🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:51:12 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
<Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:07:16 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
><rsturge@inreach.com> wrote:
>
>>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.  In case you somehow
>>missed it, those Evil Right Wingers are the ones who voted
>>YOUR way.
>>
>>>Mention has been made that it was the *liberals* of the High Court who
>>>voted for this, not George's boys and girls.  Well, I don't give a
>>>rip.
>>
>>Obviously, you don't goive a rip about the actual facts.
>>
>>>  It is another in a long series of cluster fucks that happened ON
>>>HIS SHIFT.
>>
>>He didn't appoint ANY of those justices, and his has NO
>>control over how they rule.  If he gets more justices of his
>>liking on the SC, the next time there will be MORE on the 4
>>side and FEWER on the 5 side.  This is what you claim to
>>want, isn't it?
>>
>>>  He has a "history" of cluster fucks happening on his
>>>shift.  I think they bring him entertainment.  He gets to play God, we
>>>get to eat shit.
>>
>>That is a bizarre reading of what actually happened.
>>
>>>His Mother, Barbara, can't bother her "beautiful mind" with the
>>>details of the 1,700+ American war dead, and the thousands of
>>>casualties that are maimed for Life.  So in the Name of Street
>>>Justice, we begin with the Bush Estate at Kennebunkport Main, and turn
>>>it into a grassy mall.
>>
>>Your hatrid of the Bushes prevents you from seeing what
>>actually happened in this case.  Open your eyes.  FWD is not
>>a permanent condition.  The cure is simple - take off your
>>ideological blinkers and look at the facts.
>
>As if the Patriot Act was not enough, this comes along from SCOTUS to
>add insult to injury.
>
>When are you going to look at what is going on?  Why the f*ck did we
>invade Iraq this time?  George decided it was time for a regime
>change.  What if he decides it is time for a regime change in China or
>Russia?  Get rid of this mental defective before it is too late ( Ok,
>it was too late a long time ago ).
>
>I suppose you won't be happy until the bastard destroys Social
>Security beyond all repair.  This is the WORST f*ing president in the
>history of the U.S. government, excepting perhaps Abraham Lincoln,
>IMO.  Where are Dan Quale and Al Gore when you need them.
>
>Lg

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and
chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first
Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the
inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the
British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might
have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't
know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N.
and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this
time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not
just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

Btw...being allowed to put 3-4% of your social security funds in a
private account is hardly "destroying the system"

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years, 
 the world has a long way to go to regain
 its credibility and reputation with the US."
                                 unknown