🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6tvqb1dtmugm8htduvkoch9d5scgpe1uh3@4ax.com>, rsturge@inreach.com says...
>
>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:17:32 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
><Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:01:07 -0700, Tim May
>><timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <d9im0l$4ch$2@blue.rahul.net>, Merlin Dorfman
>>><dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>      The property owners will, I'm sure, be paid more than their
>>>> property is worth (though of course that was not the point of 
>>>> their suit).  A savings account has no value beyond its dollar
>>>> price, so if the govt seizes your $5000 account and pays you $6000
>>>> for it, I don't see that you have a lot of complaints coming.
>>>> (Except on general principle.)
>>>
>>>If people choose not to sell, you point is moot.
>>>
>>>Frankly, 40 million who think as you do ought to be dumped in pits,
>>>sprayed with gasoline, and lit.
>>>
>>>
>>>--Tim May
>>
>>I agree.  Most of the proletariat thinks this SCOTUS decision was a
>>BAD RULING.
>>
>>What it does, is put corporations like Wal Mart in the driver's seat,
>>and screw the little guy out of what he worked for all his life.  If
>>that isn't Republicanism at it's worst, I don't know what is.  The
>>*Right* has traditionally favored Big Business over the little guy,
>>and that is the main reason they will n-e-v-e-r get my vote.  For
>>anything.
>
>You must have Frank White Disease.  

He's seeing through the BS?

Woo.  O_O

>In case you somehow
>missed it, those Evil Right Wingers are the ones who voted
>YOUR way.

The legalist technocrats VS the Evil Right Wingers.  And we
see who won.

And that we lost.

:(

FW