Dana
>Well with smoking no one was being forced to enter that location, and it
>hasn't been allowed inside public property for a very long time. This is
>different. the land owners actions, or lack thereof, is causing deaths on
>public property. Obviously the owner should be held liable.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:40 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: one for heald
>
>
> yeah it does :) fwiw I agree with you -- if this parcel of land is causing
>fatal accidents I think the government should yes, strongly encourage that
>it be planted. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask, considering. It just reminded
>me of your stance on the smoking issue and I wondered if you would disagree.
>
> Dana
>
> >dispose of private property?? I am not sure what you mean. If the land
> >owner is causing accidents than he should be held liable. Also the
> >interstate system was originally a department of defense project. I
>think
> >that it is still important to the national security of the United States.
> >That being the case I think that the government must take some
> >responsibility as to the solution to this problem.
> >
> >Does that answer the question?
> >
> >Tim
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 8:16 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: one for heald
> >
> >
> > just curious whether he would still say the right to dispose of private
> >property is absolute in cases such as:
> >
> > http://www.gallupindependent.com/043004pitch.html
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
