nmainguy

So you make up a fantasy scenario to prop up your argument...priceless. The Pedant has spoken!!!! ...wordy, irrelevant reply in 3-2-1...

Ah!!! The Pedant is now a Constitutional Scholar!!! Opps!...guess I picked the wrong day to start using crack. My mistake. I agree it's all about where you were born-not your parents or great-grandfather and his five wives or your great-great-grandfather and his 12 wives. I tend to agree with you there as the Canal Zone was under US control at the time. Maybe we should ask The Pedant for his Proffesional Out of his Ass Constitutional Ruling because that RedScare guy clearly doesn't know ANYTHING about the law!

Maybe a map will stop The Pedant from hijacking yet another thread with wasted bandwidth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Rom...Born_Citizen.3F Is this a constitutional conumdrum? Should McCain and Romney be disqualified? Romney is clearly not a natural born citizen; McCain is questionable at best. I just found all this out today and have always been intrigued about the Constitutional requirements regarding the Presidency. Where do we draw the line? My gut tells me to draw it at the original intent of the Constitution. Thoughts anyone?

Harry's for the value Niko Niko's for the flavor Chatters and Fadi's [Mediteranian including Greek] for just good food and atmosphere

You know Houston is trash when all we have to show for a daily is the Chronicle. At least it supplies enough newsprint to clean windows with...

Absolutly and knee-jerk reactions will get you nowhere but deeper in the hole. I have found patience and market knowledge to be a far superior strategy than selling off then buying when all we're seeing here is a possible slight correction, a slump in the Asian market and a glitch in program trading.

I'm not so much for religion sanctioned marriage; I'd just like to have a national civil union that affords my partner and I the same benefits that heterosexual couples have. I'm not asking for acceptance or approval-just for equal rights that raise me to the level of first class citizenship. As far as genetics: I think stem cell research is a good thing. I think we need more of it. I believe there is more potential in science saving lives then there is in worshiping some silly statue or ideal. I think any research is a good thing if it can combat cancers, diabities, HIV and etc. I have yet to decide that it should come from adults, discarded embryos or placentas. I do know that religious moralists object to using embryos for stem cells yet have no problem discarding them into the trash. The death penalty? This may be the one issue I would come out looking more right wing than the left of center guy I am. If a person has committed such a hienious crime [Tim McVey?] do we really want to let him off the hook by killing him? Or do we want to keep him alive with limited or no contact with the outside world. Which is the more appropriate punishment for a man who parked his bomb-laden truck beside a daycare center at the base of a Federal building? It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court ruled either punishment as cruel and unusual.

Because we are too provincial for our own good. I'm for increased LRT citywide and advocate it honestly. Aftonag professes to be so but then comes back with his NIMBY hollow arguments and then says he will fight to have NO rail on Richmond as a disguise for his advocacy of eliminating METRO. Culberson lies he is for self determination then turns around and proposes a route that will never get federal funding and rams through a freeway that takes hundreds of private parcels of land. These are just a few of the reasons Houston has become what it is: uneducated voters voting for morally corrupt Culbersons without a thought of their own because they might be too lazy to investigate and think for themselves before they cast their votes.

It's cheaper to build and many potential buyers are sucked into the wow factor because initially it looks so good. By the time it begins to crack, sweat and/or mold the contractors are long gone. IMO it IS a lost art. The buildings from the first part of the 20th century were built by experienced and knowledgeable craftsmen-Isabella Court is one fine example-but now-a-days they throw up cheaply built "stucco" clad McMansions all over town because they can sell them. They are no where to be found when the consequences of their shoddy construction comes to light.

Any news on major tenants for the office tower? My doctor has considered opening a satellite location...not sure where he is on that at this time.

Do you know if the referendum was binding or not?

It's going to be a redesigned strip center. Basicly the same as before except with less skanky tenants.

Of course this is the 21st century and not the 1980's. Niche seems to be alot of talk about the latter 20th century with little knowledge in regards to the 21st so we'll stick with Bart.

I joined HAIF in order to rectify an ordinance violation in my neighborhood. I succeded and decided to remain a memeber of an association that was like-minded in purpose if not nessasarily in ideology. You have failed to meet either criteria. While your attacks and threats have been ignored by the editor, they have not gone un-noticed by many of our members.

I look forward to the day when you "focus some very negative attention at this complex when i have free time to do so."

Puma, I feel for you because I fell into the same trap in the 70's. I bought two properties in Montrose: both on slabs; one with synthetic stucco and one with natural stucco. They both performed the same: cracked slabs because of our gumbo soil and deteriorating stucco because of our sub-tropic climate. I now live in a house built in 1918 on pier and beam that is as level as you could wish for; a slate roof that has withstood god knows how many hurricanes and has wood siding that has out lasted any stucco. You just may have to cut your losses; bite the bullet and try to move on. Houston is not the place for concrete foundations and stucco siding.

I'm not adverse to the guy but I don't see how he can get past the strength of the far right in the primaries. He is pro-choice and pro-civil unions just like Sen. Clinton. I just don't get how he can get the nomination unless the Republicans blow off the far right Christian fundalmentalists-and if they do that, they loose the election anyway. It's not a bias on my part...it's just political reality. The Christian right has been a key element in the last two Presidential elections but now they have no viable candidate to back. They won't back a flip-flopping McCain or a flip-flopping Morman like Romney or a liberal Guliani. So who is left to support? I have yet to hear a concrete consensus from the Republican base. Like yourself, I am truely interested in what others here have to say.

I apologize I didn't catch your response until this evening. I appriciate your support for equal rights for everyone-and I agree you have made that clear in the past regarding your stance on marriage vs. civil unions: a stance I hold as identical as yours. I may not agree with your stance on adoption but I think we can agree to respectfuly disagree. I've known of some straight foster parents who should never have been given the responsiblity to care for kids just as I have known of some gay couples who should never have been allowed to adopt kids. I think it should be on a case by case decision because there are just too many kids out there that shouldn't be denied a home and loving family based on the adoptive parent's sexual orientation.

http://indepheights.rice.edu/about.htm There are tax advantages to investing in the original Independence Heights-see my map in post #3-but if the disadvantages appear to outweigh the advantages, then actual developement will be a long time in coming. As an investor, I would advise buying raw land and holding it for the time being if you can afford it. We live just south of IH and note that while it hasn't increased in desirabilty, it has not decreased. Like hbcu stated, it is in a great location and is prime for redevelopment in the near future.

I'll admit it's the language of the majority but in no way has it ever been inacted as the official language of the US. There only seems to be one clueless troll on HAIF that thinks it is. BTW, "It's Raining Men" holds far more sway over "...Rainbow"

I'm not so sure his agenda is that secret. He of all people knows his route is a deal killer as far as federal funds go. That's why he and now the AOer's who say they will continue to fight ANY rail on Richmond west of Montrose are so insistant. It would be great if METRO and the Mayor would grow a spine and build it straight through ON Richmond with our own money and throw Culberson and his thugs under the bus. BTW: was the referendum binding or non?

It's difficult to have a discussion when logic is absent-which it always is when it comes to religion-unless someone can give me some hard-core facts to prove some of the mysticism used to reinforce their beliefs in the Bible; when a person spells God as G-D; when a person doesn't recognize the separations regarding government and religion in the Constitution: or spreads the myth that English is our official language.Ignorance can be a dangerous and damaging thing.