"blake murphy" > wrote in message
> edwin obviously thinks the constitution is for wimps, and people
> should be forced to testify against themselves. that's why torture is
> such a good thing.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Torture is a good thing at times. I'd like to see a slug like you tortured
for stating what I "obviously think" with no sustaining facts.

OTOH, the First Amendment gives me the right to state that I think you are a
jackass.

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote

> I've read a few case histories in the past couple of weeks. Many of the
> people struggling or losing their homes are still working and making a
> decent buck, but they bought more house than they could afford. They were
> betting on a re-finance in two years and now they can't do it.
>
> One is a woman, 70 years old. that is working 80 hours a week to afford
> the $1,000,000 balance on her mortgage on a house bought just a couple of
> years ago. Variable rate kicked in and payments went up. The value has
> dropped so she'd have to sell at a loss to bail out. Appraisal is less
> than her mortgage balance so she cannot refinance. At her age, did she
> really have to buy that expensive of a home?

Geez. Remember when a jumbo loan was a couple hundred thousand?

The papers are full of stories like you mentioned. It's really disturbing
how
many people have no financial clue whatsoever. And what's with the banks
throwing money around like that, it's not as if they could have missed all
the
warnings of things to come. I still see ads, no credit check, no salary
verification ...
sign here and the house is yours.

A lot of stories say that the papers they signed were not what they
thought they were getting. Did they even look at the papers they get
before closing to see what they said? Because if it's different, you have
a claim. Another thing is having a lawyer representing you seems to have
gone by the wayside. The mortgage company sends people to the house,
sign here, sign there, bye. Creepy.

> I don't feel bad for the people that complain they can barely makes ends
> meet when the driveway has a new BMW and a Hummer. We have choices. You
> can do whatever you want with your money, but some choices have more risk
> than others.

I've known plenty of people like that. I've had my share of credit card
debt in my day, nothing overwhelming but not fun, either. Hardly anything
feels as good to own as not owing money feels.

> Comes down to "I want the big house and I want it NOW." Can work in a
> rising market, can screw you in a falling one.

I guess people thought, well, if the bank thinks it's okay, then it'll work
out.
Then a lot of people are young enough not to understand house prices didn't
always go up 30% every year. Ditto the stock market. Sad to see so many
people hurting.

nancy

"Dee Dee" > wrote in message
...
>I dragged/drug DH into a uniform store to 'look' at Crocs. He was greatly
>relieved that none fit. He is a half-size and so am I, so we saved a
>bundle!

Oh Dee Dee)) LOL

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > > I've known a lot of people that complain about not having money, even
> > > though I know that they have a lot more than I do (or at least a similar
> > > amount). I almost always have money. I have five cell phones, but that
> > > isn't that much money, depending on what you have.
> >
> > The point is priorities...
> >
> > Are you being forclosed on or evicted?
> > Do you pay your necessary bills before indulging in toys and fast food?
>
>
> No, the mortgage has been paid off for years. It feels really good,
> especially since I don't work.

I'll be paid off in another 4 years. ;-)

But then I'll need to finance for remodeling. <sigh>

At least it won't be for as much this time.
I might even just hold off and save for it. Stash the money in savings
that would have gone into morgage and just wait.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote:

> Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't ever want to buy a reposessed house or car... it would just
> >feel so WRONG to me that somebody else should suffer just so that I
> >could get a bargain...
>
> So how do you feel about living in a house that's built on land that
> indigineous peoples were forcibly removed from?
>
> i.e. any house in North America that's not on a reservation...
>
> Steve

That was mean.
Accurate, but mean. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
"Dee Dee" > wrote:

> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> >> My wife buys most of her clothing at Goodwill. Why not?
> >
> > I get most of them at Ross Dress for Less and Wal-mart. The local Thrift
> > store is not open during my regular shopping hours or I'd hit them more
> > often.
> > --
> > Peace, Om
>
> Saturday DH & I were discussing that I wish they'd get some new women's
> slacks at Costco because I needed some summer slacks. I have 3 pair bought
> in 1993 at Costco. 3 bought about 2000 at a cheaper store than either Ross
> or Walmart, and 1 pair on sale for $8 at LL Bean about 2000. I noticed that
> one pair was getting thread-bare. I guess I just don't care about summer
> clothes because my winter "collection" is much better. But still, most of
> it is 'warehouse dressing' and LLBean catalog sales.
>
> I dragged/drug DH into a uniform store to 'look' at Crocs. He was greatly
> relieved that none fit. He is a half-size and so am I, so we saved a
> bundle!
> Dee Dee

One other place to look is early morning Saturday Garage sales.

They sell a remarkable amount of clothing at garage sales here, but it's
been several years since I've tried that venue. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Peter A > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > Your reaction is neither right not wrong, you are entitled to your own
> > sense of
> > right and wrong.
> >
> > Dimitri
> >
>
> Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?

I guessed that ages ago when he killfiled me over the gun posts. <G>

>
> I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
> the head and taking your money is "right."

Whatever works...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> (Steve Pope) wrote:
>
>> Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
>>
>> >I wouldn't ever want to buy a reposessed house or car... it would just
>> >feel so WRONG to me that somebody else should suffer just so that I
>> >could get a bargain...
>>
>> So how do you feel about living in a house that's built on land that
>> indigineous peoples were forcibly removed from?
>>
>> i.e. any house in North America that's not on a reservation...
>>
>> Steve
>
> That was mean.
> Accurate, but mean. ;-)
> --
> Peace, Om

Karen AKA Kajikit -- are you indigenous? Only if you care to answer.
Dee Dee

In article >,
"Dee Dee" > wrote:

>
> "Omelet" > wrote in message
> news
> > In article >,
> > (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >
> >> Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
> >>
> >> >I wouldn't ever want to buy a reposessed house or car... it would just
> >> >feel so WRONG to me that somebody else should suffer just so that I
> >> >could get a bargain...
> >>
> >> So how do you feel about living in a house that's built on land that
> >> indigineous peoples were forcibly removed from?
> >>
> >> i.e. any house in North America that's not on a reservation...
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > That was mean.
> > Accurate, but mean. ;-)
> > --
> > Peace, Om
>
> Karen AKA Kajikit -- are you indigenous? Only if you care to answer.
> Dee Dee

Only in my dreams... <G>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article >,
Peter A > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> > Your reaction is neither right not wrong, you are entitled to your own
> > sense of
> > right and wrong.
> >
> > Dimitri
> >
>
> Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?
>
> I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
> the head and taking your money is "right."

The courts would take exception to that; there are laws prohibiting
assault. Terri's question doesn't address the law; she's asking about
ethical behavior and if respondents here concur with hers.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - Fair baking

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>> I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
>> the head and taking your money is "right."
>
> The courts would take exception to that; there are laws prohibiting
> assault. Terri's question doesn't address the law; she's asking about
> ethical behavior and if respondents here concur with hers.

I would feel bad taking advantage of a mistake (assuming it was a
mistake?) Perhaps one bottle is tolerable to me, if a posted price must
be given at that value? And my buying that bottle would then give them
the chance to correct their error but I wouldn't feel right then taking
the other three bottles.
It is not unlike some people here who in the past have said they would
keep the cash if the cashier mistakenly over paid them while making
change. I don't. I can't "enjoy" that sort of windfall. <shrug>

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote

>
>> Comes down to "I want the big house and I want it NOW." Can work in a
>> rising market, can screw you in a falling one.
>
> I guess people thought, well, if the bank thinks it's okay, then it'll work
> out. Then a lot of people are young enough not to understand house prices didn't
> always go up 30% every year. Ditto the stock market. Sad to see so many
> people hurting.
>


Yes, they will be hurting, but did they ever stop to think that the
carousel might stop some day? Did they really NEED the two luxury cars
plus the SUV or all-terrain toy or big boat? And the most expensive
cell phone plan? And wireless internet connection? And the all-house
Bose music system? And the dinner at a fancy restaurant once or twice a
week? And the 80 ft. RV? And the time-share in Vail or Cape Cod or
California shore?

These aren't millionaires I'm talking about. Just recently I overheard
a ramp (baggage) worker on the bus to the employee parking lot at the
airport complain (brag?) that his family's cell phones cost him over
$500 a MONTH! EZ credit has made everyone think he can live like the
independently wealthy. Dependence on a VISA card or home equity loan is
NOT independent wealth. Eventually the piper must be paid.

gloria p

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> >> I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
> >> the head and taking your money is "right."
> >
> > The courts would take exception to that; there are laws prohibiting
> > assault. Terri's question doesn't address the law; she's asking about
> > ethical behavior and if respondents here concur with hers.
>
> I would feel bad taking advantage of a mistake (assuming it was a
> mistake?) Perhaps one bottle is tolerable to me, if a posted price must
> be given at that value? And my buying that bottle would then give them
> the chance to correct their error but I wouldn't feel right then taking
> the other three bottles.
> It is not unlike some people here who in the past have said they would
> keep the cash if the cashier mistakenly over paid them while making
> change. I don't. I can't "enjoy" that sort of windfall. <shrug>

I've never kept change from over-pays.
I've been a cashier. It hurts them at the end of the day if they make
mistakes.

Cashier errors, again, are not the same as taking advantage of a
published price in a menu.

Personally, I'd question a possible mis-print with the manager before
making a purchase, but that's just me.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Puester" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote

>>> Comes down to "I want the big house and I want it NOW." Can work in a
>>> rising market, can screw you in a falling one.
>>
>> I guess people thought, well, if the bank thinks it's okay, then it'll
>> work out. Then a lot of people are young enough not to understand house
>> prices didn't
>> always go up 30% every year. Ditto the stock market. Sad to see so many
>> people hurting.

> Yes, they will be hurting, but did they ever stop to think that the
> carousel might stop some day?

Seems not. I just feel bad that people are learning such a hard
lesson. Even worse, it's affecting everyone, not just the people
who over-extended themselves.

> These aren't millionaires I'm talking about. Just recently I overheard a
> ramp (baggage) worker on the bus to the employee parking lot at the
> airport complain (brag?) that his family's cell phones cost him over $500
> a MONTH!

That would put a crimp in my style. That's a car payment right there,
and you don't even wind up with a car to show for it.

> EZ credit has made everyone think he can live like the independently
> wealthy. Dependence on a VISA card or home equity loan is NOT independent
> wealth. Eventually the piper must be paid.

Ever catch that show, Big Spender? The guy called one of his
couples $30,000 millionaires. In other words, looking like
millionaires with all the stuff they own, but only making 30G.

We've come a long way, it seems, from my parents who refused
to have a credit card because they heard it could get you into
trouble. They only got one when they found out it helped with
making hotel reservations when they traveled.

nancy

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Your reaction is neither right not wrong, you are entitled to your own sense
>> of
>> right and wrong.
>>
>> Dimitri
>>
>
> Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?
>
> I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
> the head and taking your money is "right."
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Apparently you need to learn the distinction between feelings and action. True
feelings have no mortality, it is the actions we take based upon the feelings
that have morality.

Don't worry some day you'll grow up.

Dimitri

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Certainly not the vast majority, but many of the people in trouble made
>> bad
>> decisions.
>>
>
> Why "certainly?" How do you know this? It may well be true - I don't
> know any better than you do - but you are making claims without support.
> Like so many people, you think that what you believe must be supported
> by facts, even if you don't have those facts.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

How do you know I don't have the facts?
I've read enough to know that the word applies. Read up and find out for
yourself. Lots of facts available if you check out the newspaper business
section, Forbes, talk to mortgage lenders, bankers, etc.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:58:22 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>
>"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>>
>> We do civil law (constitutional law, primarily First and Fifth
>> Amendment). As clean as hands get in law.
>>
>
>Fifth Amendment? As in "I'm not talking because I can say the wrong thing
>(like the truth) and get my ass in trouble?" Yeah, that's clean.

No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>
> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
turning it over to developers.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:57:16 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> edwin obviously thinks the constitution is for wimps, and people
>> should be forced to testify against themselves. that's why torture is
>> such a good thing.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Torture is a good thing at times. I'd like to see a slug like you tortured
>for stating what I "obviously think" with no sustaining facts.
>
>OTOH, the First Amendment gives me the right to state that I think you are a
>jackass.
>

it sure does.

i'm not sure what wanting to see a stranger tortured for making
assumptions says about you, but i don't think it's good. and it does
indicate you think torture can be a good thing, so evidently i was
correct in my assumption.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>>
>> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
>> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>>
>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>
>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
>turning it over to developers.
>

well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
> wrote:

>>"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
>>> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>>>
>>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>
>>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
>>turning it over to developers.

> well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
> your second sentence doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
say goodbye to your neighborhood.

nancy

"Peter A" > wrote

> says...

>> >>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government
>> >>is
>> >>turning it over to developers.
>>
>> > well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
>> > your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
>> developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
>> to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
>> say goodbye to your neighborhood.

> I agree that the government taking private property and turning it over
> to developers is wrong, wrong, wrong. But you folks seem unaware of what
> the Supreme Court's job is.

Us folks? I was pointing out what Ed was probably talking about, I
didn't say anything about morality.

> It is not to make moral decisions about what
> is right and wrong. Rather, it is to decide what is permitted and what
> is not permitted by the constitution. In terms of state law, anything
> goes unless it is prohibited by the constitution.

Apparently some of the justices don't understand that since the
decision wasn't unanimous.

nancy.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
>>turning it over to developers.
>>
>
> well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
> your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
>
> your pal,
> blake



It does if you know that has been done. Most recently here in CT where
condos are going in where they are tearing down people's homes. The condos
will generate more tax income so it is "for the good of the people". It
made national news so please, try to keep up.

As for "parts of the constitution" you should read the entire thread to
realize I never said I disagreed with any part of it. Context matters. It
was not the constitution I was referring to, but the law firm's practice.

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> >>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
> >>turning it over to developers.
> >>
> >
> > well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
> > your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
>
>
> It does if you know that has been done. Most recently here in CT where
> condos are going in where they are tearing down people's homes. The condos
> will generate more tax income so it is "for the good of the people". It
> made national news so please, try to keep up.
>
> As for "parts of the constitution" you should read the entire thread to
> realize I never said I disagreed with any part of it. Context matters. It
> was not the constitution I was referring to, but the law firm's practice.

What they are doing is wrong and I don't understand how they are getting
away with it as it IS unconstitutional:

Amendment V

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."

The problem is, property being taken is NOT being "justly" compensated
for...

"Eminent domain"?
Give me a break.

But, the constitution is just "A god damned piece of paper" according to
president Shrub, (his words overheard) and he who has the gold makes the
rules...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> > Dimitri, you are a flaming leftist! Who would have guessed?
>> >
>> > I am happy to learn that I am "entitled" to think that hitting you on
>> > the head and taking your money is "right."
>> >
>> > --
>> > Peter Aitken
>>
>> Apparently you need to learn the distinction between feelings and action.
>> True
>> feelings have no mortality, it is the actions we take based upon the feelings
>> that have morality.
>
> In general I agree with you. But people's actions are usually based on
> their feelings, so you cannot completely separate the two. They way they
> judge others is also based on their feelings.

See once again you forget an important part of the equation. If the "feeling
" word is proceeded by the word THAT, as in I feel that you should give
yourself a whirly, then it not a feeling but a judgment. If you can substitute
the word THINK for the word FEEL and the statement makes sense then it is a
judgment, as in I feel Peter is s putz, makes sense. I think Peter is a Putz,
once again the sentence makes sense ergo both are judgments and not true
feelings.

The separation of the concepts of feeling and judgments is difficult for most
people.


Dimitri

;-)

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:13:16 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:26:01 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
>> wrote:
>
>>>"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> No, as in the part of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "nor shall
>>>> private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
>>>>
>>>> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
>>>
>>>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
>>>turning it over to developers.
>
>> well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
>> your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
>
>Perhaps they haven't been confiscating people's homes so that
>developers can build condos where you live. Supreme court seems
>to think it's a great idea. Oh, yeah, they give you some money, but
>say goodbye to your neighborhood.
>
>nancy
>

i understood what he meant. i meant his sentence, as written, didn't
make any sense.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:02:19 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>OK, I agree with that part. Especially the part where the government is
>>>turning it over to developers.
>>>
>>
>> well, i guess it's good you like *parts* of the constitution. but
>> your second sentence doesn't make any sense.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>
>
>It does if you know that has been done. Most recently here in CT where
>condos are going in where they are tearing down people's homes. The condos
>will generate more tax income so it is "for the good of the people". It
>made national news so please, try to keep up.

i know what you meant. i meant your sentence made no sense as
written.
>
>As for "parts of the constitution" you should read the entire thread to
>realize I never said I disagreed with any part of it. Context matters. It
>was not the constitution I was referring to, but the law firm's practice.
>

i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?

your pal,
blake

Peter A wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> > Regarding the wine list, sometimes a wine stays at a low price
> > on a winelist even as its market price has gone up with time.
> > They could have bought it pre-arrival at a bargain, and never
> > marked it up to market. Probably they are not losing any money.
>
> First of all, pre-arrival purchases never make that much of a difference
> in price in wine. Even so, you miss the point. The guy thought he was
> taking advantage of the restaurant due to a typo. Hence he is a sleaze.


What makes it worse was the way he gloated over having puled a fast one on
the restaurant. He could easily have just said that it is his favourite
wine, that it is hard to get and it is a good price. But no..... he had to
let the lawyer know that it was such a steal and obviously a mistake and
that he was going to take advantage of it.

It reminds me of the old joke about two lawyers walking down the street and
see a beautiful lady. One layer turns to the other and says "How would you
like to **** her?" and the other lawyer replied "Out of what?"

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
> i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
> forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
> it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?
>
> your pal,
> blake

There you go, making up stuff again. I never said it was wrong, but I do
think that most people that invoke the 5th are hiding something.

As for law first, some are OK, but the ones advertising and trolling for
victims on TV are about as sleazy as you can get. They don't care about
justice, only a percentage of the settlement.

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> > i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
> > forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
> > it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> There you go, making up stuff again. I never said it was wrong, but I do
> think that most people that invoke the 5th are hiding something.


Seen a lot of fictional tv shows, have you?


> As for law first, some are OK, but the ones advertising and trolling for
> victims on TV are about as sleazy as you can get. They don't care about
> justice, only a percentage of the settlement.

I haven't seen a lot of tv ads that weren't sleazy.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:23:34 -0500, Omelet >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>But, the constitution is just "A god damned piece of paper" according to
>president Shrub, (his words overheard) and he who has the gold makes the
>rules...

I believe the current administration could be referred to as a
"kleptocracy."

*******s.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:55:04 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> i guess i was confused by your attitude that the prohibition against
>> forced self-incrimation was wrong. so the law firm is o.k. as long as
>> it only concerns itself with the parts of the constitution you like?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>There you go, making up stuff again. I never said it was wrong, but I do
>think that most people that invoke the 5th are hiding something.
>

....which implies that you think it's wrong that the constitution
allows them to do so.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
> ...which implies that you think it's wrong that the constitution
> allows them to do so.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Take it to mean any way your narrow mind leads you to. Nope, I never said
that. If my ass was going off to jail, I'd invoke it too if I thought it
would save me, but it does not make a guilty man innocent.

In article >,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...which implies that you think it's wrong that the constitution
> > allows them to do so.
> >
> > your pal,
> > blake
>
> Take it to mean any way your narrow mind leads you to. Nope, I never said
> that. If my ass was going off to jail, I'd invoke it too if I thought it
> would save me, but it does not make a guilty man innocent.

Does it make an innocent man guilty?
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
For your listening pleasu http://www.am1500.com/pcast/80509.mp3 --
from the MN State Fair, 8-29-07

"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
>>
>> Take it to mean any way your narrow mind leads you to. Nope, I never
>> said
>> that. If my ass was going off to jail, I'd invoke it too if I thought it
>> would save me, but it does not make a guilty man innocent.
>
> Does it make an innocent man guilty?

There is no guilt or innocence in truth. If you don't lie cheat or steal,
nothing you say can be used against you.

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 09:15:11 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

>
>"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Take it to mean any way your narrow mind leads you to. Nope, I never
>>> said
>>> that. If my ass was going off to jail, I'd invoke it too if I thought it
>>> would save me, but it does not make a guilty man innocent.
>>
>> Does it make an innocent man guilty?
>
>There is no guilt or innocence in truth. If you don't lie cheat or steal,
>nothing you say can be used against you.
>

Ed, ......you talk like a man who's never been married !! ;o)


<rj>

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:21:23 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...which implies that you think it's wrong that the constitution
>> allows them to do so.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Take it to mean any way your narrow mind leads you to. Nope, I never said
>that. If my ass was going off to jail, I'd invoke it too if I thought it
>would save me, but it does not make a guilty man innocent.
>

so it's o.k. for you, but not other 'guilty men'?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 09:15:11 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

>There is no guilt or innocence in truth. If you don't lie cheat or steal,
>nothing you say can be used against you.
>
I guess you never heard of Joseph McCarthy, then?

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

Ophelia wrote:
>
>> as you may know, I work in Social History. A few years ago we had a set in
> on of our museums showing a miner's cottage from the previous century. It
> consisted of a fireplace, wooden table and two chairs. as well as some
> cooking pots
>
> One day some people from our local council brought some visitors. They were
> from Africa and were with our council to learn how to run an area. I was
> showing them around the exhibition and got to the miner's cottage. I was
> explaining how poor these miners had been and how bereft of comfort.
>
> I felt dreadful when they didn't understand what I was saying.. to them,
> that cottage was luxury. I never made that mistake again

Give yourself a break. If they were travelling oversees they probably live
a life of luxury back home. They likely live in a big house with servants
and drive a Mercedes. What do you think happens to the billions of dollars
in foreign aid that is sent every year?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> as you may know, I work in Social History. A few years ago we had a
>>> set in
>> on of our museums showing a miner's cottage from the previous century.
>> It
>> consisted of a fireplace, wooden table and two chairs. as well as some
>> cooking pots
>>
>> One day some people from our local council brought some visitors. They
>> were
>> from Africa and were with our council to learn how to run an area. I
>> was
>> showing them around the exhibition and got to the miner's cottage. I was
>> explaining how poor these miners had been and how bereft of comfort.
>>
>> I felt dreadful when they didn't understand what I was saying.. to them,
>> that cottage was luxury. I never made that mistake again
>
> Give yourself a break. If they were travelling oversees they probably live
> a life of luxury back home. They likely live in a big house with servants
> and drive a Mercedes. What do you think happens to the billions of
> dollars
> in foreign aid that is sent every year?

When I've noticed all the people of sooo many ethnic groups at the casinos
in CT, (realizing there are billions of people starving to death, of course)
yes, you've got to realize that somehow they've got to the U.S. with some
money in pocket. These are groups of people (not Japanese) that I'm speaking
of, the ones on the tour busses, so one does recognize that they are not
local -- well, perhaps they are - from NY. Who knows? But I never think
when I see people are in a traveling group that they are poor.

O, you watch your step! ;-)
Dee Dee