Portland's fascist Liberal Government

[clambake]

the point is, you're fighting for a porn shop and I'm fighting for a convenience store that has done nothing wrong according to this article. Porn exploits women and contributes largely to rapes, violent crime, and child molestation.

read the website again and you can clearly see that they acknowledge their business attracts undesirables.

[FromWayDowntown]

the point is, you're fighting for a porn shop and I'm fighting for a convenience store that has done nothing wrong according to this article. Porn exploits women and contributes largely to rapes, violent crime, and child molestation.

Porn is legal, if objectionable to some. Convenience stores are legal, too, even if objectionable to some.

I'm not fighting for a porn shop by any stretch -- I'm testing your argument. If you wouldn't be concerned with government condemning property occupied by a porn shop, then your stance on the government's approach to this business is motivated entirely by your perception about the nature of the business. That is, your argument isn't an objection to this type of governmental action; it's an objection to this type of governmental action in this particular case.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't see any indication that the city was seizing the property.

My reading was merely that they were likely going to revoke the permits that allow the type of business to run there.

It is far easier to simply not renew a liquor license than it is to seize property.

If not renewing a license is "fascism" these days, I think the term is either being mis-used or too diluted to be meaningful.

[2centsworth]

read the website again and you can clearly see that they acknowledge their business attracts undesirables.

The undesirables were already there. Point is do they contributr to making the undesirables more problematic. (Snet from balckberry)

[2centsworth]

Porn is legal, if objectionable to some. Convenience stores are legal, too, even if objectionable to some.

I'm not fighting for a porn shop by any stretch -- I'm testing your argument. If you wouldn't be concerned with government condemning property occupied by a porn shop, then your stance on the government's approach to this business is motivated entirely by your perception about the nature of the business. That is, your argument isn't an objection to this type of governmental action; it's an objection to this type of governmental action in this particular case.

You may want to look in the mirror. You sided (perception) with big brother in this case, but are totally outspoken when it comes to smut. As far as testing my argument, you are comapring apples and oranges. Ikm against porno shops not because of the element it attracts(except in residential areas) because the element already exist.

[FromWayDowntown]

You may want to look in the mirror. You sided (perception) with big brother in this case, but are totally outspoken when it comes to smut. As far as testing my argument, you are comapring apples and oranges. Ikm against porno shops not because of the element it attracts(except in residential areas) because the element already exist.

I'd be interested to see an example of me being outspoken about smut.

And thanks for admitting that your concern isn't for the governmental action but for taking that action against a business like this one. For someone who claims concern for governmental siezures of property, your arguments are certainly idiosyncratic.

And LOL at the suggestion that I'm siding with anyone in this discussion; I don't know enough about this case to take a side. I just know that I'm not the one who's upset at the prospect of Big Brother government seizing property except when that government is seizing properties that are being used for things that I disagree with.

[boutons_]

WC, are seizures of private and commercial properties along the TX border to build The Fence OK with you?

There was a judicial ruling in the last few days saying it was OK.

[2centsworth]

I'd be interested to see an example of me being outspoken about smut.

Instead of talking about what you admittedly said was an authoritarian action, you shifted the focus to how conservatives would be outraged if this was a porno shop. First, I don't see how a porno shop and convenience store can be compared, but somehow you're trying to make the comparison. This is what I interpet as being outspoken about smut.

And thanks for admitting that your concern isn't for the governmental action but for taking that action against a business like this one.

I am absolutely concerned about governmental seizure with the absence of some type of ordience granting the goveronment express authority to do sol

For someone who claims concern for governmental siezures of property, your arguments are certainly idiosyncratic.

no, I prefer letter of the law rulings.

And LOL at the suggestion that I'm siding with anyone in this discussion; I don't know enough about this case to take a side. I just know that I'm not the one who's upset at the prospect of Big Brother government seizing property except when that government is seizing properties that are being used for things that I disagree with.

this distorts my position. You interjecting Porno where vicitims of child abuse who are now adults have people defecating on them in the name of profit for the porno peddler is where I draw the line. You couldn't use liquor store or casino as an example? Instead, you are set on equivacating a covenience store to rapist, child molestors, and wife beaters. So yes, I take a stand against that type of business and you don't.

[xrayzebra]

Good gosh WC, everyone knows that Mother knows best.
I mean even the Supremes say Mother can take your property because she needs the money. Heck, it is only you home/livelyhood. Even if it is legal.

Boy you expect a lot.

[FromWayDowntown]

Instead of talking about what you admittedly said was an authoritarian action, you shifted the focus to how conservatives would be outraged if this was a porno shop. First, I don't see how a porno shop and convenience store can be compared, but somehow you're trying to make the comparison. This is what I interpet as being outspoken about smut.

They're both legal businesses. One is something that you agree with; the other is something that you don't. Hence the basis for the comparison. It wouldn't be much of a comparison if my examples were two businesses that you're completely comfortable with -- would it?

I am absolutely concerned about governmental seizure with the absence of some type of ordience granting the goveronment express authority to do sol

How about cons utional authority for seizing property? If there's cons utional authority for the taking, regardless of the nature of the business, are you concerned?

no, I prefer letter of the law rulings.

How would seizure in this case violate the letter of the law? The letter of the law says that a local government can seize property for public purposes if it reasonably compensates the owner for the seizure. I'm not sure I'm seeing where the violation comes from, other than your philosophical disagreement with the acting body.

this distorts my position. You interjecting Porno where vicitims of child abuse who are now adults have people defecating on them in the name of profit for the porno peddler is where I draw the line. You couldn't use liquor store or casino as an example? Instead, you are set on equivacating a covenience store to rapist, child molestors, and wife beaters. So yes, I take a stand against that type of business and you don't.

Again, why use an example that makes things easy on you? The point of my involvement in this discussion is to demonstrate that your position depends entirely on the subject of the government's action and not on the fact of the government's action. A business that complies with all existing state and local laws, but happens to sell pornography (again, a legal enterprise) is functionally no different than a convenience store if the concern is government acting to seize private property. If your concern was just the action of the government, it wouldn't matter what the nature of the business was -- you'd find the action in seizing the property to be objectionable. But by admitting that you'd be okay with the government closing down a legal porn shop while objecting to the seizure of a convenience store, you've demonstrated that your objection isn't to the action itself, but to the target of the action. That makes your position idiosyncratic. That's fine, but just admit to it. Just admit that your discomfort stems from the ideology of the acting government.

My position on the relative merits of convenience stores and porn shops is irrelevant to that discussion.

I'll say that given what I know of the story, I don't have any quarrel with the local government acting in conformity with its grants of cons utional power. If there's something else afoot -- if this is just a question of pressuring a business to close or move, I'd question the government's justification for undertaking that action; and my argument would be the same whether it was a convenience store or a porn shop, since I think perfectly legal businesses should be allowed to operate without being pressured out of business by government.

[xrayzebra]

WC, are seizures of private and commercial properties along the TX border to build The Fence OK with you?

There was a judicial ruling in the last few days saying it was OK.

It's okay with me. It is for the good of the country. And not increased taxes for the State.
Was seizing property for increase taxes okay with you.

[Wild Cobra]

But Portland is a paradise, no?

It used to be, about 20 years ago. Before the lib s and demonrats took it over.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know what's worse. The protesters at Schumacher Fur's or the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act". Looks like Protester = Terrorist these days?

That's exactly what they were. A form of terrorists. They terrorized the costomers, there is video evidence, the police watched and took no action. Public complaints about the lack of action, but the three or more groups of activists had lawyers behind them. The city lost big last time they took actions against protesters. Now the city just sits back and watches, only concerned of real violence. The city aided the destruction of a family owned business by doing nothing. Worse than that, they failed to uphold the laws and rights of the Schumacher's.

[Wild Cobra]

perhaps it's the kind of character that this establishment tends to attract. just cleaning up an eye sore.

big brother is an over-the-top label.

That's just it. It's not the business attracting the low life s in the area. It's the last stop of the public transportation in the "fare free zone" and this is a 24 hr. business. People complain about the problems with public transportation, and this becomes a city solution. It's not going to help one bit. The City can say they did something though.

My God man. It's a convenience store. Their cliental are from the nearby hotels at night. There would likely be more trouble in this part of town if someone wasn't open!

[ElNono]

That's exactly what they were. A form of terrorists. They terrorized the costomers, there is video evidence, the police watched and took no action. Public complaints about the lack of action, but the three or more groups of activists had lawyers behind them. The city lost big last time they took actions against protesters. Now the city just sits back and watches, only concerned of real violence. The city aided the destruction of a family owned business by doing nothing. Worse than that, they failed to uphold the laws and rights of the Schumacher's.

Either you're utterly exaggerating, or you really don't know what a terrorist is.
Whatever the activists did, I'm sure broke no law, otherwise, with video evidence and all, they could have gotten a restraining order from a judge in no time. I mean, this wasn't an overnight thing. It went on for a year.
And the Schumacher's don't need to wait for the city. They can seek justice themselves.
I gather these days they're suing the city, and not the protesters?

[Wild Cobra]

That might be authoritarian, but it's not fascist. All fascists are authoritarian, but not all authoritarian are fascists.

You are right. I'll tell you what. You get the others here to stop using improper terminology to describe someone and I will to.

Funny how you will do it to, let others do it, and only point it out when a conservative says something against demonrats...

[Wild Cobra]

Either you're utterly exaggerating, or you really don't know what a terrorist is.
Whatever the activists did, I'm sure broke no law, otherwise, with video evidence and all, they could have gotten a restraining order from a judge in no time. I mean, this wasn't an overnight thing. It went on for a year.
And the Schumacher's don't need to wait for the city. They can seek justice themselves.
I gather these days they're suing the city, and not the protesters?

That's just it. They actually did break laws. They were given free passes because of fear.

They did us fear. They did terrorize costomers. It's not terrorism like international terorists use, but terror is their tool. Death threats and arsons have occured, but of course, no witnesses. This is undisputed and do entd fact in the area. There is even an FBI investigation against the city because of this. Looks like it's getting sweapt under the rug.

This was not the point of the tread. I am not up to the current info on the subject. This is an old story now.

[Wild Cobra]

You may want to look in the mirror. You sided (perception) with big brother in this case, but are totally outspoken when it comes to smut. As far as testing my argument, you are comapring apples and oranges. Ikm against porno shops not because of the element it attracts(except in residential areas) because the element already exist.

Funny. It was once said that Portland has more porn shops and strip clubs than any other place in the USA per capita. I believe this. Lat I looked, we had more than 50 strip clubs alone. People constantly complain about them, but the only thing that ever happens is if the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) finds them serving a minor. Funny though, they do stings in regular daytime bars, but not the strip clubs.

[ElNono]

That's just it. They actually did break laws. They were given free passes because of fear.

They did us fear. They did terrorize costomers. It's not terrorism like international terorists use, but terror is their tool. Death threats and arsons have occured, but of course, no witnesses. This is undisputed and do entd fact in the area. There is even an FBI investigation against the city because of this. Looks like it's getting sweapt under the rug.

This was not the point of the tread. I am not up to the current info on the subject. This is an old story now.

For the record, I actually dislike the intolerant protesters.

[FromWayDowntown]

You are right. I'll tell you what. You get the others here to stop using improper terminology to describe someone and I will to.

Funny how you will do it to, let others do it, and only point it out when a conservative says something against demonrats...

Yeah, I'd be very interested in seeing any example of my misusing terminology in the manner that you have with your repeated use of the word "fascist" in this forum.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is a link concerning Schumacher's. Check out the .mov links to the left.

Schumacher's Press Release

added:

Funny how Peterson's is at 10th and Morrison, and Schumacher's was at 9th and Morrison.

[Wild Cobra]

perhaps it's the kind of character that this establishment tends to attract.

If anything, they do what they can to keep the beggers out of their doorway. If anyone is complaining about the business, it's them.

read the website again and you can clearly see that they acknowledge their business attracts undesirables.

It does not say that at all.

Where did you learn to read?

[RandomGuy]

[the city of Portland]failed to uphold the laws and rights of the Schumacher's.

... and what rights/laws exactly did the city fail to uphold?

[RandomGuy]

For the record, I actually dislike the intolerant protesters.

...ask him about the tactics of abortion rights protesters...

[Extra Stout]

Why is it that liberal cities like Portland and Austin consistantly end up on lists of "good places to live"?

Yet conservative places like Dallas and Houston, don't?

Well, primarily because the people who define what makes a "good place to live" do so based upon things white liberals like. There is some self-selection against "conservative" cities like Dallas and Houston (btw, the central cities lean liberal).

There are a lot of liberal cities that aren't considered "good places to live." These include places where liberals actually have to live around nonwhites who aren't wealthy Asians or doctors. Tolerance for the liberal works better as an abstract concept used to buttress one's sense of self-righteousness than as an actual way of life.

Liberals love to use Portland as an example of how liberal ideas like "smart growth" can lead to an affluent, comfortable, vibrant, yet sustainable city. This works by parading "smart growth" as it looks on PowerPoint slides, and ignoring that the actual implementation in Portland failed miserably.

Liberals also like to use Austin, since it has lots of things that appeal to left-wing hipsters, and because ten years ago it had a vibrant economy. In reality, the city today is an infrastructure mess.

So, congratulations for once again fulfilling the stereotype of the self-righteous liberal dilettante subs uting conventional wisdom for facts. Enjoy your latte.