Ground Zero Suggestion

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.

Over 20 Iraqis are killed a day. This comes out to 7,000 to 10,000 dead
Iraqi citizens per year. These people deserve a memorial for their
sacrifice. A memorial should also be built at the WRC. It can be christened
by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with bags of money instead of champagne;
champagne is French you know, can't go there.

A state of the art day care facility should be included to care for the
orphans that have lost parents thanks to the war. It's for Americans to step
up and do the right thing. Support the WRC.

 

[Douglas]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

Psychos like this that need to have their friggen heads examined...



"Freedom Fries" <BushWasResponsible@9/11.com> wrote in message
news:42ccc066_1@x-privat.org...
> It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write
> their
> representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
> zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that
> merges
> a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write
> your
> congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
> to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq
> from
> the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
>
> Over 20 Iraqis are killed a day. This comes out to 7,000 to 10,000 dead
> Iraqi citizens per year. These people deserve a memorial for their
> sacrifice. A memorial should also be built at the WRC. It can be
> christened
> by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with bags of money instead of champagne;
> champagne is French you know, can't go there.
>
> A state of the art day care facility should be included to care for the
> orphans that have lost parents thanks to the war. It's for Americans to
> step
> up and do the right thing. Support the WRC.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Douglas" <doug@anon.com> wrote in message
news:IY4ze.6488$Gv3.2597@trnddc02...
> Psychos like this that need to have their friggen heads examined...

Examined, beat in with a sledgehammer, whatever...

LG
--
The conditions of conquest are always easy. We have but to toil awhile,
endure awhile, believe always, and never turn back. - Marcus Annaeus Seneca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote

> > It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
> > representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
> > zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
> > a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
> > congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
> > to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
> > the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
>
> dumbass, the WTC site isn't owned by the U.S. Government.

dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.

--Tedward

 

[spike]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 01:41:52 -0400, "Freedom Fries"
<BushWasResponsible@9/11.com> wrote:

> It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
>representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
>zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
>a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
>congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
>to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
>the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.

It's already been done. We call it "Houston".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Freedom Fries" <BushWasResponsible@9/11.com> wrote:

>It's time for Americans to take out some paper and
>a pen and write their representatives to congress.

No, that solves nothing. It's time for Americans to take up arms again.

---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
Scientology crooks: http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://PerkinsTragedy.org http://www.rightard.org/
End Republican race hatred: http://www.thedarkwind.org/

 

[justforfun]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

>"lein" <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com> wrote
>
>> > It's time for Americans to take out some paper and a pen and write their
>> > representatives to congress. Much has been made of what to do at ground
>> > zero. Rebuild the originals even higher? Go with a modern design that merges
>> > a skyscraper and Eiffel Tower? Neither of these are appropriate. Write your
>> > congressmen and demand that at ground zero they build high rise apartments
>> > to house refugees and those that have had their homes destroyed in Iraq from
>> > the illegal war. Demand that the World Refugee Center be built.
>>
>> dumbass, the WTC site isn't owned by the U.S. Government.
>
>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.

True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
<justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>
>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?

As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
say?

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek@yahoo.com> writes:

> Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> > <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>
> > As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> > say?
>
> Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."

May I introduce you to the Ninth Amendment?

--
"Perl is worse than Python because people wanted it worse."
-- Larry Wall

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On 11 Jul 2005 12:39:52 -0700, "Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Rob Browning wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>> <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>
>> As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>> say?
>
>Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."

Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people. It also
noted several areas of the constitution that support a right to
privacy (I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have such a
guaranteed right under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, among others),
which includes the qualified right for a pregnant woman to keep a
matter between her fetus and herself private.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope" <titanic@marcocable.com> writes:

> Rob Browning wrote:
> > On 11 Jul 2005 12:39:52 -0700, "Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rob Browning wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> > >> <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
> > >
> > >> As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> > >> say?
> > >
> > >Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
> >
> > Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
> > only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
> > and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people. It also
> > noted several areas of the constitution that support a right to
> > privacy (I don't think anyone would argue that we don't have such a
> > guaranteed right under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, among others),
> > which includes the qualified right for a pregnant woman to keep a
> > matter between her fetus and herself private.
>
>
>
>
> > "Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
> > only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
> > and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people."
>
>
>
> And THIS STATEMENT is where the problem lies.
>
>
> IN THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT, a fetus is NOT a person. But JUSTICES are
> NOT experts on the question of whether a fetus is a person. ANOTHER
> court at ANOTHER time, with different justices, might come to an
> entirely DIFFERENT conclusion on that question. Was the court advised
> by a panel of doctors qualified to answer that question? If NOT, then
> the court is making a judgement based on their own personal beliefs.
> And personal beliefs have no place in a courtroom where Justices are
> SUPPOSED to be IMPARTIAL in their judgement.
>
>
>
> If, on the other hand, you dispute that judgement, and say a fetus IS a
> person, you are taking away its' right to live. By aborting it, you
> are violating its' Constitutional rights.
>
>
> See the problem? YOU may say, "A fetus is NOT a person". I may say,
> "A fetus IS a person". But NEITHER of us is qualified to MAKE that
> judgement. NEITHER is a judge unless he\she has been advised by an
> expert\experts in that field qualified to answer that question.
>
>
> And here is ANOTHER problem:
>
>
> "fetuses GENERALLY aren't considered to be people."
>
>
> "Generally"?
>
> THAT is an ambiguous term. Is one fetus a person, and another NOT a
> person?
> Either a fetus IS a person, or a fetus is NOT a person. It is ONE or
> the OTHER. You can't pick & choose which ones are and which ones
> aren't.
>
>
> I certainly hope that this was merely your summary of the decision, or
> the Roe v Wade decision is even MORE of a travesty then even I believed
> it was.


Whoa! Zippy the Pinhead posts on RSFC!


--
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-- Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope"
<titanic@marcocable.com> wrote in message
>
> IN THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT, a fetus is NOT a person. But JUSTICES are
> NOT experts on the question of whether a fetus is a person. ANOTHER
> court at ANOTHER time, with different justices, might come to an
> entirely DIFFERENT conclusion on that question. Was the court advised
> by a panel of doctors qualified to answer that question?
>
yes.
you are an ignoramous.

 

[justforfun]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
<pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
><justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>>
>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>
>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>say?

Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
larger tax base from it.

The Supreme court long ago stopped interpreting the Constitution and
started re-writting it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek@yahoo.com> writes:

> Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> > "Tom Enright" <freddy_hayek@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > > As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> > > > say?
>
> > > Yea, like where it mentions the "right to an abortion."
>
> > May I introduce you to the Ninth Amendment?
>
> No need, it's a short one, easily remembered. I don't see
> the right to an abortion or the right to privacy either.


That was the point.


--
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-- Sir Winston Churchill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On 11 Jul 2005 14:46:01 -0700, "Son-In-Law Acolyte of Glorious La
Parka~, RSPW's TRUE & ONLY Pope" <titanic@marcocable.com> wrote:

>
>
>Rob Browning wrote:

>> "Roe vs. Wade didn't invoke a right to an abortion. It did note that
>> only people are guaranteed the right to life under the Constitution,
>> and that fetuses generally aren't considered to be people."
>
>
>
>And THIS STATEMENT is where the problem lies.
>
>
>IN THE COURT'S JUDGEMENT, a fetus is NOT a person. But JUSTICES are

Yes. That's why we call them "judges."

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:23:02 -0500, JustForFun
<justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
><pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>><justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>>
>>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>>say?
>
>Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>larger tax base from it.

I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
state and local governments _can't_ do it.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote

> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >larger tax base from it.
>
> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> state and local governments _can't_ do it.

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."

Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
blacks.

--Tedward

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

>"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>> >larger tax base from it.
>>
>> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>
>"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>just compensation."

I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
anywhere in there.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message newsfa8d1h7vkcho3tvrpj7uif9867hr9gdn0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
> <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
> >"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >> >larger tax base from it.
> >>
> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
> >
> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
> >just compensation."
>
> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
> anywhere in there.

There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
with the distinction "public"? The lack of power is an
active right, and vice-versa.

Why did they bother with the tenth amendment? Granting
unremunerated powers to states does not grant the enumerated.

The people do have the right to vote eminent domain into
their Constitutions, as most States have. I bet most have
a public use restriction too.

--Tedward

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q2u7d15slfju9nf7i5p0iv7fmarei2e23g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:23:02 -0500, JustForFun
> <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
> ><pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
> >><justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
> >>><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
> >>
> >>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
> >>say?
> >
> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
> >larger tax base from it.
>
> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
> state and local governments _can't_ do it.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:11:24 GMT, "Dave Wallen" <t2e4@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:q2u7d15slfju9nf7i5p0iv7fmarei2e23g@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:23:02 -0500, JustForFun
>> <justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
>> ><pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>> >><justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>> >>><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>> >>>
>> >>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>> >>
>> >>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>> >>say?
>> >
>> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>> >larger tax base from it.
>>
>> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>
>"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

That's in the Declaration of Independence, and irrelevant besides
(note how it doesn't use Locke's original list of life, liberty, and
property).

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

"Edward M. Kennedy" <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote in message
news:db124i$sm2$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...

> Word has it the fourteenth was passed to prevent States abusing
> blacks.

Reading is fundamental. Go back and read the thing again, Ted.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:03:37 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

>
>"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message newsfa8d1h7vkcho3tvrpj7uif9867hr9gdn0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>> <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>> >> >larger tax base from it.
>> >>
>> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>> >
>> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>> >just compensation."
>>
>> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>> anywhere in there.
>
>There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother

Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.

Rob
ploovTeHSPaeMBLoKuR@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"These days all the war games are like 'man down, we need an artillery
strike, bla bla bla.' Where is my version of the invasion of Iraq
where Saddam is a hundred feet tall and shooting ghosts out of his
head or where Afghanistan is defended by a dragon that drops eggs on
you?"
--Zack "Geist Editor" Parsons, Fashion SWAT "Retro SWAT 4"

 

[justforfun]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:07:15 -0400, Rob Browning
<pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:23:02 -0500, JustForFun
><justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:16:32 -0400, Rob Browning
>><pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 19:42:14 -0500, JustForFun
>>><justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>>><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>dumbass, the Supremes made it clear that ownership is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>True. And one wonders why we need more consertative judges?
>>>
>>>As opposed to judges that actually read what the Constitution has to
>>>say?
>>
>>Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>>land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>>larger tax base from it.
>
>I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>state and local governments _can't_ do it.

So your contention is that anything that isn't forbidden by the
Constitution is, therefore,Constitutional, then?

 

[justforfun]

Archived from groups: alt.games.final-fantasy,alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys,rec.sport.pro-wrestling,rec.sport.football.college,alt.impeach.bush (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:40:50 -0400, Rob Browning
<pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:03:37 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
><nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote in message newsfa8d1h7vkcho3tvrpj7uif9867hr9gdn0@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:35:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
>>> <nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> >
>>> >> >Please do point to the part of the Constitution that condones taking
>>> >> >land from it's legal owners to give to someone else who will create a
>>> >> >larger tax base from it.
>>> >>
>>> >> I will when you point to the part of the Constitution that says that
>>> >> state and local governments _can't_ do it.
>>> >
>>> >"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
>>> >just compensation."
>>>
>>> I don't see anything disallowing taking property for private use
>>> anywhere in there.
>>
>>There's nothing allowing it, either. Why did they bother
>
>Yes, which means that the federal government can't do it. You have to
>look at the Connecticut state constitution to see whether or not local
>governments in Connecticut can do it, and that's not the SCOTUS' job.

The SCOTUS' job IS, however, to protect American citizens first and
foremost. This decision did no such thing. It, instead, expanded
corporate interests.