- This topic has 155 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 10 months ago by NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM #639675December 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM #643796AnonymousGuest
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_re_us/us_bank_bombing_trial
More bomb builders. Except these guys actually used a bomb and killed two police officers.
They get the death penalty for murder, as they should.
But it’s what’s not in the story that’s interesting:
Two political extremists blowing things up.
Yet no one is using the word “terrorist.”
What do these guys look like again? … oh, yeah, that explains it.
December 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM #643867AnonymousGuesthttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_re_us/us_bank_bombing_trial
More bomb builders. Except these guys actually used a bomb and killed two police officers.
They get the death penalty for murder, as they should.
But it’s what’s not in the story that’s interesting:
Two political extremists blowing things up.
Yet no one is using the word “terrorist.”
What do these guys look like again? … oh, yeah, that explains it.
December 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM #644446AnonymousGuesthttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_re_us/us_bank_bombing_trial
More bomb builders. Except these guys actually used a bomb and killed two police officers.
They get the death penalty for murder, as they should.
But it’s what’s not in the story that’s interesting:
Two political extremists blowing things up.
Yet no one is using the word “terrorist.”
What do these guys look like again? … oh, yeah, that explains it.
December 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM #644583AnonymousGuesthttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_re_us/us_bank_bombing_trial
More bomb builders. Except these guys actually used a bomb and killed two police officers.
They get the death penalty for murder, as they should.
But it’s what’s not in the story that’s interesting:
Two political extremists blowing things up.
Yet no one is using the word “terrorist.”
What do these guys look like again? … oh, yeah, that explains it.
December 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM #644905AnonymousGuesthttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101222/ap_on_re_us/us_bank_bombing_trial
More bomb builders. Except these guys actually used a bomb and killed two police officers.
They get the death penalty for murder, as they should.
But it’s what’s not in the story that’s interesting:
Two political extremists blowing things up.
Yet no one is using the word “terrorist.”
What do these guys look like again? … oh, yeah, that explains it.
January 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM #648012XBoxBoyParticipantNo surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html
January 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM #648084XBoxBoyParticipantNo surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html
January 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM #648669XBoxBoyParticipantNo surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html
January 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM #648806XBoxBoyParticipantNo surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html
January 5, 2011 at 7:13 AM #649130XBoxBoyParticipantNo surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html
January 5, 2011 at 7:57 AM #648022UCGalParticipant[quote=XBoxBoy]No surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html%5B/quote%5D
If I’d owned the house, I’d be suing also.
The county specifically didn’t do eminent domain because that would require paying the owner.The courts are there for a reason. The court will determine if the owner of the property should be compensated. My gut says they should.
January 5, 2011 at 7:57 AM #648094UCGalParticipant[quote=XBoxBoy]No surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html%5B/quote%5D
If I’d owned the house, I’d be suing also.
The county specifically didn’t do eminent domain because that would require paying the owner.The courts are there for a reason. The court will determine if the owner of the property should be compensated. My gut says they should.
January 5, 2011 at 7:57 AM #648679UCGalParticipant[quote=XBoxBoy]No surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html%5B/quote%5D
If I’d owned the house, I’d be suing also.
The county specifically didn’t do eminent domain because that would require paying the owner.The courts are there for a reason. The court will determine if the owner of the property should be compensated. My gut says they should.
January 5, 2011 at 7:57 AM #648816UCGalParticipant[quote=XBoxBoy]No surprise here. The owners have filed suit for $500,000. Welcome to California, the worlds most litigious state.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_7c9032a1-d35a-5901-b442-b715ab5991cc.html%5B/quote%5D
If I’d owned the house, I’d be suing also.
The county specifically didn’t do eminent domain because that would require paying the owner.The courts are there for a reason. The court will determine if the owner of the property should be compensated. My gut says they should.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.