N
Neal
Guest
Post deleted by Neal
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Have you read the latest News passed down From the U.S.
> Supreme Court.
> This basically states that If your Township wants to take
> away your home Because some Company Likes your land and
> wants to build on it.. Your basically (BLEEP) out Of luck
> and they can do it.. As lowlife american citizens we are
> loosing Our rights of Freedom from our Own Govt. your home
> is not even safe.
> I personally Live on aprox 837 acres of land. donated 6
> acres to build the towns new post Office a few years back.
> the house sits On 3 acres. Developers
> are building all around me seems with this new law owning
> Land does not mean anything. Now If a developer wants to
> build on my land he no longer has To buy it. Just go to the
> town make a deal and the Town can take it.
> The town and the Developer would make killing. and I would
> go to jail For Killing anyone defending my land. This
> country is really screwed up No wonder we have Americans
> that would kill other Americans.. The problem is not with
> Terrorist Groups. Our Countrys Problems begin in Washington
> DC..
> OMG now a waste product is considered a dirty word. they
> can say SH_t out of luck on the radio But on the Internet
> its Bleeped out as per above.. Censership has also gotten
> carried away to the extreme
>
> > A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local
> governments may seize >people's homes and businesses against
> their will for private development in a >decision anxiously
> awaited in communities where economic growth often is at
> >war with individual property rights. The 5-4 ruling —
> assailed by dissenting >Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as
> handing "disproportionate influence and power" >to the
> well-heeled in America — was a defeat for some Connecticut
> residents >whose homes are slated for destruction to make
> room for an office complex.
>
What does this have to do with radio? You should post it on the "Off the Air" board.
Well, it really pisses me off that this is going on. You bought the land. You bought the house. It is YOUR property! I don't think the gov. should have power over that.
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
> Have you read the latest News passed down From the U.S.
> Supreme Court.
> This basically states that If your Township wants to take
> away your home Because some Company Likes your land and
> wants to build on it.. Your basically (BLEEP) out Of luck
> and they can do it.. As lowlife american citizens we are
> loosing Our rights of Freedom from our Own Govt. your home
> is not even safe.
> I personally Live on aprox 837 acres of land. donated 6
> acres to build the towns new post Office a few years back.
> the house sits On 3 acres. Developers
> are building all around me seems with this new law owning
> Land does not mean anything. Now If a developer wants to
> build on my land he no longer has To buy it. Just go to the
> town make a deal and the Town can take it.
> The town and the Developer would make killing. and I would
> go to jail For Killing anyone defending my land. This
> country is really screwed up No wonder we have Americans
> that would kill other Americans.. The problem is not with
> Terrorist Groups. Our Countrys Problems begin in Washington
> DC..
> OMG now a waste product is considered a dirty word. they
> can say SH_t out of luck on the radio But on the Internet
> its Bleeped out as per above.. Censership has also gotten
> carried away to the extreme
>
> > A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local
> governments may seize >people's homes and businesses against
> their will for private development in a >decision anxiously
> awaited in communities where economic growth often is at
> >war with individual property rights. The 5-4 ruling —
> assailed by dissenting >Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as
> handing "disproportionate influence and power" >to the
> well-heeled in America — was a defeat for some Connecticut
> residents >whose homes are slated for destruction to make
> room for an office complex.
>
What does this have to do with radio? You should post it on the "Off the Air" board.
Well, it really pisses me off that this is going on. You bought the land. You bought the house. It is YOUR property! I don't think the gov. should have power over that.
<P ID="signature">______________
Kevin</P>
N
Neal
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
#1 I didnt know where to Post it.
#2 what does it have to Do with radio
well there are alot Of AM's .Fms also with Lots Of land that
developers would love to get their hands On.
This ruling makes it easier for stations to loose their land.
Just look at WOR having to Move.. they Got lucky in a way. they got the developers to find them new land to Build on. Under this New Ruling
the Developer would not be obligated To find a station new land
with the town they can just take it.
I agree I dont think key word"think" the govt shuld have power over that.
However The supreme court of the land has stated otherwise.
> What does this have to do with radio? You should post it on
> the "Off the Air" board.
>
> Well, it really pisses me off that this is going on. You
> bought the land. You bought the house. It is YOUR property!
> I don't think the gov. should have power over that.
>
#1 I didnt know where to Post it.
#2 what does it have to Do with radio
well there are alot Of AM's .Fms also with Lots Of land that
developers would love to get their hands On.
This ruling makes it easier for stations to loose their land.
Just look at WOR having to Move.. they Got lucky in a way. they got the developers to find them new land to Build on. Under this New Ruling
the Developer would not be obligated To find a station new land
with the town they can just take it.
I agree I dont think key word"think" the govt shuld have power over that.
However The supreme court of the land has stated otherwise.
> What does this have to do with radio? You should post it on
> the "Off the Air" board.
>
> Well, it really pisses me off that this is going on. You
> bought the land. You bought the house. It is YOUR property!
> I don't think the gov. should have power over that.
>
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> #1 I didnt know where to Post it.
Well, that's why it's there.
> #2 what does it have to Do with radio
> well there are alot Of AM's .Fms also with Lots Of land
> that
> developers would love to get their hands On.
> This ruling makes it easier for stations to loose their
> land.
> Just look at WOR having to Move.. they Got lucky in a way.
> they got the developers to find them new land to Build on.
> Under this New Ruling
> the Developer would not be obligated To find a station new
> land
> with the town they can just take it.
> I agree I dont think key word"think" the govt shuld have
> power over that.
> However The supreme court of the land has stated otherwise.
>
>
> > What does this have to do with radio? You should post it
> on
> > the "Off the Air" board.
> >
> > Well, it really pisses me off that this is going on. You
> > bought the land. You bought the house. It is YOUR
> property!
> > I don't think the gov. should have power over that.
> >
>
Try telling that to the five liberals on the court--including CLINTON appointee Ruth Bader Ginsberg--THOSE FIVE SO CALLED JUSTICES ARE TRAITORS AND MARXIST BUTT KISSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a very dangerous time for people here not just in the People's Republic of Connecticut, but also throughout the nation. To me, this is abuse of power by the court and I think you should read a book about other Supreme Court faux paus moments called Men In Black, by WABC radio host and law scholar Mark Levin.
> #1 I didnt know where to Post it.
Well, that's why it's there.
> #2 what does it have to Do with radio
> well there are alot Of AM's .Fms also with Lots Of land
> that
> developers would love to get their hands On.
> This ruling makes it easier for stations to loose their
> land.
> Just look at WOR having to Move.. they Got lucky in a way.
> they got the developers to find them new land to Build on.
> Under this New Ruling
> the Developer would not be obligated To find a station new
> land
> with the town they can just take it.
> I agree I dont think key word"think" the govt shuld have
> power over that.
> However The supreme court of the land has stated otherwise.
>
>
> > What does this have to do with radio? You should post it
> on
> > the "Off the Air" board.
> >
> > Well, it really pisses me off that this is going on. You
> > bought the land. You bought the house. It is YOUR
> property!
> > I don't think the gov. should have power over that.
> >
>
Try telling that to the five liberals on the court--including CLINTON appointee Ruth Bader Ginsberg--THOSE FIVE SO CALLED JUSTICES ARE TRAITORS AND MARXIST BUTT KISSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a very dangerous time for people here not just in the People's Republic of Connecticut, but also throughout the nation. To me, this is abuse of power by the court and I think you should read a book about other Supreme Court faux paus moments called Men In Black, by WABC radio host and law scholar Mark Levin.
R
raydofan
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Try telling that to the five liberals on the
> court--including CLINTON appointee Ruth Bader
> Ginsberg--THOSE FIVE SO CALLED JUSTICES ARE TRAITORS AND
> MARXIST BUTT KISSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a
> very dangerous time for people here not just in the People's
> Republic of Connecticut, but also throughout the nation. To
> me, this is abuse of power by the court and I think you
> should read a book about other Supreme Court faux paus
> moments called Men In Black, by WABC radio host and law
> scholar Mark Levin.
>
Levin should concentrate on making his voice less annoying-perhaps removing his lips from Hannity's perineum would help.
There are only two who qualify as 'liberal' on the court. The other three are centrist.
Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind Clinton was a centrist as well.
> Try telling that to the five liberals on the
> court--including CLINTON appointee Ruth Bader
> Ginsberg--THOSE FIVE SO CALLED JUSTICES ARE TRAITORS AND
> MARXIST BUTT KISSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a
> very dangerous time for people here not just in the People's
> Republic of Connecticut, but also throughout the nation. To
> me, this is abuse of power by the court and I think you
> should read a book about other Supreme Court faux paus
> moments called Men In Black, by WABC radio host and law
> scholar Mark Levin.
>
Levin should concentrate on making his voice less annoying-perhaps removing his lips from Hannity's perineum would help.
There are only two who qualify as 'liberal' on the court. The other three are centrist.
Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind Clinton was a centrist as well.
K
KeithE
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind
> Clinton was a centrist as well.
Justices & who appointed them and when:
John Paul Stevens - 1975 by Gerald Ford
Sandra Day O'Connor - 1981 by Ronald Reagan
William Rehnquist (Chief Justice) - 1986 by Ronald Reagan
Anton Scalia - 1986 by Ronald Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - 1988 by Ronald Reagan
David Souter - 1990 by George Bush
Clarence Thomas - 1991 by George Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 1993 by Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer - 1994 by Bill Clinton
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've seen very little coverage of this decision other than a headline on Drudge. You'd think FNC would be all over it, but they're "All Natalie Holloway, All The Time."
> Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind
> Clinton was a centrist as well.
Justices & who appointed them and when:
John Paul Stevens - 1975 by Gerald Ford
Sandra Day O'Connor - 1981 by Ronald Reagan
William Rehnquist (Chief Justice) - 1986 by Ronald Reagan
Anton Scalia - 1986 by Ronald Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - 1988 by Ronald Reagan
David Souter - 1990 by George Bush
Clarence Thomas - 1991 by George Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 1993 by Bill Clinton
Stephen Breyer - 1994 by Bill Clinton
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've seen very little coverage of this decision other than a headline on Drudge. You'd think FNC would be all over it, but they're "All Natalie Holloway, All The Time."
J
JohnnyMorganWXJX
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> There are only two who qualify as 'liberal' on the court.
> The other three are centrist.
>
> Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind
> Clinton was a centrist as well.
>
The other was Stephen Breyer, appointed in 1994 (taking the Harry Blackmun seat). Breyer was a law professor at Harvard, a bastion of liberalism.
Clinton was a liberal when he appointed both of those Supremes. He didn't shift to the center politically until he needed to--in 1995, when the Republicans gained a majority in Congress.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 06/24/05 04:01 AM.</FONT></P>
> There are only two who qualify as 'liberal' on the court.
> The other three are centrist.
>
> Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind
> Clinton was a centrist as well.
>
The other was Stephen Breyer, appointed in 1994 (taking the Harry Blackmun seat). Breyer was a law professor at Harvard, a bastion of liberalism.
Clinton was a liberal when he appointed both of those Supremes. He didn't shift to the center politically until he needed to--in 1995, when the Republicans gained a majority in Congress.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 06/24/05 04:01 AM.</FONT></P>
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> >
> Levin should concentrate on making his voice less
> annoying-perhaps removing his lips from Hannity's perineum
> would help.
>
> There are only two who qualify as 'liberal' on the court.
> The other three are centrist.
>
> Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind
> Clinton was a centrist as well.
>
Clinton is only "centrist" in a comparison between Karl Marx and Ayatollah Khomeini. In the American political arena, he is Liberal: Supports Abortion on demand, gun ownership restrictions, broad interpretations on affirmitive action, gay rights, gay marriage, gay Boy Scouts, and expansive government. He only adopted some conservative-backed issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, and military intervention in his second term where his re-election by fellow liberals was not an issue.
While Ruth Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens can always be counted on for liberal votes, David Souter and Stephen Breyer are virtual liberals, especially in the defining social issues of abortion, church/state issues, gun control and capital punishment. Only O'Connor and Kennedy are the crutial swing votes, with Kennedy one foot to the left of center, and O'Connor one foot to the right. Souter and Breyer were also in the minority in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision.
This alignment also debunks the arguement that Supreme Court nominees reflect the political ideology of the President nominating them. This only comes up when liberals try to assert that the Supreme Court is "conservative" because a plurality of the current justices were nominated by Republican presidents. You have to look at their decisions to really tell.
If anybody dares call the Supreme Court "conservative" after yesterday's decision assaulting personal property owners, those people are being blinded by their partisan feelings. Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal property are confiscated for nature preserves and national parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal enviromentalists. This has been happening for some time, but now that the libs are no longer required to disguise the land grabs for what they are, no homeowner is safe.
Interestingly enough, this might actually boomerang against the liberals. A strong case could be made that all property-owning voters had better make sure local and state goverments are filled with people with limited-government (typically conservative) mindsets, or their homes could be bulldozed for the next Purple-Banded Fruitfly National Refuge. The Supreme Court, with this decision, has also reignited the flames of popular judicial indignation, that was just beginning to ebb after the Schiavo debacle. This time, you won't need a memo from a congressional staffer to know that Republicans have just been handed another strong talking point for judical 'balance'.
> >
> Levin should concentrate on making his voice less
> annoying-perhaps removing his lips from Hannity's perineum
> would help.
>
> There are only two who qualify as 'liberal' on the court.
> The other three are centrist.
>
> Can you name Clinton's other nominee? And bear in mind
> Clinton was a centrist as well.
>
Clinton is only "centrist" in a comparison between Karl Marx and Ayatollah Khomeini. In the American political arena, he is Liberal: Supports Abortion on demand, gun ownership restrictions, broad interpretations on affirmitive action, gay rights, gay marriage, gay Boy Scouts, and expansive government. He only adopted some conservative-backed issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, and military intervention in his second term where his re-election by fellow liberals was not an issue.
While Ruth Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens can always be counted on for liberal votes, David Souter and Stephen Breyer are virtual liberals, especially in the defining social issues of abortion, church/state issues, gun control and capital punishment. Only O'Connor and Kennedy are the crutial swing votes, with Kennedy one foot to the left of center, and O'Connor one foot to the right. Souter and Breyer were also in the minority in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore decision.
This alignment also debunks the arguement that Supreme Court nominees reflect the political ideology of the President nominating them. This only comes up when liberals try to assert that the Supreme Court is "conservative" because a plurality of the current justices were nominated by Republican presidents. You have to look at their decisions to really tell.
If anybody dares call the Supreme Court "conservative" after yesterday's decision assaulting personal property owners, those people are being blinded by their partisan feelings. Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal property are confiscated for nature preserves and national parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal enviromentalists. This has been happening for some time, but now that the libs are no longer required to disguise the land grabs for what they are, no homeowner is safe.
Interestingly enough, this might actually boomerang against the liberals. A strong case could be made that all property-owning voters had better make sure local and state goverments are filled with people with limited-government (typically conservative) mindsets, or their homes could be bulldozed for the next Purple-Banded Fruitfly National Refuge. The Supreme Court, with this decision, has also reignited the flames of popular judicial indignation, that was just beginning to ebb after the Schiavo debacle. This time, you won't need a memo from a congressional staffer to know that Republicans have just been handed another strong talking point for judical 'balance'.
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> property are confiscated for nature preserves and national
> parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal
> enviromentalists.
That has been allowed since the beginning of the nation. The 5th Amendment specifically allows taking of land for public use. A park, road, or nature preserve open to the public has always fit under the definition of a public use.
What this decision does is completely kills the concept of a "public" use. Government can take your land and give it to a company or a developer as long as it benefits someone. It totally obliterates the concept of property rights. Justice O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent against this nonsense.
> Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> property are confiscated for nature preserves and national
> parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal
> enviromentalists.
That has been allowed since the beginning of the nation. The 5th Amendment specifically allows taking of land for public use. A park, road, or nature preserve open to the public has always fit under the definition of a public use.
What this decision does is completely kills the concept of a "public" use. Government can take your land and give it to a company or a developer as long as it benefits someone. It totally obliterates the concept of property rights. Justice O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent against this nonsense.
K
KeithE
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> > Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> > property are confiscated for nature preserves and national
> > parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal
> > enviromentalists.
>
> That has been allowed since the beginning of the nation.
> The 5th Amendment specifically allows taking of land for
> public use. A park, road, or nature preserve open to the
> public has always fit under the definition of a public use.
>
> What this decision does is completely kills the concept of a
> "public" use. Government can take your land and give it to
> a company or a developer as long as it benefits someone. It
> totally obliterates the concept of property rights. Justice
> O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent against this nonsense.
Notice the lack of commentary on either side of the political aisle. Outside of George Will's column in the Washington Post, Roger Hedgecock on Rush's show, and a cartoon on CNN.com (plus, of course, the dissenting opinions of the four Supreme Court justices who voted against it), no conservatives have said "Boo." Nothing from Bush or Cheney as yet.
Not a peep from any liberal so far either, at least not that I've seen. And liberals, at least in the classic definition of the term, should be up in arms.
But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrat to speak out against this until a privately-owned low-income apartment complex is tagged for condemnation to make way for a Trump Tower. Then they'll realize what the real ramifications are.
> > Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> > property are confiscated for nature preserves and national
> > parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal
> > enviromentalists.
>
> That has been allowed since the beginning of the nation.
> The 5th Amendment specifically allows taking of land for
> public use. A park, road, or nature preserve open to the
> public has always fit under the definition of a public use.
>
> What this decision does is completely kills the concept of a
> "public" use. Government can take your land and give it to
> a company or a developer as long as it benefits someone. It
> totally obliterates the concept of property rights. Justice
> O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent against this nonsense.
Notice the lack of commentary on either side of the political aisle. Outside of George Will's column in the Washington Post, Roger Hedgecock on Rush's show, and a cartoon on CNN.com (plus, of course, the dissenting opinions of the four Supreme Court justices who voted against it), no conservatives have said "Boo." Nothing from Bush or Cheney as yet.
Not a peep from any liberal so far either, at least not that I've seen. And liberals, at least in the classic definition of the term, should be up in arms.
But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal Democrat to speak out against this until a privately-owned low-income apartment complex is tagged for condemnation to make way for a Trump Tower. Then they'll realize what the real ramifications are.
R
raydofan
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Clinton is only "centrist" in a comparison between Karl
> Marx and Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now, that's...abusrd? Asinine? Hilarious?
I would love to see your parallels.
In the American political
> arena, he is Liberal: Supports Abortion on demand,
Link?
>gun
> ownership restrictions,
You need to hunt with an assault weeapon?
broad interpretations on affirmitive
> action,
Um, link?
>gay rights,
Not really
>gay marriage,
Not true. Link?
>gay Boy Scouts,
heh...
>and
> expansive government.
What the (BLEEP) do you call what we have now?
He only adopted some
> conservative-backed issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, and
> military intervention in his second term where his
> re-election by fellow liberals was not an issue.
So, he is a centrist? Explain.
>
> While Ruth Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens can always be
> counted on for liberal votes, David Souter and Stephen
> Breyer are virtual liberals,
Maybe they are 'virtually balanced', you know, like FNC.
especially in the defining
> social issues of abortion, church/state issues, gun control
> and capital punishment.
beacuse it makes sense?
Only O'Connor and Kennedy are the
> crutial swing votes, with Kennedy one foot to the left of
> center, and O'Connor one foot to the right. Souter and
> Breyer were also in the minority in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore
> decision.
Hmmm. Link?
> This alignment also debunks the arguement that Supreme Court
> nominees reflect the political ideology of the President
> nominating them. This only comes up when liberals try to
> assert that the Supreme Court is "conservative" because a
> plurality of the current justices were nominated by
> Republican presidents. You have to look at their decisions
> to really tell.
Yeah. You do, don't you.
Please lay out the defining caselaw for all.
>
> If anybody dares call the Supreme Court "conservative"
> after yesterday's decision assaulting personal property
> owners, those people are being blinded by their partisan
> feelings. Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> property are confiscated for nature preserves and national
> parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal
> enviromentalists.
Yeah, right. Pfizer is a 'nature preserve'.
This has been happening for some time, but
> now that the libs are no longer required to disguise the
> land grabs for what they are, no homeowner is safe.
Huh? Explain please.
>
> Interestingly enough, this might actually boomerang against
> the liberals. A strong case could be made that all
> property-owning voters had better make sure local and state
> goverments are filled with people with limited-government
> (typically conservative) mindsets,
BWAHAHAHAHA!
or their homes could be
> bulldozed for the next Purple-Banded Fruitfly National
> Refuge.
hawh.
The Supreme Court, with this decision, has also
> reignited the flames of popular judicial indignation, that
> was just beginning to ebb after the Schiavo debacle. This
> time, you won't need a memo from a congressional staffer to
> know that Republicans have just been handed another strong
> talking point for judical 'balance'.
>
...or to 'request' that peraps a 'nice Christian person' help 'clean up' the judiciary, like they 'clean up' at abortion clinics.
> Clinton is only "centrist" in a comparison between Karl
> Marx and Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now, that's...abusrd? Asinine? Hilarious?
I would love to see your parallels.
In the American political
> arena, he is Liberal: Supports Abortion on demand,
Link?
>gun
> ownership restrictions,
You need to hunt with an assault weeapon?
broad interpretations on affirmitive
> action,
Um, link?
>gay rights,
Not really
>gay marriage,
Not true. Link?
>gay Boy Scouts,
heh...
>and
> expansive government.
What the (BLEEP) do you call what we have now?
He only adopted some
> conservative-backed issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, and
> military intervention in his second term where his
> re-election by fellow liberals was not an issue.
So, he is a centrist? Explain.
>
> While Ruth Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens can always be
> counted on for liberal votes, David Souter and Stephen
> Breyer are virtual liberals,
Maybe they are 'virtually balanced', you know, like FNC.
especially in the defining
> social issues of abortion, church/state issues, gun control
> and capital punishment.
beacuse it makes sense?
Only O'Connor and Kennedy are the
> crutial swing votes, with Kennedy one foot to the left of
> center, and O'Connor one foot to the right. Souter and
> Breyer were also in the minority in the 2000 Bush vs. Gore
> decision.
Hmmm. Link?
> This alignment also debunks the arguement that Supreme Court
> nominees reflect the political ideology of the President
> nominating them. This only comes up when liberals try to
> assert that the Supreme Court is "conservative" because a
> plurality of the current justices were nominated by
> Republican presidents. You have to look at their decisions
> to really tell.
Yeah. You do, don't you.
Please lay out the defining caselaw for all.
>
> If anybody dares call the Supreme Court "conservative"
> after yesterday's decision assaulting personal property
> owners, those people are being blinded by their partisan
> feelings. Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> property are confiscated for nature preserves and national
> parks by local governments that are sympathetic to liberal
> enviromentalists.
Yeah, right. Pfizer is a 'nature preserve'.
This has been happening for some time, but
> now that the libs are no longer required to disguise the
> land grabs for what they are, no homeowner is safe.
Huh? Explain please.
>
> Interestingly enough, this might actually boomerang against
> the liberals. A strong case could be made that all
> property-owning voters had better make sure local and state
> goverments are filled with people with limited-government
> (typically conservative) mindsets,
BWAHAHAHAHA!
or their homes could be
> bulldozed for the next Purple-Banded Fruitfly National
> Refuge.
hawh.
The Supreme Court, with this decision, has also
> reignited the flames of popular judicial indignation, that
> was just beginning to ebb after the Schiavo debacle. This
> time, you won't need a memo from a congressional staffer to
> know that Republicans have just been handed another strong
> talking point for judical 'balance'.
>
...or to 'request' that peraps a 'nice Christian person' help 'clean up' the judiciary, like they 'clean up' at abortion clinics.
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> > > Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> > > property are confiscated for nature preserves and
> national
> > > parks by local governments that are sympathetic to
> liberal
> > > enviromentalists.
> >
> > That has been allowed since the beginning of the nation.
> > The 5th Amendment specifically allows taking of land for
> > public use. A park, road, or nature preserve open to the
> > public has always fit under the definition of a public
> use.
> >
> > What this decision does is completely kills the concept of
> a
> > "public" use. Government can take your land and give it
> to
> > a company or a developer as long as it benefits someone.
> It
> > totally obliterates the concept of property rights.
> Justice
> > O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent against this nonsense.
>
>
> Notice the lack of commentary on either side of the
> political aisle. Outside of George Will's column in the
> Washington Post, Roger Hedgecock on Rush's show, and a
> cartoon on CNN.com (plus, of course, the dissenting opinions
> of the four Supreme Court justices who voted against it), no
> conservatives have said "Boo." Nothing from Bush or Cheney
> as yet.
>
> Not a peep from any liberal so far either, at least not that
> I've seen. And liberals, at least in the classic definition
> of the term, should be up in arms.
>
> But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal
> Democrat to speak out against this until a privately-owned
> low-income apartment complex is tagged for condemnation to
> make way for a Trump Tower. Then they'll realize what the
> real ramifications are.
>
I get the impression that direct criticism of the Supreme Court has been deemed subversive and pro-violent by liberals recently to refute dissatisfaction with the court by conservatives, specifically Tom DeLay. If conservatives seemed constrained against protesting to prevent judicial dissatisfaction overkill, the liberals don't want to lead any charge either, as the judicial system has largely provided liberal causes with plently of victories.
I wonder how this decision might boost the Flag Burning Amendment. This bill would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling and provide some scant evidence that the Separation Of Powers clause is still even possible. Only a couple of Senate votes determine whether the bill passes Congress for States ratification votes. State ratification by 34 states seems likley too.
> > > Just wait until huge tracts of land and personal
> > > property are confiscated for nature preserves and
> national
> > > parks by local governments that are sympathetic to
> liberal
> > > enviromentalists.
> >
> > That has been allowed since the beginning of the nation.
> > The 5th Amendment specifically allows taking of land for
> > public use. A park, road, or nature preserve open to the
> > public has always fit under the definition of a public
> use.
> >
> > What this decision does is completely kills the concept of
> a
> > "public" use. Government can take your land and give it
> to
> > a company or a developer as long as it benefits someone.
> It
> > totally obliterates the concept of property rights.
> Justice
> > O'Connor wrote a blistering dissent against this nonsense.
>
>
> Notice the lack of commentary on either side of the
> political aisle. Outside of George Will's column in the
> Washington Post, Roger Hedgecock on Rush's show, and a
> cartoon on CNN.com (plus, of course, the dissenting opinions
> of the four Supreme Court justices who voted against it), no
> conservatives have said "Boo." Nothing from Bush or Cheney
> as yet.
>
> Not a peep from any liberal so far either, at least not that
> I've seen. And liberals, at least in the classic definition
> of the term, should be up in arms.
>
> But I'm not holding my breath waiting for any liberal
> Democrat to speak out against this until a privately-owned
> low-income apartment complex is tagged for condemnation to
> make way for a Trump Tower. Then they'll realize what the
> real ramifications are.
>
I get the impression that direct criticism of the Supreme Court has been deemed subversive and pro-violent by liberals recently to refute dissatisfaction with the court by conservatives, specifically Tom DeLay. If conservatives seemed constrained against protesting to prevent judicial dissatisfaction overkill, the liberals don't want to lead any charge either, as the judicial system has largely provided liberal causes with plently of victories.
I wonder how this decision might boost the Flag Burning Amendment. This bill would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling and provide some scant evidence that the Separation Of Powers clause is still even possible. Only a couple of Senate votes determine whether the bill passes Congress for States ratification votes. State ratification by 34 states seems likley too.
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Clinton is only "centrist" in a comparison between Karl
> Marx and Ayatollah Khomeini.
And I thought Howard Dean was reckless in his comments.
>In the American political
> arena, he is Liberal: Supports Abortion on demand,
He said, Safe, Legal, and Rare. What do you support: abortion on delay, after a cup of tea? What a bunch of Republican bologna. Republicans oppose abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is in danger. They don't have any exceptions for the health or well being of the woman. In fact, regulating abortion as the republicans suggest would force the government to grant equal protection under the law to the unborn. The legal ramifications are inordinate- women would be investigated for manslaughter and accidental death with any miscarriage (or so-called 'miscarriage' if you will). What women consume in terms of medications and foods (including caffeine and tobacco) would be restricted if they were determined to be sexually active and likely to conceive. The government would have compelling jurisdiction to protect the unborn from the mother. That's a brave new world and doesn;t sound like small government to me. Sounds like big brother.
gun
> ownership restrictions, broad interpretations on affirmitive
> action, gay rights, gay marriage, gay Boy Scouts, and
> expansive government. He only adopted some
> conservative-backed issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, and
> military intervention in his second term where his
> re-election by fellow liberals was not an issue.
Suggesting NAFTA, welfare reform and military intervention policies are some sort of conservative tokenism is outrageous. These programs are incredibly far reaching and will have far more effect then President's opinion on the right to own your own anti-aircraft missile and his attitude that the boy scouts should lighten up (not that they did). The last I heard, the Clintons supported Civil unions on a state by state basis and he signed and supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Sounds like Dick Cheney and George Bush as far as I can tell. I haven't heard much from the right on Affirmitive action recently so I can't say I am clear anymore on their opinion- probably a wedge issue losing its edge.
> Interestingly enough, this might actually boomerang against
> the liberals. A strong case could be made that all
> property-owning voters had better make sure local and state
> goverments are filled with people with limited-government
> (typically conservative) mindsets, or their homes could be
> bulldozed for the next Purple-Banded Fruitfly National
> Refuge. The Supreme Court, with this decision, has also
> reignited the flames of popular judicial indignation, that
> was just beginning to ebb after the Schiavo debacle. This
> time, you won't need a memo from a congressional staffer to
> know that Republicans have just been handed another strong
> talking point for judical 'balance'.
>
Good luck with this reasoning. You are forgetting this bulldozing was being done for commerce and jobs. The happy talking points of the right. The notion that the purple fruit-fly will have a chance versus purple fruitfly industries inc and its 50,000 new jobs for hobunk USA is pretty unlikely. This is a pro-corporate, pro-industry grab that supported the same kind of government intrusion that built the interstate highway system and the hoover dam. This is a nationalist versus libertarian fight and it cuts through both parties. It will be interesting to see it work out...
> Clinton is only "centrist" in a comparison between Karl
> Marx and Ayatollah Khomeini.
And I thought Howard Dean was reckless in his comments.
>In the American political
> arena, he is Liberal: Supports Abortion on demand,
He said, Safe, Legal, and Rare. What do you support: abortion on delay, after a cup of tea? What a bunch of Republican bologna. Republicans oppose abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is in danger. They don't have any exceptions for the health or well being of the woman. In fact, regulating abortion as the republicans suggest would force the government to grant equal protection under the law to the unborn. The legal ramifications are inordinate- women would be investigated for manslaughter and accidental death with any miscarriage (or so-called 'miscarriage' if you will). What women consume in terms of medications and foods (including caffeine and tobacco) would be restricted if they were determined to be sexually active and likely to conceive. The government would have compelling jurisdiction to protect the unborn from the mother. That's a brave new world and doesn;t sound like small government to me. Sounds like big brother.
gun
> ownership restrictions, broad interpretations on affirmitive
> action, gay rights, gay marriage, gay Boy Scouts, and
> expansive government. He only adopted some
> conservative-backed issues like NAFTA, welfare reform, and
> military intervention in his second term where his
> re-election by fellow liberals was not an issue.
Suggesting NAFTA, welfare reform and military intervention policies are some sort of conservative tokenism is outrageous. These programs are incredibly far reaching and will have far more effect then President's opinion on the right to own your own anti-aircraft missile and his attitude that the boy scouts should lighten up (not that they did). The last I heard, the Clintons supported Civil unions on a state by state basis and he signed and supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Sounds like Dick Cheney and George Bush as far as I can tell. I haven't heard much from the right on Affirmitive action recently so I can't say I am clear anymore on their opinion- probably a wedge issue losing its edge.
> Interestingly enough, this might actually boomerang against
> the liberals. A strong case could be made that all
> property-owning voters had better make sure local and state
> goverments are filled with people with limited-government
> (typically conservative) mindsets, or their homes could be
> bulldozed for the next Purple-Banded Fruitfly National
> Refuge. The Supreme Court, with this decision, has also
> reignited the flames of popular judicial indignation, that
> was just beginning to ebb after the Schiavo debacle. This
> time, you won't need a memo from a congressional staffer to
> know that Republicans have just been handed another strong
> talking point for judical 'balance'.
>
Good luck with this reasoning. You are forgetting this bulldozing was being done for commerce and jobs. The happy talking points of the right. The notion that the purple fruit-fly will have a chance versus purple fruitfly industries inc and its 50,000 new jobs for hobunk USA is pretty unlikely. This is a pro-corporate, pro-industry grab that supported the same kind of government intrusion that built the interstate highway system and the hoover dam. This is a nationalist versus libertarian fight and it cuts through both parties. It will be interesting to see it work out...
Re: OT: More Govt BS
I think it's funny the original post is now listed as "deleted" yet it is fully quoted in the first reply. Ha! What's the reason for deleting it anyway?
I didn't have time to read all the political crap everyone wrote. But here's the thing. I see both sides. And while I wish that ammendment didn't exist in the constitution, it does. But here's the kicker. Local governments still have the say. It's your city council who will be taking land. And I don't think many will try this for a Wal-Mart or risk being thrown out of office come next election.
Of course Wal-Mart might start working back alley deals for votes, but that would be so costly. The elected officials would rather keep their jobs I'm sure.<P ID="signature">______________
Russ
APD/Middays
97-3 KISS FM (WAEV)
Savannah, GA</P>
I think it's funny the original post is now listed as "deleted" yet it is fully quoted in the first reply. Ha! What's the reason for deleting it anyway?
I didn't have time to read all the political crap everyone wrote. But here's the thing. I see both sides. And while I wish that ammendment didn't exist in the constitution, it does. But here's the kicker. Local governments still have the say. It's your city council who will be taking land. And I don't think many will try this for a Wal-Mart or risk being thrown out of office come next election.
Of course Wal-Mart might start working back alley deals for votes, but that would be so costly. The elected officials would rather keep their jobs I'm sure.<P ID="signature">______________
Russ
APD/Middays
97-3 KISS FM (WAEV)
Savannah, GA</P>
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've seen very
> little coverage of this decision other than a headline on
> Drudge. You'd think FNC would be all over it, but they're
> "All Natalie Holloway, All The Time."
>
At least some locals are covering it. Liddy and Hill on Phoenix's KFYI were all over the story this afternoon.
The Supreme Court decision was just plain wrong. Taking property for a public use, such as a road or bridge, is one thing - constitutional per the 5th Amendment - but this case didn't involve public use; it was for private use.
And since you bring up Natalie Holloway, can somebody tell me why this is even national news in the first place?
> Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I've seen very
> little coverage of this decision other than a headline on
> Drudge. You'd think FNC would be all over it, but they're
> "All Natalie Holloway, All The Time."
>
At least some locals are covering it. Liddy and Hill on Phoenix's KFYI were all over the story this afternoon.
The Supreme Court decision was just plain wrong. Taking property for a public use, such as a road or bridge, is one thing - constitutional per the 5th Amendment - but this case didn't involve public use; it was for private use.
And since you bring up Natalie Holloway, can somebody tell me why this is even national news in the first place?
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> I think it's funny the original post is now listed as
> "deleted" yet it is fully quoted in the first reply. Ha!
> What's the reason for deleting it anyway?
>
> I didn't have time to read all the political crap everyone
> wrote. But here's the thing. I see both sides. And while I
> wish that ammendment didn't exist in the constitution, it
> does. But here's the kicker. Local governments still have
> the say. It's your city council who will be taking land. And
> I don't think many will try this for a Wal-Mart or risk
> being thrown out of office come next election.
>
> Of course Wal-Mart might start working back alley deals for
> votes, but that would be so costly. The elected officials
> would rather keep their jobs I'm sure.
>
Well-put russ973. It comes down to the amendment and that you can't seek judicial releif from constitutional rights of government.You need to seek legislative releif. The politicians are at fault, not the courts. It has also not been mentioned that the property was not stolen by the government, the people will recieve just compensation (probably more than just)...
In fact, the courts sound like strict constructionists in this case. Had the justices allowed the courts to be arbiters of what constitutes "pulic-use" you would open up quite a can of worms. Something conservatives call judicial activism...
> I think it's funny the original post is now listed as
> "deleted" yet it is fully quoted in the first reply. Ha!
> What's the reason for deleting it anyway?
>
> I didn't have time to read all the political crap everyone
> wrote. But here's the thing. I see both sides. And while I
> wish that ammendment didn't exist in the constitution, it
> does. But here's the kicker. Local governments still have
> the say. It's your city council who will be taking land. And
> I don't think many will try this for a Wal-Mart or risk
> being thrown out of office come next election.
>
> Of course Wal-Mart might start working back alley deals for
> votes, but that would be so costly. The elected officials
> would rather keep their jobs I'm sure.
>
Well-put russ973. It comes down to the amendment and that you can't seek judicial releif from constitutional rights of government.You need to seek legislative releif. The politicians are at fault, not the courts. It has also not been mentioned that the property was not stolen by the government, the people will recieve just compensation (probably more than just)...
In fact, the courts sound like strict constructionists in this case. Had the justices allowed the courts to be arbiters of what constitutes "pulic-use" you would open up quite a can of worms. Something conservatives call judicial activism...
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> I wonder how this decision might boost the Flag Burning
> Amendment. This bill would effectively overturn the Supreme
> Court's ruling and provide some scant evidence that the
> Separation Of Powers clause is still even possible. Only a
> couple of Senate votes determine whether the bill passes
> Congress for States ratification votes. State ratification
> by 34 states seems likley too.
>
Thousands dead in Iraq, and economy in a state of chronic malaise. Let's save the flag! Last I heard Republicans were trying to have hate-speech/crimes laws changed/removed and protecting the rights of all Americans to Burn their own crosses. Such belies the real motivation of some of our Republican friends I am afraid. Burn a cross, not a flag- nice jingle, huh?
From a religious perspective does it not give conservative christians pause that a secular icon like the flag should receive such protections? I wonder what the good old testament has to say about that...
> I wonder how this decision might boost the Flag Burning
> Amendment. This bill would effectively overturn the Supreme
> Court's ruling and provide some scant evidence that the
> Separation Of Powers clause is still even possible. Only a
> couple of Senate votes determine whether the bill passes
> Congress for States ratification votes. State ratification
> by 34 states seems likley too.
>
Thousands dead in Iraq, and economy in a state of chronic malaise. Let's save the flag! Last I heard Republicans were trying to have hate-speech/crimes laws changed/removed and protecting the rights of all Americans to Burn their own crosses. Such belies the real motivation of some of our Republican friends I am afraid. Burn a cross, not a flag- nice jingle, huh?
From a religious perspective does it not give conservative christians pause that a secular icon like the flag should receive such protections? I wonder what the good old testament has to say about that...
K
KeithE
Guest
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> At least some locals are covering it. Liddy and Hill on
> Phoenix's KFYI were all over the story this afternoon.
I'll bet that was some intelligent commentary! NOT! But then, I don't bother listening to Dumb and Dumber anymore so I have no idea what they said.
> The Supreme Court decision was just plain wrong. Taking
> property for a public use, such as a road or bridge, is one
> thing - constitutional per the 5th Amendment - but this case
> didn't involve public use; it was for private use.
I agree 100%. So do many other people not in the federal government, including the Governors of Georgia, Connecticut (where the case was from), and Collyforneea. Governator Ahnuld was on Jay Leno's show last night. It was a brief conversation about it but both agreed that it was a bad decision.
> And since you bring up Natalie Holloway, can somebody tell
> me why this is even national news in the first place?
Good question, but I give Greta Van Sustren, and her interviews with the Van der Sloot kid's family, including his now-arrested father the judge, at least some of the credit for the case proceeding as far as it has.
But, no, it shouldn't be a national news story, as tragic as it might end up becoming. But if it involves missing kids or young, affluent, attractive, white women, it's national news. Shouldn't be that way but it is.
> At least some locals are covering it. Liddy and Hill on
> Phoenix's KFYI were all over the story this afternoon.
I'll bet that was some intelligent commentary! NOT! But then, I don't bother listening to Dumb and Dumber anymore so I have no idea what they said.
> The Supreme Court decision was just plain wrong. Taking
> property for a public use, such as a road or bridge, is one
> thing - constitutional per the 5th Amendment - but this case
> didn't involve public use; it was for private use.
I agree 100%. So do many other people not in the federal government, including the Governors of Georgia, Connecticut (where the case was from), and Collyforneea. Governator Ahnuld was on Jay Leno's show last night. It was a brief conversation about it but both agreed that it was a bad decision.
> And since you bring up Natalie Holloway, can somebody tell
> me why this is even national news in the first place?
Good question, but I give Greta Van Sustren, and her interviews with the Van der Sloot kid's family, including his now-arrested father the judge, at least some of the credit for the case proceeding as far as it has.
But, no, it shouldn't be a national news story, as tragic as it might end up becoming. But if it involves missing kids or young, affluent, attractive, white women, it's national news. Shouldn't be that way but it is.
Re: OT: More Govt BS
>Thousands dead in Iraq,
Allow me to put some perspective to your statement: in the past 2 years, we've lost about 1700 service men and women in Iraq, including about 400 who have died in non-hostile actions, such as vehicle accidents and natural causes. On D-Day alone, the death toll due to hostile action was estimated at 2500-5000. See 6/6/04 KGO article (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/060604_nw_d_day.html) for reference. That means that we took 1500-3000 times more casualties in the D-Day invasion than we have in Iraq. (1300 casualties vs. 2500-5000 casualties, and 730 days vs. 1 day.)
> and economy in a state of chronic malaise.
Sounds like a local problem to me. The economy is booming in many parts of the country.
> Let's save the flag! Last I heard Republicans were
> trying to have hate-speech/crimes laws changed/removed and
> protecting the rights of all Americans to Burn their own
> crosses. Such belies the real motivation of some of our
> Republican friends I am afraid. Burn a cross, not a flag-
> nice jingle, huh?
Last you heard, those little voices were talking to you again. Talk about BS!
>
> From a religious perspective does it not give conservative
> christians pause that a secular icon like the flag should
> receive such protections? I wonder what the good old
> testament has to say about that...
>
It says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neigbor." (Exodus 20:16, NKJV), or "Do not lie." You come up short on that one.
Funny how you bring up conservative Christians, which is completely irrelevant to the topic of flag burning. I doubt that most conservative Christians care deeply one way or another about flag burning. They're too busy with other things, just like everybody else.
Given your commentary on Republicans which is at best uninformed, and at worst inflammatory, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that many conservatives, including myself, are opposed to a flag-burning amendment. It's a waste of time and money and a knee-jerk reaction to an action that, while being incredibly offensive, is also incredibly rare.
I'd prefer that they spend their time putting through an amendment protecting private property rights from government entities that want to confiscate it for private development. The conservative Supreme Court justices sided with the landowners; the liberal ones sided with government.
>Thousands dead in Iraq,
Allow me to put some perspective to your statement: in the past 2 years, we've lost about 1700 service men and women in Iraq, including about 400 who have died in non-hostile actions, such as vehicle accidents and natural causes. On D-Day alone, the death toll due to hostile action was estimated at 2500-5000. See 6/6/04 KGO article (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/060604_nw_d_day.html) for reference. That means that we took 1500-3000 times more casualties in the D-Day invasion than we have in Iraq. (1300 casualties vs. 2500-5000 casualties, and 730 days vs. 1 day.)
> and economy in a state of chronic malaise.
Sounds like a local problem to me. The economy is booming in many parts of the country.
> Let's save the flag! Last I heard Republicans were
> trying to have hate-speech/crimes laws changed/removed and
> protecting the rights of all Americans to Burn their own
> crosses. Such belies the real motivation of some of our
> Republican friends I am afraid. Burn a cross, not a flag-
> nice jingle, huh?
Last you heard, those little voices were talking to you again. Talk about BS!
>
> From a religious perspective does it not give conservative
> christians pause that a secular icon like the flag should
> receive such protections? I wonder what the good old
> testament has to say about that...
>
It says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neigbor." (Exodus 20:16, NKJV), or "Do not lie." You come up short on that one.
Funny how you bring up conservative Christians, which is completely irrelevant to the topic of flag burning. I doubt that most conservative Christians care deeply one way or another about flag burning. They're too busy with other things, just like everybody else.
Given your commentary on Republicans which is at best uninformed, and at worst inflammatory, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that many conservatives, including myself, are opposed to a flag-burning amendment. It's a waste of time and money and a knee-jerk reaction to an action that, while being incredibly offensive, is also incredibly rare.
I'd prefer that they spend their time putting through an amendment protecting private property rights from government entities that want to confiscate it for private development. The conservative Supreme Court justices sided with the landowners; the liberal ones sided with government.
Re: OT: More Govt BS
> > At least some locals are covering it. Liddy and Hill on
> > Phoenix's KFYI were all over the story this afternoon.
>
> I'll bet that was some intelligent commentary! NOT! But
> then, I don't bother listening to Dumb and Dumber anymore so
> I have no idea what they said.
>
Nice...use a "Wayne's World" expression to question someone else's intelligence! :-D
Truth is, the commentary was very intelligent. Liddy and Hill's clowning around and posturing (especially Liddy's) are just part of the schtick. I enjoy their show - nobody said conservatism had to be serious all the time, although I do find something else to listen to during PC Friday. Liddy and Hill can provide intelligent commentary at times, which is more than I could say about Mike Newcomb over at KFNX.
> > At least some locals are covering it. Liddy and Hill on
> > Phoenix's KFYI were all over the story this afternoon.
>
> I'll bet that was some intelligent commentary! NOT! But
> then, I don't bother listening to Dumb and Dumber anymore so
> I have no idea what they said.
>
Nice...use a "Wayne's World" expression to question someone else's intelligence! :-D
Truth is, the commentary was very intelligent. Liddy and Hill's clowning around and posturing (especially Liddy's) are just part of the schtick. I enjoy their show - nobody said conservatism had to be serious all the time, although I do find something else to listen to during PC Friday. Liddy and Hill can provide intelligent commentary at times, which is more than I could say about Mike Newcomb over at KFNX.
- Status