Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Jay Listo
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Account compromised: billing information moved or changed.

2005-06-24 Thread PayPal
LEGAL NOTICE The following message is an email sent to you by an administrator of "PayPal.com".If this message is spam, contains abusive or other comments you find offensive please contact the webmaster at the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message sent to you

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Gil Hamilton
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that the

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Gil Hamilton
From: Jay Listo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Yes, because so many of the current justices have been appointed by Bush... ...oh, wait (You might want to look at which justices joined this opinion

Improves vision

2005-06-24 Thread jae little
Discover in the next few minutes regardless of your age, sex, or current health status, how this common element can change the way you experience the next half of your life http://s.0.shotitemsline.com/amd/ Learn how to increase your quality of life We really have something here which may be

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread A.Melon
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Thomas Shaddack
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: How do you take out a bulldozer? Anti-tank mine?

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Steve Schear
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. Not

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Steve Schear wrote: At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread A.Melon
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. Not

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, A.Melon wrote: Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the

Re: Italy finally holds USA to the world standard!

2005-06-24 Thread Steve Furlong
On 6/24/05, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.masnet.org/news.asp?id=2560 Italian Judge Orders 13 CIA Agents Arrested Over Kidnapping John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it. -- There are no bad teachers, only defective children.

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread A.Melon
How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) thermite through the engine block, frag bomb in the engine compartment, torch any remaining hoses, slice the tires, puncture the brake lines. you don't need someone to tell you this. takings clause abuse has

Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Tyler Durden
Holy crap. Some shitty little township can now bulldoze your house because someone wants to convert the space into a Waffle House. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ Where's Tim May when you need him? Where's the RAGE? How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread A.Melon
Yeah, but this steps crosses a line, I think. Before, your home could be taken for a public project. Now, the supreme court has ruled that your home can be taken for a public project that consists entirely of private development, in the name of the public good, which is supposed to equal

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread A.Melon
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Sarad AV
This is very bad news. A lot of people will loose their homes to private 'economic developers'. It certainly means no right to have a permenant home. When suburbs start developing, the people are going to be evicted over and over. How long will this continue? If they cant do any good for

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Gil Hamilton
From: A.Melon [EMAIL PROTECTED] The principle of using the takings clause to transfer private property to private parties has already been approved by the Supremes. This is but another variation. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=usvol=467invol=229 Interesting that the

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional men-with-guns that could do this, but now they effectively have proxies everywhere. It just makes formal (and official) what has

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Roy M. Silvernail
Quoting Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED]: How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember, bulldozer operators can easily be replaced.) RPG7 should do it. They're known to be able to take out a Bradley. -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not It's just this little chromium switch,

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Tyler Durden
Yeah, but this steps crosses a line, I think. Before, your home could be taken for a public project. Now, the supreme court has ruled that your home can be taken for a public project that consists entirely of private development, in the name of the public good, which is supposed to equal

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread James B. DiGriz
Tyler Durden wrote: Holy crap. Some shitty little township can now bulldoze your house because someone wants to convert the space into a Waffle House. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097/ Where's Tim May when you need him? Where's the RAGE? How do you take out a bulldozer? (Remember,

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Gil Hamilton
From: Jay Listo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Yes, because so many of the current justices have been appointed by Bush... ..oh, wait (You might want to look at which justices joined this opinion

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Jay Listo
Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: What this equates to is, whoever had more money than you can take away your home. Previously, it was just the occasional

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread Thomas Shaddack
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Tyler Durden wrote: How do you take out a bulldozer? Anti-tank mine?

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, A.Melon wrote: Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. Not surprising at all. The Bush camp's court agenda is spearheaded by members of the Federalist Society which wants to roll back many of the

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread A.Melon
At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies dissented on this opinion. Go figure. Not

Re: Private Homes may be taken for public good

2005-06-24 Thread J.A. Terranson
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Steve Schear wrote: At 10:19 PM 6/23/2005, you wrote: On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jay Listo wrote: Well, once the Supreme Court starts coming up with stuff like this, you know you've been Bush-whacked. Maybe you should take another look at who voted how. The Bushies