OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

So, is there anybody forcing a body to own property and to insure it?
No! Well, I thought so. As long as owning property is a choice then
you choose to pay property taxes and you choose to insure it. If you
borrow to buy then you're also forced to insure the property. It's as
simple as that. Now, if people were forced to own property then had
to pay property taxes and insurance, that would be a different story
altogether. It seems to me if there's any such thing as a fair tax
then property tax sure fits the bill.

It seems correct to me the more property and the more expensive
property you own you should be taxed on it on a percentage basis.
Same percentage whether your property is worth fifty grand or fifty
million grand. But there is help for the lower income folks. There
is a 25K homestead exemption soon to go up to 50K on which the
property owner pays not one thin dime. This helps out the low income
people and sticks it to the rich. Boy are the rich ****s ever
complaining and lobbying AGAINST the doubling of the homestead
exemption. Seems like they don't mind sticking it to the poor but
when they have to pay for their mansions they balk.

Wilbur Hubbard

The ability to own the land one lives upon is one of the most basic
and vital sources of, and expressions of, liberty. And you act as if
it's nothing more than a privilege? Hardly seems consistent with your
usual politics.


Where have you been? Don't you remember the recent Supreme Court
decision that states it is legal for government to condemn private
property for no other reason than so it can be sold to a developer in
order to increase the tax base? A total abuse of the eminent domain
principle.

So much for the ability to own land. Not only that, but try not paying
taxes on the land you "own" and see how long it takes before they take
it away from you.

Keep electing those Democrats. They appoint liberal judges who legislate
from the bench and take away right after right. Keep blaming everybody
but yourself for enabling these rapists. After all it wasn't your vote
that put them there. Yah right!

Wilbur Hubbard

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

* NE Sailboat wrote, On 3/12/2007 10:21 PM:
Jeff ,, let me take these one at a time...

Housing? No, people don't want to live in Mass. The population has
declined,

According to who? Not the official census.

in fact the state may lose at least one but maybe two Congressman
because of this.

If by "declined" you mean not growing as fast as some other parts of
the country, you're right.



The Big Dig a great system? Tell that to the lady who was killed when the
tunnel collapsed on her car.

A tragedy indeed. But everyone here understands that the Big Dig
replaces the most deadly stretch of interstate highway in the country.
Probably half a dozen people are alive today that would have died
on the old system.

In addition, think of the people that used to die of old age in the
traffic jams ...



The Ted Williams tunnel leaks! It is just a matter of time before the whole
tunnel goes ...

You must realize that the Ted Williams tunnel was built in Baltimore.



The former Governor Romney got out because he could not govern.

That's an understatement! And he wants to be president???

The Dems control the state.

God bless em!

GET OUT .. save yourself.

I've been planning to head south when my daughter get through school.
But if you'll promise to stay away, I might just hang out a while
longer.

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

* Gogarty wrote, On 3/13/2007 8:34 AM:
Jeff,

Your cool and calm air of total rebuttal in the face of so much mouth-foaming
nonsense is greatly appreciated by this former resident of Marblehead. who
heard way too much of the same sort of crap from the white pants set back in
those days of H.M. Pulham, Esq.


NE is nothing compared to jaxie!

Pulham is a great movie, you don't see it much nowadays.

And now for an almost total non-sequitur: Did you know that Hedy
Lamarr, who starred in H.M. Pulham, Esq., invented the
frequency-hopping technique that is now used by most cell phones? She
and composer George Antheil were granted a patent on it in WWII as a
technique for controlling missiles that couldn't be jammed.

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...
The ability to own the land one lives upon is one of the most basic and
vital sources of, and expressions of, liberty. And you act as if it's
nothing more than a privilege? Hardly seems consistent with your usual
politics.


Where have you been? Don't you remember the recent Supreme Court decision
that states it is legal for government to condemn private property for no
other reason than so it can be sold to a developer in order to increase
the tax base? A total abuse of the eminent domain principle.

So much for the ability to own land. Not only that, but try not paying
taxes on the land you "own" and see how long it takes before they take it
away from you.

Keep electing those Democrats. They appoint liberal judges who legislate
from the bench and take away right after right. Keep blaming everybody but
yourself for enabling these rapists. After all it wasn't your vote that
put them there. Yah right!

Wilbur Hubbard

A: The Supreme Court was wrong.
B: I am entirely aware of the lack of Allodial Title, and intimately aware
that one does not have freehold to land "owned" in the United States --
neither did I say that it is right. To the contrary, it supports my original
statement.
C: I have never voted for a Democrat, nor for a Republican.

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
llid says...



Where have you been? Don't you remember the recent Supreme Court
decision that states it is legal for government to condemn private
property for no other reason than so it can be sold to a developer in
order to increase the tax base? A total abuse of the eminent domain
principle.

Hey, Wilbur: What was the makeup of the Court that approved that
extension
of emminent domain? And who exactly were the people pushing for that
decision so that they could take over and develp somebody else's
private property?


Five liberal justices voted in favor of the right to take the property.
Four justices voted against. The five voting for were appointed by
Democrat Presidents. The four voting against by Republican presidents.

It was the developers who sued to take away the land. I don't know their
political affiliation.

Wilbur Hubbard

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...
The ability to own the land one lives upon is one of the most basic
and vital sources of, and expressions of, liberty. And you act as if
it's nothing more than a privilege? Hardly seems consistent with
your usual politics.


Where have you been? Don't you remember the recent Supreme Court
decision that states it is legal for government to condemn private
property for no other reason than so it can be sold to a developer in
order to increase the tax base? A total abuse of the eminent domain
principle.

So much for the ability to own land. Not only that, but try not
paying taxes on the land you "own" and see how long it takes before
they take it away from you.

Keep electing those Democrats. They appoint liberal judges who
legislate from the bench and take away right after right. Keep
blaming everybody but yourself for enabling these rapists. After all
it wasn't your vote that put them there. Yah right!

Wilbur Hubbard

A: The Supreme Court was wrong.
B: I am entirely aware of the lack of Allodial Title, and intimately
aware that one does not have freehold to land "owned" in the United
States -- neither did I say that it is right. To the contrary, it
supports my original statement.
C: I have never voted for a Democrat, nor for a Republican.

You should vote for the most conservative candidate (who has a chance of
winning) available in any election. Party affiliation should not be the
deciding factor. The main difference between conservative candidates and
liberal candidates is no Democrat candidate is conservative. Some
conservative candidates are not necessary Republicans. The Libertarian
Party candidates are generally more conservative than Republican
candidates. However, to date at least, you have thrown your vote right
down the toilet voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning. By
wasting your vote you have, in effect, given liberals one more vote for
their socialist agenda.

Wilbur Hubbard

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...
A: The Supreme Court was wrong.
B: I am entirely aware of the lack of Allodial Title, and intimately
aware that one does not have freehold to land "owned" in the United
States -- neither did I say that it is right. To the contrary, it
supports my original statement.
C: I have never voted for a Democrat, nor for a Republican.

You should vote for the most conservative candidate (who has a chance of
winning) available in any election. Party affiliation should not be the
deciding factor. The main difference between conservative candidates and
liberal candidates is no Democrat candidate is conservative. Some
conservative candidates are not necessary Republicans. The Libertarian
Party candidates are generally more conservative than Republican
candidates. However, to date at least, you have thrown your vote right
down the toilet voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning. By
wasting your vote you have, in effect, given liberals one more vote for
their socialist agenda.

Wilbur Hubbard

And by voting Republican you give weight to The Shrub and his illegal and
immoral war, and his "Sherman's March" through the Constitution.

A pox upon all their houses.

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 3/13/2007 12:10 PM:
Where have you been? Don't you remember the recent Supreme Court
decision that states it is legal for government to condemn private
property for no other reason than so it can be sold to a developer in
order to increase the tax base? A total abuse of the eminent domain
principle.

Hey, Wilbur: What was the makeup of the Court that approved that
extension
of emminent domain? And who exactly were the people pushing for that
decision so that they could take over and develp somebody else's
private property?


Five liberal justices voted in favor of the right to take the property.
Four justices voted against. The five voting for were appointed by
Democrat Presidents. The four voting against by Republican presidents.

It was the developers who sued to take away the land. I don't know their
political affiliation.

Five Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats???? Its been a
while since we've had that!

John Roberts G.W. Bush September 29, 2005
John Paul Stevens Ford December 19, 1975
Antonin Scalia Reagan September 26, 1986
Anthony Kennedy Reagan February 18, 1988
David Souter G.H.W. Bush October 9, 1990
Clarence Thomas G.H.W. Bush October 23, 1991
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clinton August 10, 1993
Stephen Breyer Clinton August 3, 1994
Samuel Alito G.W. Bush January 31, 2006

Also, Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Conner, who was nominated by Reagan;
Roberts replaced William Rehnquist, who was nominated by Nixon

So its been a long long time since the Supreme Court was controlled by
Democratic nominees.

You just flunked basic American History. Your citizenship has been
revoked!

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 3/13/2007 12:10 PM:
Where have you been? Don't you remember the recent Supreme Court
decision that states it is legal for government to condemn private
property for no other reason than so it can be sold to a developer
in
order to increase the tax base? A total abuse of the eminent domain
principle.

Hey, Wilbur: What was the makeup of the Court that approved that
extension
of emminent domain? And who exactly were the people pushing for that
decision so that they could take over and develp somebody else's
private property?


Five liberal justices voted in favor of the right to take the
property. Four justices voted against. The five voting for were
appointed by Democrat Presidents. The four voting against by
Republican presidents.

It was the developers who sued to take away the land. I don't know
their political affiliation.

Five Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats???? Its been a
while since we've had that!

John Roberts G.W. Bush September 29, 2005 John Paul Stevens Ford
December 19, 1975
Antonin Scalia Reagan September 26, 1986
Anthony Kennedy Reagan February 18, 1988
David Souter G.H.W. Bush October 9, 1990
Clarence Thomas G.H.W. Bush October 23, 1991 Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Clinton August 10, 1993
Stephen Breyer Clinton August 3, 1994
Samuel Alito G.W. Bush January 31, 2006

Also, Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Conner, who was nominated by Reagan;
Roberts replaced William Rehnquist, who was nominated by Nixon

So its been a long long time since the Supreme Court was controlled by
Democratic nominees.

You just flunked basic American History. Your citizenship has been
revoked!


You don't even have the right group, bonehead! Here's how it went down.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David
H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. If they weren't
liberals to begin with they are recognized as liberals now.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the
majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence
and power in the political process, including large corporations and
development firms."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...300783_pf.html

Go to the back of the class . . .

Wilbur Hubbard

OT -- Haliburton sees handwriting on the wall. Moves offshore.
 

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 3/13/2007 3:01 PM:

Five liberal justices voted in favor of the right to take the
property. Four justices voted against. The five voting for were
appointed by Democrat Presidents. The four voting against by
Republican presidents.

Five Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrats???? Its been a
while since we've had that!

John Roberts G.W. Bush September 29, 2005 John Paul Stevens Ford
December 19, 1975
Antonin Scalia Reagan September 26, 1986
Anthony Kennedy Reagan February 18, 1988
David Souter G.H.W. Bush October 9, 1990
Clarence Thomas G.H.W. Bush October 23, 1991 Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Clinton August 10, 1993
Stephen Breyer Clinton August 3, 1994
Samuel Alito G.W. Bush January 31, 2006

Also, Alito replaced Sandra Day O'Conner, who was nominated by Reagan;
Roberts replaced William Rehnquist, who was nominated by Nixon

So its been a long long time since the Supreme Court was controlled by
Democratic nominees.

You just flunked basic American History. Your citizenship has been
revoked!


You don't even have the right group, bonehead! Here's how it went down.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David
H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. If they weren't
liberals to begin with they are recognized as liberals now.

O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. They wrote that the
majority had tilted in favor of those with "disproportionate influence
and power in the political process, including large corporations and
development firms."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...300783_pf.html


Go to the back of the class . . .

Just like a Republican. When you're caught in a lie, you just deny
what you said! You were very explicit in claiming that the five
justices in favor were all "appointed by Democrat Presidents." In
fact, as I showed, only two were.