This makes me sick.

lol, i say we have a rsbandb protest!!!!, and then spread it around the internet!!!!!!! and make anti new law banners!!!!!! muahhahaha!!!!!

nice song u made lol

la revolucion!

lol revolution for what?, were not guanna try starting a new country or nething (or are we? lol )

yeah that would be cool. i vote pika to be our new dictator hell yeah

hmmmmmm, well a new governement doesnt mean nething, exept different ppl, what u guys want is a new system of governent, the problem is that there is no better government type than democracy, a dictatorship or monarchy wouldent work, neather would a oligarchy, the only way to fix the government is to make it so it all wouldent work ithout one branch, like the public doesnt like the laws, they wont work or fight for the country, then the government would be forced to change the law, but still, nothing is perfect, including the government

hye napoliean was a dictator and he didn' thave mass murders. he just made very very very bad decisions

I first heard of this on the radio. I wasn't listening very close, so I thought I must have heard wrong. The government can use eminent domain to sieze property for non-public use? No way.

Then I read this post. At first I thought maybe Pika was just over-reacting to sensationalized news, so I went and did some research. Guess what?

Big Brother is here. Now. What's yours is not really yours anymore, if Big Business wants it.

From CNN.com:

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

This ruling was passed by a 5-4 vote - a slim margin, but that's all it takes. So you suggest that we vote to change our leadership? Good luck. Money has corrupted our political system so deeply that it is virtually impossible for a person who is not a millionaire to even consider running for high political offices. In fact, it seems money is more important than actual leadership skills. (Remember Gov. Jesse Ventura?) And as far as I'm concerned, if you're a rich politician, you don't have my interests in mind - you are interested in protecting your money. And that means protecting Big Business.

I have been voting in presidential elections since 1988, and I have never been presented with a presidential candidate that I really like. I simply vote for the politician who I feel will do the least damage. That's pretty sad.

Oh, one more thing - this decision about eminent domain was voted on by Supreme Court Justices, not citizens. If you want to replace them, you have to wait until they die or retire. Then, the President & Congress decide who will replace them - not you & me. And guess what? As long as Big Business has the President & Congress in their pockets, they will be sure that the Justices they appoint will play nice with Big Business, too. So even if we kick out all the current politicians and replace them with regular people at the next election, it could take another generation to really see some change.

Sorry, but money makes the world go 'round - not love, or peace, or common sense.