🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5btpb15id8mtrtrpmbbb5hge5nur75ge40@4ax.com>,
 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.

> 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 you don't know what it is.

How many times do you have to be told that it's the liberals that 
foisted this decision on us and several far-left groups have praised the 
decision in the days since it was announced.

It's a victory for the leftist mindset that says that individual rights 
(if they exist at all) must be subsumed to the good of society. The good 
of the many outweighs the good of the few and all that.

> 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.

Of course you don't. "Giving a rip" would throw a monkey-wrench in your 
anti-Bush rant.

> It is another in a long series of cluster fucks that happened ON
> HIS SHIFT.

Baloney. There's absolutely no logic to that statement whatsoever. One 
can only hold a politician responsible for what he/she can control. The 
president has no control over the Supreme Court beyond appointing the 
justices who serve and this president hasn't even done that.

If a star in a neighboring system went nova tomorrow (or more 
accurately, the effects of a star that went nova years ago reached us 
tomorrow) and the radiation caused massive environmental problems around 
the globe, would that also be Bush's fault since it "happened on his 
shift"?