🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:24:47 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>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

How much is the Republican Party paying you for being a spin doctor
and a shill for them?  I hope it is worth it to you, and that you can
sleep with a clear conscious at night.

Lg