“Property-rights” advocates destroy the notion of community

I plan to devote a lot of pixels to the so-called “property-rights” debate, and the inevitable, BIAW-backed takings initiative. So I was interested to see Knute Berger’s latest Mossback column include the following comments on the issue from Robert Kennedy Jr.:

During our interview, I asked him mostly about the property-rights movement. It is making new headway in Oregon and resurging here in Washington as Tim Eyman and the development lobby consider a new ballot initiative, similar to Oregon’s recently passed Measure 37, which would compensate property owners if the value of their land goes down as the result of zoning and land-use laws.

“It’s a propaganda campaign to deceive the public,” says Bobby Jr. flatly. “There has never been a right to use your property in a way that injures your neighbor’s property.” The property-rights movement, he says, wants to exploit public assets for private gain. “The property-rights advocates have turned property rights on its head. . . . If government had to pay you not to put toxics in the air, not to dump sewage in water, the government couldn’t print enough money to do that. They’re about destroying the whole notion of community.” They are asserting a constitutional right to pollute, he says. “Look around at the communities that are the wealthiest, and they have the most controls. . . . If we all agree as a community to obey these laws and guidelines, we’ll all get richer.”

Some politicians have a gift for distilling an issue into a powerful, simple, and easy-to-digest message… and RFK Jr. is clearly one of them.

Others have a gift for sarcasm, so while we’re on the subject I thought I’d point you to Carl Ballard’s amusing “Dear Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights“.

Comments

  1. 1

    Chuck spews:

    “The property-rights advocates have turned property rights on its head. . . . If government had to pay you not to put toxics in the air, not to dump sewage in water,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    As with many other things you bounce off to the extremist wall, of coarse no one wants to stop such laws as the toxics or sewage, we arent morons. But if I own a certain property or properties, and I like lets say classic cars, but we have a law, ordinance or what have you that prevents me from having my Ford Mustang collection then that right should be negotiated and paid to me in full. Same with a chicken coop or horse corral.

  2. 2

    Ivan spews:

    “Chuck” says:

    “As with many other things you bounce off to the extremist wall, of coarse no one wants to stop such laws as the toxics or sewage, we arent morons. But if I own a certain property or properties, and I like lets say classic cars, but we have a law, ordinance or what have you that prevents me from having my Ford Mustang collection then that right should be negotiated and paid to me in full. Same with a chicken coop or horse corral.”

    I say:

    The taxpayers owe you nothing. You made an investment in land, now you are asking the taxpayers to guarantee you the rate of return on that investment you think you are entitled to.

    Stuff it, buddy. We owe you nothing. Land is no different than any other investment. You invest in a business, you assume the risk. You invest in a stock or some security, you assume the risk. You invest in land — repeat after me — YOU ASSUME THE RISK!

    We don’t owe you, or any other landowner, a god damn thing. The Growth Management Act, and the Critical Areas Ordinance in King County, go through the legislative process. You get your input at that time. You don’t have the votes? Tough shit. Contest the next election and rewrite the law if you win.

    Don’t come to mme with your hand out, Bubba. You and the rest of the “property rights” rednecks are just a bunch of damn leeches with your hands out, just like “welfare queens” in Cadillacs. So bite me!

  3. 3

    Chuck spews:

    No Ivan, the ones like the welfare queens are the ones like you that want to tell people what they can do on their property and want to do it for NOTHING. Who is the real “welfare queen”? The man who buys property paid his dime and is nothing like the welfare queen you mention.

  4. 4

    Chuck spews:

    Now on the other hand, if I move into an area that already has a local code, covenance or ordanances THAT ARE CLEAR AND I AM WELL INFORMED, then I should be required to abide by these rules. Now if the community decides to add further restrictions then that should be negotiated…

  5. 5

    zip spews:

    Comment by Ivan— 1/26/05 @ 8:20 pm

    Ivan, don’t worry fella nobody said you owed them anything. Go on back to listening to Air America and let the grown ups talk.

    Goldy, see what kind of wing nuts you encourage by publishing such a misguided article? RFK Jr is not a serious discusser of environmental issues; he is a flag waver for the cause. His type will never be satisfied no matter how clean the water and air are or how many environmental laws are strengthened. He proves his demagogic nature on this issue with “If government had to pay you not to put toxics in the air, not to dump sewage in water…” Come on get serious this is not what property rights issues are about and you know it.

    The problem right now is caused by the Critical Areas regs going too far in King County. This was entirely predictable given the heavy handed way the GMA is written. The environmental groups will have it no other way; they are in the RFK Jr. “never enough” school of thought. No matter how much tightening of environmental regs there is (and there has been one whole heck of a lot since I’ve been around) they will always be screaming for more.

    If any reasonable legislator proposes to touch the GMA and maybe reach some middle ground to prevent it from being initiatived out of existence, they will be accused of letting a bunch of polluting rednecks “put toxics in the air and dump sewage in the water”. Maybe you should use your forum to try to inject some common sense into the argument. If you convince a few people like crazy Ivan that they are off base you will have provided a public service.

  6. 6

    Ivan spews:

    “Crazy Ivan” is in fact a rural landowner in King County whose land is affected by the CAO, and doesn’t think it’s any big damn deal.

  7. 7

    Goldy spews:

    Zip… you haven’t seen the rhetoric that will come from the BIAW and their fellow “property-rights activists.” I think RFK Jr. was dead on in his analysis of the issue. “Property-rights” is a bogus catch phrase… there are no rights violated by the GMA. Once we get past that, then we can start having a debate over the specifics of growth management.

  8. 8

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    Crazy Ivan–
    Sadly many of the anti-growth left wingnuts who already have their’s (usually with inherited money from Mommy or Granny) seem to consistently subscribe to the following creed:
    “WHAT’S MINE IS MINE…AND WHAT’S YOURS IS OURS!!”
    The minute someone invades their space you can hear them squealing like stuck pigs!

  9. 9

    Mount Olympus Hiker spews:

    Hey zip…I think you’ve been spending too much time listening to the attack dogs on KVI and KTTH.

  10. 10

    Mount Olympus Hiker spews:

    ZIP needs to drop his haughty know-it-all attitude. Ivan isn’t crazy – Ivan’s got the right idea! You, ZIP, are obviously trying to sell yourself as a “moderate” who thinks he can give Goldy advice on how to talk about the issues. Talk about being off base.

    If you haven’t noticed, Goldy isn’t a Republican.

  11. 11

    Chuck spews:

    Sadly many of the anti-growth left wingnuts who already have their’s (usually with inherited money from Mommy or Granny) seem to consistently subscribe to the following creed:
    “WHAT’S MINE IS MINE…AND WHAT’S YOURS IS OURS!!”
    The minute someone invades their space you can hear them squealing like stuck pigs!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This is the sort of thing that california brownouts are made of…..

  12. 12

    Chuck spews:

    “Dear Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights“.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Goldy, this was posted by you so…in judgement of what you seem to think of people that support property rights I really have to say you may acctually be the most backward ignorant redneck personality I have ever ran into…I can possibly assume you were raised without your father as an excuse.

  13. 14

    Ivan spews:

    Hey, everybody supports “property rights.” The question is where do we draw the line? My problem is with these “takings” assholes. My questions to Chuck and Zip and “Mr. Cynical” and you other guys are: Does an investment in land carry risk or does it not, and do you think the taxpayers owe you protection from that risk, or do you not?

    Just how “free market” or “libertarian” are you guys anyway? Inquiring minds want to know.

  14. 15

    Chuck spews:

    The question is where do we draw the line?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    My line is at my property line, what happens on my property that doesnt directly affect you by contaminating your land or water (no not the rainwater dripping off of my project car contaminating the groundwater!) or keeping you up all night something like that is my buisiness. Just because my rock garden “clashes” with your kentucky bluegrass shouldnt give you the excuse to _uck with me…

  15. 16

    Goldy spews:

    “Dear Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights“.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Goldy, this was posted by you so…in judgement of what you seem to think of people that support property rights I really have to say you may acctually be the most backward ignorant redneck personality I have ever ran into…I can possibly assume you were raised without your father as an excuse.

    Chuck… huh? I’m not quite sure I get the insult. Please elaborate.

  16. 17

    Ivan spews:

    Chuck says:
    “Just because my rock garden “clashes” with your kentucky bluegrass shouldnt give you the excuse to _uck with me…”

    I say:

    Is that what I said I wanted to do? Take your straw man and smoke it.

    Now answer the questions I did ask: Do you think the taxpayers owe you, or any other landowner, a guaranteed return on their investment? Do you think investments in land should be immune from the risks of the free market, at the taxpayers’ expense?

  17. 18

    jim p spews:

    Ivan, you have to realize that Chuck never answers a question. He just jabbers on with more ‘mouth garbage’ and that is that. Give up the ‘fight’ with him and his ilk (Zip, Cynical et al) Never straight answers. Only right wingnut extremist rhetoric

  18. 19

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    jimp===
    I believe landowners already have plenty of risks.
    You are proposing yet another “layer” of risk called government regulatory risk.
    Propoerty owners ought to have a right to know in advance what these government regulatory risks are. If the government decides to take away an owners options for the “greater good”, he ought to be compensated.
    Ivan–
    Where do you draw the line???
    Allowing uncompensated government intervention can lead to all sorts of vindictive opportunities for government bureaucrats. I have already seen too many instances of it…in the name of the greater good!!
    Private property rights are an important pillar of our society.
    Ivan—are you a planner-type??? We have too many planners…who read the same planning BS and eventually believe it is there calling to control what goes on in a community.
    What is a plan?? Guidelines??
    I think there ought to be a Statewide Initiative re: GMA.
    Then we will see where folks are at.

  19. 20

    D Huygens spews:

    “This is the sort of thing that california brownouts are made of….. ” – Chuck
    =====

    No, gutted regulations, corporate criminals, and their friends in the White House are the things that California brownouts are made of.

  20. 21

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    Hey, everybody supports “property rights.” The question is where do we draw the line? My problem is with these “takings” assholes. My questions to Chuck and Zip and “Mr. Cynical” and you other guys are: Does an investment in land carry risk or does it not, and do you think the taxpayers owe you protection from that risk, or do you not?

    Just how “free market” or “libertarian” are you guys anyway? Inquiring minds want to know. -Comment by Ivan— 1/26/05 @ 11:26 pm

    The risk shouldn’t come from purposeful acts that destroy the value of the property perpetrated by the same government that collects and BENEFITS from the taxes on an individuals property.

    Property and land ownership have long been an American dream – ancestors invested and saved in order to pass it down to family members or as investment for the future income or retirement. While there is always a risk from occurances unforeseen – THE RISK SHOULD NOT BE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL STEAL YOUR LAND WITH NO COMPENSATION.

    It’s amazing that you libs howl and moan about the lot of the homeless and down trodden yet you have no compunction about grabbing property that could cause exactly that. Yes, yes, I know…your arguemnt will be those would be a very small minority (acceptable collateral damage). So tell me, HOW MANY exactly would be an acceptable number?

  21. 22

    steven spews:

    There’s a maxim you learn in law school: Bad facts make bad law. There’s a corollary to that: Bad laws make worse laws. Everyone agrees the government has the right to regulate the use of private property. The question is always “Where’s the line?” When the line gets pushed too far, then we are in danger of a backlash that just makes things worse. I fear this is what has happened with the Critical Areas Ordinance. However well intentioned it may be, it goes too far. For example, you can only cut down (not dig up or plow under, but cut down) less than a quarter acre of BLACKBERRIES without a permit. That is a bit ridiculous when the WSU Agricultural Extension lists the blackberry as one of the top ten pest plants. (http://lakewhatcom.wsu.edu/gar.....kberry.htm) In addition to over-regulation, the permitting process is so complex that most individual landowners will not have the time or money to comply.

    I strongly support the GMA and believe that Washington will be a better place to live because of it, but when the regulation can’t pass the Laugh test, it is time to revisit it before the negative reaction does even more harm.

  22. 23

    RDC spews:

    Comment 4 by Chuck…

    Chuck..the negotiation you speak of has already taken place, regarding the GMA. It took place in the legislature. You were represented. If you think you were not represented well, take your beef to your legislators.

  23. 24

    zip spews:

    Comment by steven— 1/27/05 @ 9:31 am

    Thanks for the backup, Steven. I also am not against the GMA.

    And to the rest of you, I’m not a KVI wing nut. I just think Ivans comment that those of us concerned about property rights have our hands out is ludicrous. And where does this “investment” theory come from? Why don’t you respond to the gist of my comment, which is:

    The attitudes of RFK Jr appear to be that people and groups that push for “property rights” will be allowed to put toxics in the air and dump sewage in the water unless all of us rise up and stop them right now! So send a check and we’ll stop the polluters! This has zero relevance to the King County CAO or WA State GMA issues, and I say Goldy knows that but chooses to fire up the base with this kind of BS anyway.

    The result of this is that all the “progressives” will crucify any reasonable legislator that tries to make the GMA a little less rigid and a little friendlier to those who live in this state. If you guys want to see that happen, fine. Knock yourselves out. That approach just makes it more likely that the GMA will be thrown out by initiative.

    Look at it this way, with all environmental regulation, there will be a tipping point that sooner or later is a violation of property rights. We all agree that the clean water act, MTCA, etc. do not approach this tipping point. If left as is, the GMA inevitably will cause local land use controls such as CAO to go past this tipping point (due to the “best science” requirement and lack of local decision making). The opportunities to fix it are never going to happen if BS artists like RFK Jr are listened to. How many streams were allowed to be legally polluted under the old King County CAO? None.

  24. 25

    Rex spews:

    A property owner has the rights to use, lease, enjoy, encumber, will, sell or do nothing at all with their land. These are the inalienable rights of property ownership.

    In addition to that, the property owner retains air rights, water rights, mineral rights, oil and gas rights. Appurtenant rights include support rights, including lateral and subjacent rights to the integrity of the soils beneath their property, i.e. so that properties don’t collapse into a sinkhole as a result of adjacent mineral extraction.

    This is real estate law and is pretty consistent across the country.

    Near as I can tell, the CAO impinges upon the mineral rights of an owner (to “harvest” their native vegetation) as well as undermines their right to enjoy their property however they see fit.

    Zoning is of course a local regulatory power that limits some of the extent to which one can enjoy their property. This is not a subject to dispute and is a traditional local control.

    The CAO takes regulatory limitations to another level and is not contained under the rubrick of local regulatory controls. My guess is that in many of the most affected areas, the CAO would not pass a vote at the local level. Instead, the growth management crowd relies on centralized decision-making with the backing of urbanites to provide the needed infusion of votes in order to pass.

    If one is looking at real estate as an investment and wants to lay up a strawman about investment “risk” then the equivalent in terms of a stockholder in a publicly traded company would be that a large portion of a company’s assets were “nationalized” and made the property of the government–with no compensation. I am not sure what sort of society the extreme left thinks that we live in, but an action of that magnitude would not stand. We are not in that Orwellian dystopia. Not yet at least.

    The government does not have an obligation to guarantee me a return on my investment but neither should they have the power to take any portion of the rights inherent in my investment without due process and without compensation.

  25. 26

    RDC spews:

    Re Comment 25 by Rex..

    Your’s is certainly a legitimate point-of-view. The problem I have with it is the mistaken notion that there are inalienable
    rights of property ownership. There is no such thing. When the Declaration of Independence was written, the original phrase was “…that among these are life, liberty, and property.” This was changed before adoption to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” More importantly, without government (in our case, the will of the people, since the people are sovereign in a democracy)the very concept of property rights has no meaning. Without government laws, courts, and enforcement, the only property rights would be whatever could be imposed by brute force. It’s very likely that in such a world neither you nor I would have any property, let alone rights in property. Because government (the will of the people as expressed in law) creates the concept of private property rights, it certainly has the authority to alter those rights as circumstances change. This is what happened with the passage of the GMA. Steven and zip are correct that the law may need some tweeking at the edges, but I see nothing in the points you raise that invalidate the changes in property rights the GMA brought about.

  26. 27

    Rex spews:

    The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are.

    Amendment V. excerpted: “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.”

  27. 28

    Chuck spews:

    Chuck… huh? I’m not quite sure I get the insult. Please elaborate.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    My point is the person that wrote the little bit: “Dear Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights“ is a moron that knows nothing about property rights or what property owners are pushing for.

  28. 29

    Chuck spews:

    Now answer the questions I did ask: Do you think the taxpayers owe you, or any other landowner, a guaranteed return on their investment?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No the taxpayer doesnt owe the landowner a good economy in the area, or a non depressed area, or a strong demand for property in the area, so no a good return on investment is not owed, that being said, if the people (government) or utility companies want to have an easment on the property they must buy the easment (right to use a portion of the property). That being said, if you restrict a persons use of his property then it is only right you pay for this restriction (by restricting the property you are in essence using the property rights hence taking away a portion of the owners property)

  29. 30

    Chuck spews:

    Ivan, you have to realize that Chuck never answers a question. He just jabbers on with more ‘mouth garbage’ and that is that. Give up the ‘fight’ with him and his ilk (Zip, Cynical et al) Never straight answers. Only right wingnut extremist rhetoric>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wrong again, we simply dont give the answers you WANT to hear. You are so left leaning that anything that isnt lock step NAZI liberal sounds like “mouth garbage” to you.

  30. 31

    steven spews:

    Comment by Chuck~

    That being said, if you restrict a persons use of his property then it is only right you pay for this restriction (by restricting the property you are in essence using the property rights hence taking away a portion of the owners property)
    *************
    I take it then in your view that the government has no right to prevent your neighbor from making a use of his property that would dimish the value of your property–such as opening a junkyard, mining gravel, or running a feedlot, for example. We all know you are here primarily to incite, but you can at least make an effort to have some rational thought in your statements.

  31. 32

    Chuck spews:

    such as opening a junkyard, mining gravel, or running a feedlot>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If he can figure out a way to do it that prevents the smell of the feedlot or noise from the juckyard or gravel mine from going on your property I see no problem with him doing those things.

  32. 33

    Chuck spews:

    We all know you are here primarily to incite, but you can at least make an effort to have some rational thought in your statements.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…

    Wrong my friend…not here to incite…just making use of my opinion.

  33. 34

    Rex spews:

    “such as opening a junkyard, mining gravel, or running a feedlot”

    All these uses are subject to the police powers of local zoning and any CC&Rs that may run with the land. There is constructive notice of these powers available in the municipal planning office or within a title report. If the zoning was changed to prohibit these uses wherein they were formerly permissible and established, they would most likely be grandfathered. If not, then they would have a rock solid case for relocation and re-establishment benefits for their business at the expense of the local acquiring agency.

    Anyone looking to establish a business with associated real estate knows that during their due diligence they need to establish that their proposed use is legally permissible. If they do not establish that and continue with an illegal use, they have none but themselves to blame.

    The difference lays in timing. An established operation generally can continue as a non-conforming use when a zone changes. A new operation cannot establish itself within a zone that does not allow its use. The CAO retroactively affects values and uses of property that was bought without any constructive notice of the newly proposed regulatory limitations. Just compensation, if value diminution can be established, is due.

  34. 35

    Chuck spews:

    All these uses are subject to the police powers of local zoning and any CC&Rs that may run with the land. There is constructive notice of these powers available in the municipal planning office or within a title report. If the zoning was changed to prohibit these uses wherein they were formerly permissible and established, they would most likely be grandfathered. If not, then they would have a rock solid case for relocation and re-establishment benefits for their business at the expense of the local acquiring agency.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wrong, if you check with Pierce County Code enforcement there is no such thing as “grandfathering”.

  35. 36

    Rex spews:

    Title 18A of Pierce County Development Regulations in Section 18A.05.035 states that a use that was permitted outright but is prohibited by a zoning change may continue its use bound by Nonconforming Standards. These non-conforming standards may be referenced in Section 18A.35.130.C. Based on a quick overview, those standards do not appear especially draconian and in-line with many other grandfathering caveats.

  36. 37

    jcricket spews:

    Chuck writes “left leaning that anything that isnt lock step NAZI liberal sounds like “mouth”

    Godwin’s Law /prov./ [Usenet] “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin’s Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

    http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html

  37. 38

    Chuck spews:

    Nice little regulation, however Pierce County respons goes by a different set of rules…literally gestapo like….example, a fence company on 2 lots of Canyon Road, side by side…one zoned industrial the other residential, they couldnt even have an OFFICE on the residential property, they moved the buisiness to another county….Daves Auto Repair, a large very proffesional buisiness after years in one location (that Dave owned might I add) had to move the buisiness about 1/2 mile into a leased building (at their expense) so they could be in an industrial area…..I can go on.

  38. 39

    Chuck spews:

    here is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    It wasnt meant as an insult, simply a fact, if you study the begginning of the Third Reich then you will see the simularities of the democratic party platform.

  39. 40

    Rick spews:

    Regulations like the CAO are nothing more than a collectivist effort to punish those people who live in the “wrong” areas and don’t fit in to the eco-village philosophy so prevelant in King County. The rural-dwellers might cut a few trees, clear out a few blackberry bushes and park a pickup truck in their driveways. How offensive to the sophisticated Seattle liberals as they drive their Volvos through the country.

  40. 41

    RDC spews:

    Rex..your comment 27. Your point, I take it, is that the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Washington State trump any law passed by the Washington state legislature that violates either. In effect, you are making my point, that it is government that created property rights. Government created courts, and due process, for just such cases as this one. Considerable time has passed since the GMA was enacted. Has there been any successful court cases against it? When and if the Supreme Court of either Washington strikes down the law, I’ll concede your points. Until then, we have to consider you as mistaken.

  41. 42

    steven spews:

    I know the PETA people can be pretty ridiculous, but you aren’t seriously suggesting that cretins that would basically torture a neighbors pet, kill it, eat it and then brag about it shouldn’t be prosecuted. Or are you?

  42. 43

    RDC spews:

    Chuck….I have studied the beginning of the Third Reich, quite extensively, and I see no similarities in it to either the Republican or the Democratic Party platforms. Please temper the rhetoric.

  43. 44

    steven spews:

    sorry, my above comment ended up here rather than someplace else. NOt quite sure how that happened. Please ignore.

  44. 45

    Rex spews:

    The establishment of property rights as we understand it today dates back to 1215 with the Magna Carta and it came about as a result of a rebellion against government ownership of land. From that, it became part of English common law and parliamentary procedure. From there, it migrated to the English colonies that went on to become America. So here we are, almost 800 years later, and you interpret property law as being wholly subordinate to the government which “allows” property rights. We have come a long way apparently.

  45. 46

    RDC spews:

    Rex..Property rights extend back further than the Magna Carta. The King, who embodied the government, had very sweeping property rights. And you continue to make my point for me. The Magna Carta altered property rights as they were then in place. “Property law” is a meaningless term without government to enforce it. I do wish to retract the last sentence in my previous comment, though. You may not be mistaken. If the courts overturn the GMA, your views will have been vindicated, as for example, Brown vs. Board of Education vindicated those who argued against the notion of separate but equal, which until then was considered constitutional. And BTW, I mentioned the Declaration of Independence in my earlier response because you had used the term “inalienable rights” which occurs in the Declaration, but not, to my recollection, in the Constitution. To sum up for a final time, what bothers me is the way some (not all), property rights advocates cast the government as some entity completely separate from the people. The representatives who passed the GMA and the governor who signed it represent us. They were voted into office by us. They represent, I believe, the majority of us. Get the law thrown out or changed, if you can, but don’t argue that there is some out-of-touch small group of people in Olympia imposes their narrow views on we, the people.

  46. 47

    zip spews:

    Comment by RDC— 1/27/05 @ 3:12 pm

    The GMA requires that Critical Areas regulations conform to “Base Available Science”. The decisions regarding GMA compliance are made by the “Growth Management Hearings Board” or some such appointed group.

    RDC, the people making these decisions are not our elected representatives. The GMA is guaranteed to become more and more restrictive with its Critical Areas regs as time goes by and more and more scientific studies are produced. The GMA is set up to produce Critical Areas regs that replicate an environment with zero impacts by us humans. These regs will be produced regardless of what your elected county or city council votes. That is why your opinion that we are responsible for this because these are our elected representatives, etc etc does not stand up. If our elected representatives could ignore the whining from the “it’s never good enough” environmental groups, they could represent us by fixing this fatal flaw in the GMA.

  47. 48

    RDC spews:

    zip…we do not hold completely opposite views on this. You may be right, the BAS proviso may prove to be a fatal flaw (if the GMA is overturned by the courts or by an initiative). But if our elected representatives ignored the “it’s never good enough” environmental groups, they would be ignoring part of what constitutes “us”.

  48. 50

    RDC spews:

    zip…I’m sure they will, just as they will ignore “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” rhetoric from the other side. I plan to write my state reps on this as soon as I get a better fix on what the real impact is on rural property owners.

  49. 51

    jim p spews:

    Wrong again, we simply dont give the answers you WANT to hear. You are so left leaning that anything that isnt lock step NAZI liberal sounds like “mouth garbage” to you.

    Comment by Chuck— 1/27/05 I must have been taught out of a different puclic school book than you Chuck. I never considered Nazi’s as the liberal sort…..LMAO@U

  50. 52

    jcricket spews:

    Jim Jim Jim… Don’t you know that in the conservative up-is-down, black-is-white, “weapons of mass destruction program related activities” world, liberals (or feminists) are the new “Nazis”? Calling a racist bigot a bigot is now “intolerant”. And refusing to allow a narrow group of religious zealots to impose their beliefs on all of us is “discrimination” or “persecution”.

  51. 53

    Chuck spews:

    Comment by Chuck— 1/27/05 I must have been taught out of a different puclic school book than you Chuck. I never considered Nazi’s as the liberal>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    How about governmental control of everything from industry to property rights to health care for the “betterment” of the country? Still laughing?

  52. 54

    Chuck spews:

    During the Third Reich many of the differences in the educational system in differnt regions of Germay were ended. The campaign against religion was also conducted in the Hitler Youth. Here often away from their parents, the campaign may have even been more effective than in the schools. There were alo many other actions taken against religion

  53. 55

    Chuck spews:

    It was Christianity that suffered most from the NAZIs, primarily because it posed the greatest danger to the NAZIs.

  54. 57

    Chuck spews:

    Then we can talk some more about the liberal attack on tobacco users…treating them as second class citizens

  55. 58

    Goldy spews:

    It was Christianity that suffered most from the NAZIs, primarily because it posed the greatest danger to the NAZIs.

    Chuck… as a Jew, I can’t tell you how incredibly self-absorbed and offensively revisionist that comment is. 6 million dead. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Germany and Eastern Europe, gone. My mother’s side of the family kept touch with dozens of their European relatives, right up until the war. Afterwards, not a single one could be found alive.

    And the Holocaust didn’t just kill millions, it changed the very nature of what it is to identify yourself as Jewish.

    So tell me… how is it that Christianity suffered most from the Nazis?

  56. 60

    jcricket spews:

    Chuck’s argument goes like this: Hitler tried to eliminate religion. Liberals are trying to eliminate religion. Liberals are like Hitler.

    It’s a terribly weak argument, one that suffers from any number of logical fallacies (undistributed middle, fallacy of exclusion, strawman). Not to mention that it’s a total misrepresentation of liberals and their motives. But let’s not bother Chuck with pesky things like critical thinking and reasoning skills.

    When an article says that Christianity suffered the most under the Nazi regime and tries to claim that Jews suffered because of “racial discrimination” (hint: jews, not a race. Hitler, not to be taken at face value) – you can pretty much discount that article.

    I stand by Godwin’s law – the minute someone in a discussion compares the “opposing side” to Nazis/Hitler (especially when the subject isn’t WWII), they’ve lost the argument.

  57. 61

    jcricket spews:

    Then we can talk some more about the liberal attack on tobacco users…treating them as second class citizens

    You really crack me up Chuck. “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.

  58. 62

    Chuck spews:

    You really crack me up Chuck. “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.

    Comment by jcricket

    Thank you Adolf…where does your dream for us end?

  59. 63

    Chuck spews:

    When does your side have enough power to do us in…are you going to still have the balls to call it freedom or democracy????

  60. 66

    David spews:

    Chuck, you insensitive prick, way to dishonor the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp.

    I see that in your little world, everyone you don’t like is a Nazi. You don’t understand the term at all. You think you do, which is even more pitiful. Watch the movie Shoah. Hell, I’ll pay for you to rent it. It will open your eyes to the reality of evil.

  61. 67

    Chuck spews:

    If you want sensetivity, buy a trojan condom, me I read and reference what I read. Seen all the movies and undoubtedly evil crap went down…what is your point???

  62. 68

    jcricket spews:

    When does your side have enough power to do us in…are you going to still have the balls to call it freedom or democracy????

    What do you call Republican control of the white house, Senate and House of Representatives? Not to mention near-total dominance of the south. In Texas the GOP used their majority to gerry-mander new districts that resulted in 4 more Republican seats. As much as I think the GOP isn’t acting democratically on a national level, you don’t hear me waving Hitler and Nazis around.

    Democrats have control of the state of WA (not total control, think of Reed, Sutherland, the Republican legislators). This has happened before, and the world didn’t end. As Jim King points out, Democrats haven’t been able to maintain control of the legislature + governorship for more than a couple of years. That’s how democracy works.

    BTW Chuck, your rhetoric is totally out of control. Goldy’s right – it’s incredibly insensitive of you to attempt to employ Hitler or the Nazis in comparison to the liberals. And guess what, I’m also Jewish, and lost relatives in the Holocaust, so I really don’t feel inclined to listen to you when you call me “Adolph”

  63. 69

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    What do you call Republican control of the white house, Senate and House of Representatives? -Comment by jcricket— 1/28/05 @ 7:49 am

    I call it the will of the people.

    I call it government BY the people.

    What is it you libs have been blathering constantly?
    Oh yes, “Get over it”.

    And isn’t the liberal memory conveniently short. I don’t seem to remember your outrage about the term Nazi when you and your more noisy national cohorts called Bush a Nazi or when you use your newest perjorative, ‘neocon’. Are you having trouble remembering your good pals George Soros? Michael Moore? MoveOn.orgy?

    Miore liberal hypocrisy. The real joke is you folks don’t recognize it.

    http://www.budapestsun.com/ful.....ArticleId={46BF5EFD00764CA68DAF92368C4BD38D}&From=News
    Soros likens Bush rhetoric to Nazi slogans

    http://www.tupbiosystems.com/a....._nazi.html
    “The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich.”

    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2m.htm
    SECOND BUSH/HITLER AD APPEARS AT MOVEON.ORG

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....090403.asp
    Byron York:
    ” staple of Bush-hating is the portrayal of the president as a Nazi. That has, of course, been a prominent part of other attacks against other presidents, but today it seems to be deployed with particular aggressiveness against Bush. There are thousands of references, across the vastness of the Internet, linking Bush to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Do you want to buy a T-shirt with a swastika replacing the “s” in Bush? No problem. Do you want to collect images of Bush in a German army uniform, with a Hitler mustache Photoshopped onto his face? That’s easy. Do you want to find pictures of Dick Cheney and Tom Ridge and Ari Fleischer dressed as Bush’s Nazi henchmen? That’s easy, too.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff02012003.html
    Bush and Hitler: The Stategy of Fear

    HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH PROOF OR SHALL I GO ON?

    THE TERM NAZI IS AN UGLY HATEFUL PERJORATIVE.

    NOW THAT YOU HAVE FELT THE HORROR OF IT, PERHAPS YOUR SIDE CAN CONTROL THEMSELVES ENOUGH TO STOP USING IT BECAUSE YOUR SMUG, NOSE-IN-THE-AIR-SNIFFY SELF-RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION RUNS A BIT HOLLOW.

  64. 70

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    it’s incredibly insensitive of you to attempt to employ Hitler or the Nazis in comparison to the liberals. And guess what, I’m also Jewish, and lost relatives in the Holocaust, so I really don’t feel inclined to listen to you when you call me “Adolph” -Comment by jcricket— 1/28/05 @ 7:49 am

    So we can assume you will post all the indignant letters you will write complaining and chastising all your libs pals that do it.

    Right.

    I’ll wait.

  65. 71

    David spews:

    Chuck, learn some critical reading skills.

    I didnt write the piece, only read it amogst many other articles as well as books. I am truly sorry for any offence but be that as it is…the page is…[snip]

    You’re citing a page from “the history of boy’s clothing”? It looks like it was written by a teenager working on a school assignment; he doesn’t even know how to spell “Judaism”. Just because it’s printed somewhere (especially on the Internet) doesn’t make it authoritative or true. And the idea that “It was Christianity that suffered most from the NAZIs” is utter claptrap.

    I’m stunned that you want to believe that revisionist bunk. I don’t know whether to chalk it up to ignorance or some deeper problem. It doesn’t matter*#8212;it’s time to reassess that belief.

  66. 72

    David spews:

    Chuck,

    If you want sensetivity, buy a trojan condom,

    If I want sensitivity, I won’t.

    me I read and reference what I read.

    You may have also read that the moon landings were a hoax and that Jews kill Christian children for their blood to make matzah.

    Seen all the movies

    No, you haven’t.

    and undoubtedly evil crap went down…what is your point???

    That you really don’t understand the Nazis. Before you keep throwing the term around, you should learn what it means.

  67. 73

    Goldy spews:

    You may have also read that the moon landings were a hoax and that Jews kill Christian children for their blood to make matzah.

    Though I have to admit that the secret ingredient in latkes is indeed human blood (and pieces of shredded knuckle.) They just haven’t been the same since the invention of the food processor.

  68. 74

    David spews:

    “So we can assume you will post all the indignant letters you will write complaining and chastising all your libs pals that do it.”

    ProudASS, you can stop waiting. The Jewish community is even-handed when it comes to condemning inappropriate comparisons to the Holocaust. ADL has been consistent in condemning the use of Nazi images in political campaigns and in the public arena:

    October 14, 2003: PETA
    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) continued its denunciation of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) for its “Holocaust on Your Plate” project for trivializing the murder of six million Jews and called its appeal for approval by the Jewish community “outrageous, offensive and taking chutzpah to new heights.”

    January 5, 2004: MoveOn.org
    “It is shocking that a mainstream political group like MoveOn.org not only allowed this vile and outrageous comparison of the American President to Adolf Hitler to be entered into its “Bush in 30 Seconds” contest in the first place, but that they even went so far as to make it available to the public on the Internet.  Those responsible for this contest at MoveOn.org should have immediately identified this advertisement as one going far beyond legitimate criticism and rejected it out of hand.”

    January 6, 2004: New York Post
    “We were outraged by the repeated references to Nazis, the Gestapo, “Hitler’s Brownshirts” and “Herr Howie” in Ralph Peters’ column accusing Howard Dean of trying to muzzle the criticism of his fellow Democratic challengers (“Howard the Coward,” Jan. 5). Such loathsome comparisons are wholly inappropriate, deeply offensive and repugnant.  Surely, Mr. Peters could have found some other words to criticize Dr. Dean without reaching for base comparisons to the perpetrators of the Holocaust.”

    January 12, 2004: TakeBacktheMedia
    The ADL criticized an Internet site, TakeBacktheMedia, which continues to sponsor content comparing President Bush to Hitler and Mussolini and repeating a myth about the Bush family’s supposed ties to Hitler’s Nazi party.

    March 3, 2004: The Oscars
    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has written to the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences to voice outrage over the recognition of Leni Riefenstahl in the “In Memoriam” scroll during the Oscar presentations.  Riefenstahl was the infamous Nazi propaganda filmmaker who made her mark extolling Hitler’s ideas in “Triumph of the Will.”

    June 24, 2004: Bush-Cheney campaign
    “We are disappointed that the Bush-Cheney campaign has not removed Nazi images, including Adolf Hitler, from the President’s re-election Web site.   The campaign’s rehashing of what had appeared on the MoveOn.org site, which was removed after outcry from ADL and others, is inappropriate and offensive.”

    June 24, 2004: U.S. 2nd Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi
    In a letter, ADL said it was troubled by his comparison, in his June 19 speech to the American Constitution Society, of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore to the circumstances by which Hitler and Mussolini ascended to power.

    June 28, 2004: Al Gore
    In a letter to former Vice President Al Gore, the League expressed concern about his exploitation of Nazi imagery in his June 24 speech at Georgetown University Law Center (using the term “digital Brown Shirts” when referring to Bush Administration supporters who “pressure reporters and their editors for undermining support for our troops.”)

    This is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue. It is not a liberal or a conservative issue. It’s an issue of respect for those who perished in the Holocaust, and respect for those who survived. That shouldn’t be cheapened by casual, political uses of Nazi and Holocaust imagery.

  69. 76

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    ProudASS, you can stop waiting.-Comment by David— 1/28/05 @ 10:12 am

    I am well aware of all that David, thank you.

    I’d be willing to bet I’ll be waiting a very long time for your little cricket though, where hypocrisy and self righteous duplicity knows no bounds.

    The comment, as indicated by the italicized quote, was directed to your dear little Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss/Madam/Maiden/Master/GenderNeutral-Undecided-Ambiguous-Ambidexterous/Confused/Asexual/Eunuch/Amoeba/Protozoa/Genus Gryllus and/or Genus Anurogryllus Cricket.

  70. 77

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    ProudASS: “neocon” is not a pejorative. -Comment by David— 1/28/05 @ 10:15 am

    Oh, really?

    How interesting.

    I suggest you go back and read some of the threads here at the orgy and see the lovely, polite manner with which it has been used.

  71. 78

    David spews:

    ProudASS, why should jcricket reply to you at all? Let me see if I understand your logic:

    1) Chuck calls jcricket “Adolph” [misspelled and all]
    2) jcricket notes that he’s Jewish and says Chuck’s “rhetoric is totally out of control”
    3) Therefore(?) ProudASS demands that jcricket personally post “indignant letters” to anyone (at least to any liberal) who uses Nazi/Hitler/Holocaust references inappropriately.

    Sorry, the third premise doesn’t follow from the first two.

  72. 80

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    1. I never demanded anything – I said I’d wait for it to happen.
    2. The point was that the cricket oh so ‘sensitive’ indignation runs laughably hollow when that particularly ugly rhetoric is more often spewed from the people cricked with whom so proudly aligns.

    Nice try.

  73. 81

    G Davis spews:

    Yikes…lots of spittle in this room!

    In a lame effort to get this somewhat back on topic, don’t both the GMA and CAO have review provisions? Don’t both allow for individual challenges?

    On a side note, it is my understanding of the Jewish faith if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish…perhaps some of our Jewish friends could enlighten me on that… ;)

  74. 82

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    I think you are almost right G Davis. I understand it as a criteria to become a citizen of Israel, your mother had to be Jewish. I don’t think though, as a general criteria, you’d be any less Jewish if your dad was (via his mother) and your mom wasn’t.

    Whew.

    I think it might be easier being an Italian Catholic! :-)

  75. 83

    Chuck spews:

    Now that everyone has their panties in a bunch lets try again, I simply pointed out simularities between the NAZI party and the democratic platform. It is really no different than if you like cheerios and my pointing out that Ted Bundy enjoyed cheerios as well. Does that make you a killer of women? most likely not. Does that make the democratic party a killer of races of people? No again most likely not, but there are VERY distinct parellels that can be drawn. Anyone drawing anything more than that out of this needs to get over it. As far as sensetivity as I said get a thinner condom.

  76. 84

    Chuck spews:

    I think you are almost right G Davis. I understand it as a criteria to become a citizen of Israel, your mother had to be Jewish. I don’t think though, as a general criteria, you’d be any less Jewish if your dad was (via his mother) and your mom wasn’t.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That is a feelgood answer but YES you have to have a mother that is Jewish to be Jewish yourself…unless you are doctrined into the faith. You cannot just wake up and be a Jew like a born again Christian or something. And by the way, a Jewish father doesnt get you squat.

  77. 85

    jcricket spews:

    Ass writes: The point was that the cricket oh so ’sensitive’ indignation runs laughably hollow when that particularly ugly rhetoric is more often spewed from the people cricked with whom so proudly aligns.

    Let me get this straight: If I request that Chuck refrain from using Nazis and Hitler when referring to me or liberals I must first denounce the statements of other people that I’ve never met, never quoted and that aren’t related to the current conversation because those people happen to be “liberal”? That’s a really pathetic to defer answering the request I made, even for you Ass. I’m also sure I could find hundreds of “god hates f*gs”-style conservatives and start demanding you repudiate their hateful rhetoric, but that’s “guilt by association”, and it’s not a persuasive argument to most rational people.

    If you had read my post, you’ll note that I stated that I don’t personally wave around the Nazi analogy, despite deep misgivings about what I feel are un-democratic actions of the GOP nationally. If that’s not a direct repudiation of the “ugly rhetoric” you claim liberals “more often [spew]“, I don’t know what is. Do you even bother to read the posts first?

    More importantly, the fact that some “liberals” using Hitler/Nazi imagery when discussing “conversatives” has no bearing on whether conservatives should use that imagery when discussing liberals. Or, to put it in simple terms, so you can understand: two wrongs don’t make a right.

  78. 86

    David spews:

    ProudASS,

    1. I never demanded anything – I said I’d wait for it to happen.

    And you call jcricket hypocritical :)

    2. The point was that the cricket oh so ’sensitive’ indignation runs laughably hollow when that particularly ugly rhetoric is more often spewed from the people cricked with whom so proudly aligns.

    3 points:

    1) The only person who jcricket was indignant at is Chuck, who personally called him “Adolf” after claiming Christians suffered more than Jews under Hitler. Nothing hollow about that indignation.

    2) I don’t see jcricket defending anyone who calls someone else “Hitler,” “Nazi,” etc.; you’re making a huge leap of an assumption that he approves of liberals using those terms but castigates conservatives who do the same thing.

    3) “That particularly ugly rhetoric” is used by insensitive and mean-spirited people across the political spectrum, not “more often” by either liberals or conservatives. When you say “PERHAPS YOUR SIDE CAN CONTROL THEMSELVES ENOUGH TO STOP USING IT” it applies to all sides.

  79. 87

    David spews:

    Revisionist Chuck backpedals: “I simply pointed out simularities between the NAZI party and the democratic platform.”

    No, Chuck. You didn’t. Since your short-term memory is failing you, let’s recap:

    Post #30: “You are so left leaning that anything that isnt lock step NAZI liberal sounds like “mouth garbage” to you.”
    This led jcricket to appropriately cite Godwin’s Law (post #37), and later got you jeered in posts #51 and #52 for making up the term “NAZI liberal.”

    Your first revisionism came in post #39, where you claimed you actually meant, “if you study the begginning of the Third Reich then you will see the simularities of the democratic party platform.”
    Spelling errors aside, this is quite a logical leap from your previous insult. RDC asked you to tone down the rhetoric in post #43, noting a lack of parallels between the Third Reich and the Democratic or Republican party platforms. Your response was the boogeyman of “governmental control of everything from industry to property rights to health care for the “betterment” of the country.” I guess you believe that’s the Democratic party platform (it’s not). But that thread died there. Unless you count calling jcricket “Adolf” in post #62.

    It didn’t slow you down, though; you moved right on to your biggest whopper, in post #55: “It was Christianity that suffered most from the NAZIs, primarily because it posed the greatest danger to the NAZIs.”
    And you’ve caught hell for that, and I’m glad.

    Lesson: If your original comment is right there, don’t claim you said something else. Apologize; don’t deny you wrote it.

    Oh, but you’re not done! “Does that make the democratic party a killer of races of people? No again most likely not, but there are VERY distinct parellels that can be drawn.”
    Is Chuck a serial-murdering pedophile? Most likely not, but there are VERY distinct parallels that can be drawn.

  80. 88

    Don spews:

    The CAO says you can only develop 35% of your property. County zoning laws say I can’t cover more than 35% of my lot with structures. If you’re entitled to get paid for a “taking” then so am I. Where do I sign up? Please spare me your whining about the higher taxes you will be charged to pay all these claims.

  81. 89

    Don spews:

    Oh hey, where’s this inherited money I allegedly have? I’m a lefty, therefore I’m rich, right? I sure could use my inherited fortune, so please let me know where it’s stashed.

  82. 90

    David spews:

    D*mn, Chuck, I guess you just can’t help being revisionist!

    Post #67 – You write: “If you want sensetivity, buy a trojan condom”

    Post #72 – I riposte: “If I want sensitivity, I won’t.”

    Post #83 – You claim you said something different: “As far as sensetivity as I said get a thinner condom.”

    Is this little exchange important? No. Is it indicative? Yes. If your credibility means this little to you, there is no cause for us to believe your “facts” are true.

  83. 91

    Chuck spews:

    It didn’t slow you down, though; you moved right on to your biggest whopper, in post #55: “It was Christianity that suffered most from the NAZIs, primarily because it posed the greatest danger to the NAZIs.”
    And you’ve caught hell for that, and I’m glad.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I caught hell for referring to the work of another person, I even gave the author, Christopher Wagner credit for his piece titled “The NAZI Assault on Religion”. So why dont you pull your head out and READ…

  84. 92

    HowCanYouBeProudtobeAnASS spews:

    That’s a really pathetic to defer answering the request I made, even for you Ass. I’m also sure I could find hundreds of “god hates f*gs”-style conservatives and start demanding you repudiate their hateful rhetoric, but that’s “guilt by association”, and it’s not a persuasive argument to most rational people.-Comment by jcricket— 1/28/05 @ 11:52 am

    That’s a really pathetic to defer answering the request I made, even for you cricket< ?B>
    And a perfect example of the non sequitors you repeatedly use to attempt to further what you consider debate.

  85. 93

    Chuck spews:

    Is this little exchange important? No. Is it indicative? Yes. If your credibility means this little to you, there is no cause for us to believe your “facts” are true.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well since it bugs you that much, Trojan claims to have thinner more sensetive condoms…so my facts went along those lines.

  86. 94

    David spews:

    I caught hell for referring to the work of another person, I even gave the author, Christopher Wagner credit

    Chuck’s revisionism continues unabated! This is the second time you’ve tried hiding behind the whine of “I didn’t write it, I’m just quoting someone else.” (see post #71). People write all sorts of stupid things. You don’t have to believe them. Apparently you do believe that Christians suffered more than Jews under Hitler, because you volunteered that opinion yourself. You didn’t “refer” to Wagner’s work—you read his web page, decided you agreed with his idiotic claims, and repeated them as your own.

    It’s pitiful that you won’t either stand up for your own opinions, or apologize and retract them.

  87. 95

    chuck spews:

    It’s pitiful that you won’t either stand up for your own opinions, or apologize and retract them.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You want my opinion? well here it is: under Hitler the Jews suffered abuses that were beyond inhuman. They were murdered and tortured wholesale for no logical reason whatsoever. Nothing will be able to make it right and to the survivors the few remaining they should be honored. That said, the NAZI regiem was basically a Godless order (exept for the Catholics support I suppose a bit but that was even frowned on). The NAZI regiem disliked religion in most forms and wanted none of it in government (sound familiar?)

  88. 96

    David spews:

    the NAZI regiem was basically a Godless order (exept for the Catholics support I suppose a bit but that was even frowned on). The NAZI regiem disliked religion in most forms and wanted none of it in government (sound familiar?)”

    Wrong again, Chuck. The Nazis thought of themselves as the true political expression of Christianity.
    See http://www.h-net.org/reviews/s.....1057430311 for summary of a scholarly analysis.

    “The discovery that so many Nazis considered themselves or their movement to be Christian makes us similarly uncomfortable. But the very unpleasantness of this fact makes it all the more important to look it squarely in the face.” (p. 267)

    See http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm for photographic evidence.