Posted on 08/19/2007 9:05:41 AM PDT by B4Ranch
Nite, BG. : )
I knew why you jumped in. No sweat here.
ty
Wow, 4% of the population of the state will lose their land. /snickering
Pummeled? I made one comment to her. You might want to adjust your meds.
My substantive contribution to this thread begins shortly after I appeared, in my comment #92. I made that comment immediately after reading the article in its entirety. The fact that you, and others, choose to ignore it is not my problem. The fact that you think the above is rather sad. Frankly, you could've typed "1rudeboy doesn't agree with me . . . waah" with the same effect.
I can assume that the comment about “ilk” was directed at me, personally. Do you have any comment to make about the article? [chuckle]
You only made one comment to the FReeper in question? Wow, that gives a whole new meaning to being “bullied with impunity.”
Yeah, then nic got her panties in a wad.
Public/Private Partnerships, hmmm what’s the name for that? Oh yes, FASCISM!
Isn’t the phony security and prosperity for globalists forced assocation with loser countries meeting making you happy today?
And how are you? Have you washed the tear-gas out of your clothes? Your red flag nicely complimented the black balaclava. A real anarcho-communist fashion statement.
I'm beginning to understand to source of nicmarlo's confusion: he thinks that the act of making an argument (pleading, whatever) elevates the argument to the status of "case law." He neglects to consider that there is bad case law, unapplicable case law, and good case law.
Basically, what that means anyone can assert "Kelo allows this," much like anyone can assert (using whatever case law one chooses) the Moon is made of green cheese. A decent attorney would argue that "in Kelo, the Court uses this (or these) method(s) to determine" whether the Moon is in fact made of cheese.
That doesn't prevent even an only barely competent appellate attorney from arguing even if the Moon is made of green cheese the Supreme Court in the cited opinion took no position as to whether it is, and in dicta clearly indicates that the issue is unsettled and left to the lower courts to decide.
So basically, in the range from bad to good "case" law, Kelo falls squarely under "depends." Meaning, of course, in my opinion Kelo is a crappy decision. We'll have to wait and see if the District Court in Western Seafood finds Kelo controlling in some fashion or not.
Well, until the flying car becomes the norm, roads will require land. Usually, land that is owned, at least in part, by people. I just have to laugh when a clown makes such a ridiculous claim. One million? Please.
If one million people were going to be thrown out of their homes or off their land, no politician in Texas would even touch such a plan.
If one million people were going to be thrown out of their homes or off their land, no politician in Texas would even touch such a plan.
You really need to stop expanding upon what was presented. You're giving the impression that folks are going to be thrown out of their homes or off of their lands when no such argument is being made. The statement made in the article was..."one million Texans are about to lose their land..."
Now, that could mean that somebody might lose anywhere from one acre to twenty acres, but nowhere is it stated, or implied, that anyone was going to be thrown off of their land or out of their homes.
What you're practicing is called hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.