Userunfriendly Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331097 What the frik is next? Roe vs Wade?!!!!!!!!!!!!! America needs Link to comment
Hendryk Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Nothing new there. The poor have never had any rights that the rich were bound to respect if such rights seriously hampered their ambitions to become richer. Reread the first chapter of the Hitchiker's Guide and DON'T PANIC! Roe vs Wade is safe enough. Despite all the rhetoric, there's no serious money one way or the other in abortions. Link to comment
Guest Aristothenes Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Since when was there a love relationship between Trillian and Earthman? Link to comment
Guest Aristothenes Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Damn! Don't you guys have any patriotism left? Remember, if you say 'no', the terrorists win! "If you're not with me, you're with the terrorists!" Link to comment
NiGHTMARE Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 By his own definitions, George W Bush is a terrorist himself. Link to comment
Guest Aristothenes Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Correct. But he was _ELECTED_... And only 60+% of eligible voters (If I recall correctly), voted. Therefore, the wishes of the remaining 30+% don't count. Link to comment
jastey Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 I mean... I've heart about such things if it comes to giving ways to highways or somesuch (why do I have to think about the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy again?), but just for some expected tax increase... Woawoawoa. Link to comment
NiGHTMARE Posted June 24, 2005 Share Posted June 24, 2005 Correct.But he was _ELECTED_... And only 60+% of eligible voters (If I recall correctly), voted. Therefore, the wishes of the remaining 30+% don't count. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correction: he *claims* to have been elected . Link to comment
Guest Aristothenes Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Ah well. Spoke to a person of the legal profession over breakfast - verified with him that this eminent domain i.e. taking over of your land by government is pretty standard world-wide, and not something new. Difference is the U.S. got there last. So we're all in the same boat. Hurray for government! Link to comment
seanas Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 yeah, there's an interesting post here arguing that the Kelo decision, as it's called, isn't a significant departure from current US jurisprudence on eminent domain. and, much as i'm liable to blame bush II for everything including my misplaced socks, the make-up of the supreme court is not his fault. true, there are at least three retirements from the supreme court coming up during his current term, so he'll get the chance to reshape it in his image quite soon, but the current makeup of the supreme court is fundamentally down to the work of reagan, bush I and clinton. Link to comment
Guest Aristothenes Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 All 3 of whom have excellent foreign relations. Reagan - Nicaragua Bush - Iraq(didn't finish job) Clinton - Sudan(didn't finish job) Link to comment
Fallen_Demon Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 How are a president's foreign relations relavent to a discussion of a domestic supreme court decision done by justices these presidents appointed. Link to comment
Guest Aristothenes Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Men of flexible character pick the same to serve under them. As they say, "Birds of a feather flock together". Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.