OT LIberal Supreme Court takes every American's right to own property away!

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]

[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]


--

Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>
> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>
>[/color]

Sounds like a Pro-Business decision to me ... Bush is prolly smiling
over that one.

On 23 Jun 2005 10:39:35 -0700, Learning Richard wrote:
[color=blue]
> Scott in Florida wrote:[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>>
>> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Sounds like a Pro-Business decision to me ... Bush is prolly smiling
> over that one.[/color]
Yeah- About as pro Big Business and pro States Rights as you can get.
Liberal hell- Scott I won't say you're hard-headed but I bet you've been
using Viagra hair tonic.

--
E

"Mr.E" <Mr.E@totally.invalid> wrote in message
news:dzk1947t267l$.1mvy0o6d8ovhd$.dlg@40tude.net...[color=blue]
> On 23 Jun 2005 10:39:35 -0700, Learning Richard wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Scott in Florida wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
> >>
> >> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >
> > Sounds like a Pro-Business decision to me ... Bush is prolly smiling
> > over that one.[/color]
> Yeah- About as pro Big Business and pro States Rights as you can get.
> Liberal hell- Scott I won't say you're hard-headed but I bet you've been
> using Viagra hair tonic.[/color]

lol!

As usual you look at every thing backward. The President is
conservative, all four of the conservative justices ruled against
the Connecticut government and for the property owners. What a
joke you are, no wonder nobody cares what you think.


mike hunt



Learning Richard wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Scott in Florida wrote:[color=green]
> > [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
> >
> > [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
> >
> >[/color]
>
> Sounds like a Pro-Business decision to me ... Bush is prolly smiling
> over that one.[/color]
..

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:35:44 GMT, Scott in Florida
<JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>[url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>
>[url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url][/color]

And take a look at which five voted FOR this nonsense.

Talk about fascism.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

It is a shame but not surprising. A lawyer once told me that the first
thing you learn in a Real Property course in first year law school is that
your property rights is whatever the government says it is.


"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:ahslb1lkd9d9c2dge6kti6bl4ju8avh66k@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>
> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

An informal online poll is running 97% against the court on this one -
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/[/url]
That would have to be pretty much a bipartisan vote.

To keep this on topic - I hope it doesn't apply to my Highlander...

Jack G

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:ahslb1lkd9d9c2dge6kti6bl4ju8avh66k@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>
> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

Jack G wrote:[color=blue]
>
> An informal online poll is running 97% against the court on this one -
>[/color]

well I'LL BE damned... it isn't a fucking partisan issue after all!
[color=blue]
>
> [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/[/url]
> That would have to be pretty much a bipartisan vote.
>[/color]

a back-door pro-business mistake.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:00:34 GMT, "Jack G"
<remove.jack.grouell@verizon.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>An informal online poll is running 97% against the court on this one -
>[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/[/url]
>That would have to be pretty much a bipartisan vote.[/color]

Bipartisan? I think not.

Look at the names, and their court histories.
Only the conservatives voted against this horror.

So much for the blather LLL's have for those on the right in this
court.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

[This followup was posted to alt.autos.toyota and a copy was sent to the
cited author.]

In article <ahslb1lkd9d9c2dge6kti6bl4ju8avh66k@4ax.com>,
[email]JustAsk@Florida.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>
> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>
>
>[/color]
Unless you have something useful to say about my 1993 Toyota Corolla's
air conditioner, GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:39:00 GMT, Repo Man <hzw18@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Unless you have something useful to say about my 1993 Toyota Corolla's
>air conditioner, GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE![/color]

Your Corolla's air conditioner is in a car owned by a complete
dickhead. Useful comment: Get help. Meds. Whatever

Eric Dreher wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 01:00:34 GMT, "Jack G"
> <remove.jack.grouell@verizon.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >An informal online poll is running 97% against the court on this one -
> >[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/[/url]
> >That would have to be pretty much a bipartisan vote.[/color]
>
> Bipartisan? I think not.
>
> Look at the names, and their court histories.
> Only the conservatives voted against this horror.
>
> So much for the blather LLL's have for those on the right in this
> court.
>[/color]

oh wow... one stupid ass decision and Eric "Judge Not Lest Ye Be
Judged" Dreher dances around the funeral pyre. wicked man he is, that
Eric "Seek and Ye Shall Find" Dreher.

You da one who keeps buttressing and defending the numerous follies of
this administration's nominees.

Besides, its a simple matter of passing a law or somethin isn't it? I
don't know how this Congress shit works.

Eric: Just because it quacks like a duck, is it a lame duck? *guffaw*
"chortle**

HTH.


Richard
-------
Democrats - Less Government, Mo' Money!

"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
news:ahslb1lkd9d9c2dge6kti6bl4ju8avh66k@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>
> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>[/color]

This is one of those complicated issues. If the city is in desperate need
for growth, it may need to knock a few homes down. But who is calling the
shots and deciding what actions the local system has to take in order to
reach the point of destroying homes? This gives too much blind power IMO.
There should be detailed steps taken to promote job growth and grow the
cities income before bringing out the dozers.

I think I'll probably be writing to congress on this.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 23:38:54 -0400, "Josh"
<nobody@noplacenowhere.never> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>news:ahslb1lkd9d9c2dge6kti6bl4ju8avh66k@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/supreme_court[/url]
>>
>> [url]http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050623/D8ATDSD80.html[/url]
>>[/color]
>
>This is one of those complicated issues. If the city is in desperate need
>for growth, it may need to knock a few homes down. But who is calling the
>shots and deciding what actions the local system has to take in order to
>reach the point of destroying homes? This gives too much blind power IMO.
>There should be detailed steps taken to promote job growth and grow the
>cities income before bringing out the dozers.
>
>I think I'll probably be writing to congress on this.
>[/color]

You and I agree on this.


--

Scott in Florida