Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ground Zero Suggestion

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:41:52 AM

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.

More about : ground suggestion

July 7, 2005 11:37:12 AM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:32:15 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 2:59:42 PM

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
July 7, 2005 7:26:15 PM

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".
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:28:04 AM

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/
July 10, 2005 11:42:14 PM

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?
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:16:32 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:16:33 PM

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
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:06:48 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:06:49 PM

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
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:33:34 PM

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.
July 12, 2005 4:23:02 AM

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.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:56:40 PM

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
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:03:21 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:07:15 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 6:35:54 PM

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
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 8:38:09 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:03:37 PM

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:p fa8d1h7vkcho3tvrpj7uif9867hr9gdn0@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
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:11:24 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:11:25 PM

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"
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:03:48 PM

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:D b124i$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.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 12:40:50 AM

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 news:p fa8d1h7vkcho3tvrpj7uif9867hr9gdn0@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"
July 13, 2005 3:38:12 AM

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?
July 13, 2005 5:01:31 AM

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 news:p fa8d1h7vkcho3tvrpj7uif9867hr9gdn0@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.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 2:49:32 PM

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."
> >>
> >> 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.

If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).
Unless, as you say, the State Constitution specifically
authorizes it.

Fanks.

--Tedward
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 6:40:42 PM

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 23:38:12 -0500, JustForFun
<justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>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?

Regarding the US Constitution as relates to state and local
governments, yes.

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"
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 6:48:13 PM

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 Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:29:10 -0500, JustForFun
<justforfun69@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:38:09 -0400, Rob Browning
><pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>You don't own any land, do ya?

Nice of you to assume that I _like_ the idea of being able to take
people's property for basically any reason. Obviously anyone that
actually takes the time to read the Constitution is a commie pinko.

>So what determines "just compensation" when your private property is
>being taken for commercial use? Commercial property is FAR more
>valuable. Also, what's the compensation for DE-valuation of the
>portion of your property that is left as it's value will drop like a
>rock as soon as a commercial project is erected.

The Constitution says nothing about justly compensating people when
private property is taken for private use, either.

>Thankfully, in this State, we already have several bills up for
>consideration that would prevent this ruling from affecting us.

As it must be, since the only way to fix the US Constitution regarding
eminent domain would be an amendment (though in this case it would
likely have a very good chance of passing).

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"
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 6:56:19 PM

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 Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:49:32 -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.
>
>If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).

The 14th Amendment only bars states from doing things that are
_explicitly_ denied in the Constitution. Otherwise, the 10th
Amendment allows states to do anything that isn't the responsibility
of the federal government.

>Unless, as you say, the State Constitution specifically
>authorizes it.

Right, but the 14th Amendment isn't relevant to that.

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"
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 4:21:52 PM

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."
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).
>
> The 14th Amendment only bars states from doing things that are
> _explicitly_ denied in the Constitution.

There is no "doing things denied" clause in the 14th. There
is, however, a "abridge the privileges or immunities" clause.
Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
allowable.

--Tedward
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:17:25 PM

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, 14 Jul 2005 12:21:52 -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.
>> >
>> >If they feds can't do it, neither can the states (14th).
>>
>> The 14th Amendment only bars states from doing things that are
>> _explicitly_ denied in the Constitution.
>
>There is no "doing things denied" clause in the 14th. There
>is, however, a "abridge the privileges or immunities" clause.

Yes, the privileges and immunities that are found in the Constitution.
If it's not in the Constitution, then the 14th Amendment doesn't
apply.

>Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
>implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
>allowable.

If we could accept implication as law, then why have laws?

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"
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 9:09:10 PM

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

> >Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
> >implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
> >allowable.
>
> If we could accept implication as law, then why have laws?

If a law says it's a moving violation to cross the double yellow
line, what does that mean when you do *not* cross the double yellow
line?

If a law says you may only kill someone in self defense, what does
that imply about killing someone for some other reason?

It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
you for it.

--Tedward
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 11:13:07 PM

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, 14 Jul 2005 17:09:10 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

>"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >Just compensation for public use is an immunity that inherently
>> >implies that private use is outright not compensatable or even
>> >allowable.
>>
>> If we could accept implication as law, then why have laws?
>
>If a law says it's a moving violation to cross the double yellow
>line, what does that mean when you do *not* cross the double yellow
>line?

It doesn't mean anything. If no laws say anything about not crossing
the line, however, it's legal by default, just as this case regarding
using eminent domain for private purposes is. Thanks for proving my
point.

>If a law says you may only kill someone in self defense, what does
>that imply about killing someone for some other reason?

It doesn't imply anything. It flat out says that killing outside of
self-defense is illegal. That's what the "only" is in there for, a
word that isn't in the eminent domain clause.

>It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
>took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
>you for it.

Yup.

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"
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:21:14 PM

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

> >It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
> >took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
> >you for it.
>
> Yup.

Am-Zing! Know any other trolls who believe this?

--Tedward
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 5:46:06 PM

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 Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:21:14 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam@baconburger.com> wrote:

>"Rob Browning" <pluvius3@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> >It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
>> >took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
>> >you for it.
>>
>> Yup.
>
>Am-Zing! Know any other trolls who believe this?

Why would you have to be a troll to believe 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"
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 5:47:36 PM

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

> >> >It's simple logic. *Your* bozotic logic dictates that if the state
> >> >took your land for private use, they would not even have to compensate
> >> >you for it.
> >>
> >> Yup.
> >
> >Am-Zing! Know any other trolls who believe this?
>
> Why would you have to be a troll to believe it?

There you go again.

--Tedward
!