Comments on: Flight 93 Memorial Victimizes Property Owners

By: Kelse Jacskon

Kelse Jacskon — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:02:35 +0000

I’m doing an argument paper over eminent domain (I’m against it). I would love anyone to contact me if they were a victim of it or have any suggestions for research I could use. Thanks.
Email: juicygirl4056@gmail.com

By: Lynn S

Lynn S — Sat, 30 May 2009 16:56:30 +0000

I understand the loss of life that day was very hard for everyone. But do we need over 2000 acres to remember it???? did they not die for to protect the core right to freedom. Seems the Park Service, the Govt. and ther abuse of emminent domain forgets the basic rights of the land owners. Again why such a large area??

By: Marie

Marie — Sat, 30 May 2009 04:10:24 +0000

It is so obvious to me that the reason the government is taking such a large area of land is so that people will not have access to the area where these planes crashed and possibly find something they don’t want to be found. I’m usually not one for conspiracy theories, but come on. Why else would they need such an incredibly big area for a memorial???

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 29 May 2009 01:14:26 +0000

Funny how none of these property heirs gave a second thought about inheriting stolen native american lands. Karma is a bitch

By: Hillbilly Deluxe

Hillbilly Deluxe — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:42:06 +0000

2200 acres is 3.4375 square miles. Why is such a large area needed?

By: hihihi

hihihi — Wed, 13 May 2009 21:31:45 +0000

Evil rich you are so off base. Protecting private rights is both conservative and libertarian. The only liberal part about being libertarian is protecting civil liberties.

By: Copyleft

Copyleft — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:40:52 +0000

“Crap”–Nope, no conundrum for liberals and Democrats at all. She had a personal opinion–a profoundly silly and ignorant one, but that’s her right. And this was hardly an intellectual quiz-bowl setting to begin with.

If you’re hoping this is some sort of “setback” for the cause of equal rights, you’re really kidding yourself. Of course, that IS a specialty of the rabid right these days… (chuckle)

By: Mrs. Norris

Mrs. Norris — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:22:29 +0000

Please forgive my atrocious spelling and typos. My fur is still in a twist.

Redneck,
You are not funny and please don’t pretend to speak for the Libertarian party, as you know very little about it.

By: Mrs. Norris

Mrs. Norris — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:27:37 +0000

First let me state roads, railroads and even lake Lanier are vital to the general populace. A 2,200 acre monument is not. Keep in mind the twin-tower monument is not 2,200 acres. If you can’t see the difference, the I want waste my time trying to show it to you. I suspect there is coal in those fields.

Any, in regards to Ms. Prejean what gets my fur in a twist is she was asked what her opinion is. If you don’t want to know the answer, don’t ask the question. Hissssss!

By: Redneck Convert

Redneck Convert — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:20:26 +0000

Well, I say property is more important than people. We got everything backward in this country. A person ought to be able to hold onto land even after he’s dead. Heck with what other people want to do with it. If the owner don’t say OK then the place ain’t for sale. Period.

Unless you’re like the people in Buckhead that kept holding out when the state wanted to run GA 400 thru there. They sued and sued. I had a buddy that owned a place there and he decided it was OK to sell when the guvmint offered him $700,000. For a shack that a bulldozer could knock down in 10 seconds.

Property. It’s what us Libraritarians value. People? Not so much.