque." - speaking of which, there is a case right now where Chabad is trying to build a large compound in a christian neighborhood and they're being denied!)
Who said anything about avoiding A? I'm speaking about the possibility of B in the context of one person or group applying double standards. I see it happen everywhere, including here. It was a statement basically saying that if you do something to someone, don't b!tch and moan if one day the same is done to you. Okay, you can b!tch and moan all you want but you'll have no leg to stand on.
First of all, who cares if I apply a double standard? Muslims deserve a "double standard" or different standard because they're different, their religion is different (and dangerous), and the Ground zero location is different. So I don't really care what I or anyone else is accused of because I don't really think it's necessary that all standards must be universal as a dogmatic principle. Evil people set on uprooting the republic (or what's left of it) and replacing it with sharia law do not deserve equal treatment and tolerance.
Secondly, see below for why there really is no "double standard" being employed here (even though I don't care if there is).
He's not saying he's going to make eminent domain the latest craze in the govt and use it for hundreds of cases he wants to implement. He's saying he's going to use this exceptional clause for this ONE specific case he intends to implement it for because it is so exceptional and so important. He is not saying he's expanding the rights of govt to use eminent domain where they aren't already able to! I think your comments about this kind of missed the point even though true in theory.
Look, I'm not talking about a single incident happening in New York here. I'm attempting to make a macro point. If we put more and more of our trust in government, we will inevitably be disappointed.
My point in response was that we're not doing that.
Voting for paladino is not a thrashing of libertarian ideals any more than voting for anyone else would be or could be. You haven't really made your point because like I said, regardless of anything Paladino does, the liberals will still employ their doublestandard and they already do so. They don't need "provocation." The chabad example is a strikingly relevant case.
And I don't really think anyone is "b*ing and moaning" except for the chabad people in that location who are trying to get their thing built - what else would they do? Would it make sense for them to go quietly and just throw in the towel? They are pushing their own issue. I'm personally indifferent about it. I don't see any other groups making a big deal about it either.
The truth that you speak of "in theory" was not set out to be a theoretical experiment to study
I never said that it was!
I'm using the words "in theory" because what you say has no relation to the
specific case at hand which is Paladino saying he's going to use eminent domain for this one specific issue. To be specific and clear - He is NOT saying he's going to expand the powers of government!
Topic: Paladino:"As Governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop mosque (Read 2581 times)