China completes Three Gorges Dam

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: cruzer
Interesting article:

China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam.

What would happen if a million American citizens were ordered to move because of a new dam? Would it still be built?

Um wasn't it only a few months ago that the House approved that the government can take over private property under eminent domain use laws and give the property to private commercial developers?

Yep.

Uh, I thought it was the Supreme Court's intrepetation (not House bill) and also, the state have the "right" to pass laws prohibiting such behavior in their states if they wish (and they should).

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: cruzer
Interesting article:

China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam.

What would happen if a million American citizens were ordered to move because of a new dam? Would it still be built?

Um wasn't it only a few months ago that the House approved that the government can take over private property under eminent domain use laws and give the property to private commercial developers?

Yep.

Nope. It was the Supreme Court.

I read that the dam won't be completely operational until 2009.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: techs
2.5 billion UNDER budget? A year AHEAD of schedule?
I guess they didn't use Halliburton.

China uses coal for about 80 percent of its electrical power so the dam will not affect the oil market, unfortunately.

However, it is a huge accomplishment and if it has an effect on China like the Hoover Dam did on the west coast of the US then the Chinese economy is going to go BOOM (if thats possible considering its already going BOOM)

Did I forget to mention the US has just pissed away a TRILLION dollars on a fiasco in Iraq?

Plan for a New American Century? Looks like a Plan for the Chinese Century.

The U.S. Sheeple have been well brainwashed into adjusting to no longer being the powerhouse of the world.

The sellout is complete.

Are you commenting on what Techs posted or the article?

Actually it's both wrapped in one.

You're apparently new to P&N to understand and most likely to well brainwashed by the current Administration to comprehend, I'm sorry for you but welcome to P&N anyway.

Ok, I'm glad it was just was my inability to comprehend and not another one of your trollings rants or headlines. I was worried about you for a second. Keep up the good work, I'll just read misleading or out-of-context snippits of the articles you post so I can see the truth.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Wheezer

2.5 billion UNDER budget? A year AHEAD of schedule?
I guess they didn't use Halliburton.

you are correct, a great majority of it was slave labor from prisons.

Perhaps maybe that's what we should do to rebuild NO.

I've also heard the dam has begun to crack in various areas because of cheap materials.

Signed: Overpriced builders of Boston's big dig.

Paid price doesn't always mean good materials. At least they came in under budget instead of billions over (like most US companies working for the US government do)!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Wheezer

2.5 billion UNDER budget? A year AHEAD of schedule?
I guess they didn't use Halliburton.

you are correct, a great majority of it was slave labor from prisons.

Perhaps maybe that's what we should do to rebuild NO.

I've also heard the dam has begun to crack in various areas because of cheap materials.

Signed: Overpriced builders of Boston's big dig.

Paid price doesn't always mean good materials. At least they came in under budget instead of billions over (like most US companies working for the US government do)!

We'll have to wait and see if they actually got a bargain for that price or not as the resivoir fills.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: tw1164
Here's what AZ offers:

AZ prison products

Great list.

- Data processing furniture
- Forms
- Lantern hangers
- Stickers
- Services

Just yesterday, I was searching high & low for a lantern hanger. Certainly worthy of the multi-billion dollar prison budget.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Wheezer

2.5 billion UNDER budget? A year AHEAD of schedule?
I guess they didn't use Halliburton.

you are correct, a great majority of it was slave labor from prisons.

Perhaps maybe that's what we should do to rebuild NO.

I've also heard the dam has begun to crack in various areas because of cheap materials.

Thats why they brought in the top Expert on Dams in the United states and they had stopped construction earlier in the project due to what appeared to be cracks in the dam.

The Expert after examining the so called cracks told them that all dams have what appears to be superficial cracks.

I saw a documentary on the discoverie channel very interesting!!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Cheney's Energy Task Force advocated the taking of private property for transmission lines.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone

Originally posted by: tw1164
Here's what AZ offers:

AZ prison products

Great list.

- Data processing furniture
- Forms
- Lantern hangers
- Stickers
- Services

Just yesterday, I was searching high & low for a lantern hanger. Certainly worthy of the multi-billion dollar prison budget.

Hate to dissapoint, but there are more people in the US than you. There are some people who would buy things that you & I would never consider, not only that, but it is not the only end product that is important, it is called rehabilitation.

See the people who are partaking in this are learning more than how to build something YOU would never buy:

1- a skill that can be ported to thier life on the outside should they get out

2- pride in doing something well. That helps builds self confidence which will help them later.

3-It gives them something to look forward to everyday, and keeps them from getting into trouble while in prison

But I am sure you considered all that before you posted.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: cruzer
Interesting article:

China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam.

What would happen if a million American citizens were ordered to move because of a new dam? Would it still be built?

Um wasn't it only a few months ago that the House approved that the government can take over private property under eminent domain use laws and give the property to private commercial developers?

Yep.

Uh, I thought it was the Supreme Court's intrepetation (not House bill) and also, the state have the "right" to pass laws prohibiting such behavior in their states if they wish (and they should).

That's right, i remember now. But are you sure the states can prohibit such behavior? According to my understanding of law, it's a hierarchical system. At the very top of the pyramid, is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any laws below that in the federal or state level that violate either of those, would be void. And eminent domain is in the constitution.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: cruzer
Interesting article:

China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam.

What would happen if a million American citizens were ordered to move because of a new dam? Would it still be built?

Um wasn't it only a few months ago that the House approved that the government can take over private property under eminent domain use laws and give the property to private commercial developers?

Yep.

Uh, I thought it was the Supreme Court's intrepetation (not House bill) and also, the state have the "right" to pass laws prohibiting such behavior in their states if they wish (and they should).

That's right, i remember now. But are you sure the states can prohibit such behavior? According to my understanding of law, it's a hierarchical system. At the very top of the pyramid, is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any laws below that in the federal or state level that violate either of those, would be void. And eminent domain is in the constitution.

Alabama's legislature was in session when the rulling came down. They immediately drafted and PASSED a bill on the very subject. The Supreme Court even mentioned that there was nothing that kept the individual states from passing a law for that very reason (Alabama did). I know 16 states had it on the books as a bill but not sure how many passed. My local rep. from Kentucky told me that Ky's bill was very strong but he was lobbying the DC reps to pass a federal version. He said NOBODY was taking his private land for other private parties gain.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: cruzer
Interesting article:

China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam.

What would happen if a million American citizens were ordered to move because of a new dam? Would it still be built?

Um wasn't it only a few months ago that the House approved that the government can take over private property under eminent domain use laws and give the property to private commercial developers?

Yep.

Uh, I thought it was the Supreme Court's intrepetation (not House bill) and also, the state have the "right" to pass laws prohibiting such behavior in their states if they wish (and they should).

That's right, i remember now. But are you sure the states can prohibit such behavior? According to my understanding of law, it's a hierarchical system. At the very top of the pyramid, is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any laws below that in the federal or state level that violate either of those, would be void. And eminent domain is in the constitution.

Alabama's legislature was in session when the rulling came down. They immediately drafted and PASSED a bill on the very subject. The Supreme Court even mentioned that there was nothing that kept the individual states from passing a law for that very reason (Alabama did). I know 16 states had it on the books as a bill but not sure how many passed. My local rep. from Kentucky told me that Ky's bill was very strong but he was lobbying the DC reps to pass a federal version. He said NOBODY was taking his private land for other private parties gain.

They can pass the bill, but it doesn't mean it will hold up when it's contested. The Constitution is the 'Supreme Law of the Land'.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: tommywishbone

Originally posted by: tw1164
Here's what AZ offers:

AZ prison products

Great list.

- Data processing furniture
- Forms
- Lantern hangers
- Stickers
- Services

Just yesterday, I was searching high & low for a lantern hanger. Certainly worthy of the multi-billion dollar prison budget.

Hate to dissapoint, but there are more people in the US than you. There are some people who would buy things that you & I would never consider, not only that, but it is not the only end product that is important, it is called rehabilitation.

See the people who are partaking in this are learning more than how to build something YOU would never buy:

1- a skill that can be ported to thier life on the outside should they get out

2- pride in doing something well. That helps builds self confidence which will help them later.

3-It gives them something to look forward to everyday, and keeps them from getting into trouble while in prison

But I am sure you considered all that before you posted.

Thank you for your mildly condescending, somewhat sanctimonious, overview of the the Arizona penal-industrial complex. I shall consider your enlightening words the next time I attempt to introduce a bit of levity into the world of Arizona prison manufacturing.

One more thing... the idea of rehabilitation is long gone from the US criminal justice system. Prison is for punishment, nothing more.

Edit: I almost forgot; Arizona prison lantern hangers are evidently the finest in the world.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: cruzer
Interesting article:

China's 15-year lesson in how not to build a dam.

What would happen if a million American citizens were ordered to move because of a new dam? Would it still be built?

Um wasn't it only a few months ago that the House approved that the government can take over private property under eminent domain use laws and give the property to private commercial developers?

Yep.

Uh, I thought it was the Supreme Court's intrepetation (not House bill) and also, the state have the "right" to pass laws prohibiting such behavior in their states if they wish (and they should).

That's right, i remember now. But are you sure the states can prohibit such behavior? According to my understanding of law, it's a hierarchical system. At the very top of the pyramid, is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any laws below that in the federal or state level that violate either of those, would be void. And eminent domain is in the constitution.

Alabama's legislature was in session when the rulling came down. They immediately drafted and PASSED a bill on the very subject. The Supreme Court even mentioned that there was nothing that kept the individual states from passing a law for that very reason (Alabama did). I know 16 states had it on the books as a bill but not sure how many passed. My local rep. from Kentucky told me that Ky's bill was very strong but he was lobbying the DC reps to pass a federal version. He said NOBODY was taking his private land for other private parties gain.

They can pass the bill, but it doesn't mean it will hold up when it's contested. The Constitution is the 'Supreme Law of the Land'.

I understand that, but the Supreme court specifically stated after the ruling that there was nothing wrong with a state passing a law for such protection. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would make such a statement that would be against the Constitution, do you?

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I understand that, but the Supreme court specifically stated after the ruling that there was nothing wrong with a state passing a law for such protection. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would make such a statement that would be against the Constitution, do you?

I don't know, i haven't actually heard that. But i never knew the Supreme Court had the power to give waivers like that.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer
I understand that, but the Supreme court specifically stated after the ruling that there was nothing wrong with a state passing a law for such protection. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would make such a statement that would be against the Constitution, do you?

I don't know, i haven't actually heard that. But i never knew the Supreme Court had the power to give waivers like that.

Well, they are the ones intrepretating the Constitution and whether a law abides by it or not, so I would assume that's they are intrepating that it would be OK for a law. Nobody has challenged Alabama's law.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer
I understand that, but the Supreme court specifically stated after the ruling that there was nothing wrong with a state passing a law for such protection. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would make such a statement that would be against the Constitution, do you?

I don't know, i haven't actually heard that. But i never knew the Supreme Court had the power to give waivers like that.

Why couldn't the state decided not to use one of it powers.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer
I understand that, but the Supreme court specifically stated after the ruling that there was nothing wrong with a state passing a law for such protection. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would make such a statement that would be against the Constitution, do you?

I don't know, i haven't actually heard that. But i never knew the Supreme Court had the power to give waivers like that.

Well, they are the ones intrepretating the Constitution and whether a law abides by it or not, so I would assume that's they are intrepating that it would be OK for a law. Nobody has challenged Alabama's law.

No body can challeng the Alabama law because the law only applies to the state. The state can't sue it self.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Engineer
I understand that, but the Supreme court specifically stated after the ruling that there was nothing wrong with a state passing a law for such protection. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS would make such a statement that would be against the Constitution, do you?

I don't know, i haven't actually heard that. But i never knew the Supreme Court had the power to give waivers like that.

Why couldn't the state decided not to use one of it powers.

Because like i said, the law works in a hierarchical system. At the top is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That governs the ENTIRE COUNTRY. No laws or contracts can contradict it, otherwise it's void. Below that are the Federal and State laws... and no municipal or city legislations can contradict either the federal, state, constitution, or bill of rights. Then you have things like contracts, and the individuals can make up any 'rules' they want, but they can't contradict the local laws, state and federal laws, constitution and bill of rights.