Karen Winter's Abject Ignorance of Constitutionality
Karen Winter lied:
> Leif Erikson wrote: Resto >> Karen Winter lied: end-restore > > >>Leif Erikson wrote: > > > Congress has passed lots of laws subsequently held to be > > unconstitutional. The fact that Congress passed laws > > authorizing the parks is not evidence that the Constitution provides > > for that power. > > It does show Congress -- which is full of constitutional > lawyers -- saw no Constitutional barrier to the law. Congress is *not* full of Constitutional lawyers. Congress is full of garden-variety ambulance-chasers. The fact that Congress "saw no barrier" is irrelevant. Congress saw no problem with the shoddy evidence for WMD in Iraq, either. Congress is myopic. > > As a totalitarian statist, you would pretty > > much tear it up in order to do what you think should be done, anyway. > > Not me -- Yes, you, Karen. You are a totalitarian at heart, as John Mercer and I both recognized many years ago, and you would shred the Constitution faster than Bush. |
National Parks
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > pearl wrote: > > <snip> > >> I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions >> as documented below, before believing you're not just using >> the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. > > Both he and Leif are. There are so many more > unconstitutional and egregious violations of law > and the constitution by the Bush government, yet > they attack *national parks*? > > <snip> > >> Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an >> invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, >> possessions or armed forces. > < Oscar's snip while taking out the trash> I have no trouble continuing this conversation in the right newsgroup.... You must really love horses... you are always on your high horse... ride 'em over to an appropriate group and I'll just love to join you there where we can probably pick up some good input. Oscar |
National Parks
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message oups.com... > Karen Winter lied and committed further errors: >> shithead lied: >> >> <snip> >> >> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions >> > as documented below, before believing you're not just using >> > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. >> >> Both he and Leif are. > > I am not, and I doubt the other guy is, either. Correct... I am not "just" using <blah blah blah.... snip> either. > > I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably > easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some > constitutionally provided power. My point in this is that your - Karen > Winter's - belief that they can exist because they aren't forbidden is > flatly wrong. Furthermore, I gleefully point out that you are emerging > as the ardent supporter of intrusive, invasive government - it can do > whatever isn't prohibited to it, rather than it can do *only* what is > constitutionally permitted to it - that John Mercer and I always said > you have been. I happen to like the national parks also.. though I think they should be "state parks." >> There are so many more >> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law >> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet >> they attack *national parks*? > > I am not attacking national parks. I am attacking your totalitarian > statist's rationale for government's doing whatever it wants, Karen. > You are, indeed, a totalitarian statist, Karen, just as I have said for > nearly seven years, and as John Mercer has said for even longer. And I wasn't attacking "parks" either... Further, in keeping with the notion of smaller national government I believe, both from a Constitutional point and a practical one they should be state parks... and have no other changes in mind. Oscar |
National Parks
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Glorfindel" > wrote in message > ... >> pearl wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions >> > as documented below, before believing you're not just using >> > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. >> >> Both he and Leif are. There are so many more >> unconstitutional and egregious violations of law >> and the constitution by the Bush government, yet >> they attack *national parks*? > > Anything that may in any way disturb their precious livestock industry. > >> <snip> <garbage detail yet again> Anything to protect your precious carrot soup industry. Killed me a fish... boy did he flop all over the damn boat. Having trout with almonds tonight Pearl. Perhaps some shrimp cocktail before and there are two more slices of that banana cream pie, with real moo-juice on the top. Wanna stop over? |
National Parks
Leif Erikson wrote:
>><snip> >>>I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably >>>easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some >>>constitutionally provided power. >>As I said. > That's *not* what you said. What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional. You provided no answer, and have now come around to stating you believe they are constitutional also -- although you *ALSO* have cited no "constitutionally provided power" which you claim makes them constitutional. To ask why something is claimed to be unconstitutional -- which was the claim Oscar put forward -- is not the same as saying anything not specifically prohibited is constitutional. That's why the judicial system has the authority to review laws passed by Congress -- because laws *may* be unconstitutional. But it is not up to Congress to determine that; it is up to the Supreme Court. That's basic civics. :) > BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. |
The Status of animals
----- Original Message ----- From: "pearl" > Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk. politics.animals,soc.culture.usa Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: The Status of animals > > wrote in message ... > >> (as the Constitution states -- > > I find it incredible that a poster who votes for Bush "Stop throwing > the Constitution in my face, It's just a goddamned piece of paper!", > keeps bringing up the U.S Constitution in response to invitations > to the American public to exercise their constitutionally protected > right of freedom of speech, concerning the protection of native > species, in their own right, and as part of their/our natural heritage. The word is "Voted." I never said he was perfect. He isn't. I am not voting for him as we speak so the use of the word "votes" is grammatically incorrect. Of course I keep bringing up the Constitution.... is there a reason I shouldn't. However, I have never said that anyone should not exercise any of their freedoms. Where did I do so? Exercise away... > > I'll have to see you renounce the Bush administrations actions > as documented below, before believing you're not just using > the Constitution now because it suits your purposes to do so. Of course it serves my purpose to do so... I believe in it, am saddened when it is not followed... and have never suggested it should be any other way. BTW, it not only serves my purpose, but the other citizens of this great country to do so. It would never have been written by the group who did so if it had not served the peoples purpose. Who's purpose should it serve? <garbage smokescreen begins> > 'Despite opposition by many prominent Republicans, Dick Cheney > and George W. Bush are mounting an intensive public relations > campaign to justify their pre-ordained invasion of Iraq. A preemptive > strike against Iraq would violate the Constitution and the United Nations > Charter. <mercifully snipping the rest of the garbage smokescreen> > Well... what say you, oscar? What happened to the national parks, horse, grizzly, animal, vegetable, mineral discussion? |
National Parks
Karen winter, chronic liar, reflexively lied again:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > >><snip> > > >>>I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably > >>>easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some > >>>constitutionally provided power. > > >>As I said. > > > That's *not* what you said. > > What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional. No, Karen, you liar. You asked where in the Constitution does it forbid that kind of thing to the federal government, and I gave you a badly needed lesson in civics and the correct way to look at the Constitution: the presumption is that activities are prohibited to the federal government unless they are authorized by the Constitution, rather than presumed to be permitted unless they are forbidden. Your interpretation is wrong, but because you're a stubborn asshole you can't admit your error. > > > BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? > > I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you still proud of your son, Karen? |
National Parks
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > Leif Erikson wrote: > >>><snip> > >>>>I happen to like the national parks, and I think one can probably >>>>easily find that they were established and exist consistent with some >>>>constitutionally provided power. > >>>As I said. > >> That's *not* what you said. > > What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional. > You provided no answer, and have now come around to stating you believe > they are constitutional also -- although you *ALSO* have cited > no "constitutionally provided power" which you claim makes them > constitutional. > > To ask why something is claimed to be unconstitutional -- which > was the claim Oscar put forward -- is not the same as saying > anything not specifically prohibited is constitutional. That's > why the judicial system has the authority to review laws passed > by Congress -- because laws *may* be unconstitutional. But it > is not up to Congress to determine that; it is up to the > Supreme Court. Funny you should mention that.... because it is possible for all three branches of the government to make that determination. You see, if the Supreme Court should happen to decide that something is Constitutional... like killing people because they are black-skinned (granted unlikely, but theoretically possible)... it is possible for the other two branches to correct the problem without the court. I am sure someone will be more than ready to argue the point... and I am ready, with a judge sitting next to me at this very moment. > > That's basic civics. :) > >> BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? > > I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. > > > |
The Status of animals
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > wrote: > > <snip> > >> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a >> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as >> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities to >> the individual states or the citizens of those states. > > Glorfindel: > > But it does not say that the citizens have to act only > at the state level. I didn't say that they did.... > The citizens are also citizens of > the United States as a whole, and can act at a national > level in the persons of their congressional representatives. By jove I think you've got it.... a representitive government... not a democracy! > The states are not completely sovereign. The Civil War > established that. Wow.. two in a row.... Oscar > > <snip> |
The Status of animals
"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message link.net... > Karen Winter flim-flammed and dissembled: > >> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a >>> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as >>> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities >>> to the individual states or the citizens of those states. >> >> >> Glorfindel: > > No, Karen Winter. You are Karen Winter. Drop the charade, Karen. > > >> >> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only >> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of >> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national >> level in the persons of their congressional representatives. > > Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the > federal government in the Constitution. It's that simple. Your error is > that easy to establish. Well Leif, I hope you will allow that Congress has done exactly that... and thankfully things like that have been reversed (most of the time). > > You are not a constitutional scholar in any way, and it is obvious that > you are pulling constitutional interpretations out your ass. |
The Status of animals
"Glorfindel" > wrote in message ... > Leif Erikson wrote: > >>> wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>>> They decided to write a Constitution which listed those things which a >>>> central governing body would need to do for all of the country, and as >>>> they put it (paraphrased by me here) leave the remainder of activities >>>> to the individual states or the citizens of those states. > >>> Glorfindel: > >>> But it does not say that the citizens have to act only >>> at the state level. The citizens are also citizens of >>> the United States as a whole, and can act at a national >>> level in the persons of their congressional representatives. > > >> Congress may not pass laws that establish things not permitted to the >> federal government in the Constitution. > > However, there is nothing in the Constitution which > does not permit the national government to set up national > parks. The point I think Leif was trying to get across to you is that there is nothing in the Constitution that allows it.... The presence of some specific don'ts does not mean that if they are not in there they are OK.... > > Some things are not permitted, for example to establish a state > religion. These things are explicitly stated in the Constitution > or the Bill of Rights. Things which do not violate any of the > provisions stated in the Constitution can be established by the > authority given to the people, by the elected representatives > of the people in Congress. Wrong... The authority is not given "TO"' the people it is derived "FROM" the people. They give the authority "TO" the government... not through their representatives, but through the rule of law... Constitutional Law. Otherwise we have government by people, not government by law. > If someone believes a specific > law is unconstitutional, it can be challenged in court. That's > what the legal system is for: to determine if something is > constitutional or not. > > If you think national parks are unconstitutional, hire a lawyer > and challenge the law. Don't you think you would be better > occupied challenging the constitutionality of Bush's wiretapping > scheme? No I don't... but if you do, go for it! |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers vested in the Congress: > > Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, > Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the > common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all > Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United > States; <snip> > The only clause that appears as if it might authorize national parks is > #17, I'd say it could be considered part of providing for the general welfare. I'd certainly consider having areas of wilderness available to the public a benefit to general welfare of the population. <snip> |
[the lack of constitutional authority for] National Parks
Karen Winter, proud mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq and
ardent defender of powerful, intrusive government, lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > Karen Winter, chronic liar, lied again: > > >>What I asked was why national parks would be unconstitutional. > > > You asked where in the Constitution does it > > forbid that kind of thing to the federal government > > How does that differ from asking why national parks would > be unconstitutional It doesn't differ at all, you ****ing ****. And it's *still* the wrong question. As I have patiently tried to explain to you: the Constitution does not explicitly forbid powers to Congress. Activities and powers are *understood* to be forbidden to Congress *unless* they are granted in the Constitution. You keep getting it backward, but because you're a stubborn, arrogant asshole who wrongly thinks you're the smartest person in the newsgroup, you're incapable of learning. You are wrong on all of it, not least your unwarranted opinion of yourself. > The Constitution was an 18th-century document. Irrelevant. > There are a vast array There IS a vast array of things, you idiot. The verb must agree in number with the subject. Array is singular. You ****. > thing things which did not exist in > the 18th century which the federal government had had > to deal with in the last 200-plus years, and national parks > are one of them. No, absolutely not, and an astonishingly weak defense of your position. Parks already existed at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, and other nations had national parks and preserves. This is something the Founders - good white men, all of them - could easily have provided for, unlike (say) electronic communications regulation or space exploration. Also, there is an amendment process to the Constitution that can be employed to deal with the kind of development of events and technologies that were unforeseeable to the Founders. No ratified amendment can possibly interpreted as authorizing the parks, and clearly none of the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution can be interpreted that way either. > > > > BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? > > > I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. > > Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago > > that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just > > answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush > > administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you > > still proud of your son, Karen? No comment, Karen? Come on, Karen - are you proud of your son? |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud mother of a
jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers vested in the Congress: > > > > Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, > > Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the > > common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all > > Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United > > States; > > <snip> > > > The only clause that appears as if it might authorize national parks is > > #17, > > I'd say You'd say anything, you ****ing Gestapo agent. > it could be considered part of providing for the > general welfare. The general welfare is only mentioned in the Preamble, which does *NOT* provide any meaningful constitutional authority for anything, Karen. The Preamble only states the sentiment and intent of the People of the United States in implementing the Constitution. Funny you'd mention that, though, because once you make it that vague, then anything goes, and George W. Bush certainly can claim to be promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*. Nice job, Karen - you just provided the necessary constitutional cover for Bush to have sent your jack-booted kid to Iraq to kill babies. Anarchist my ass... You are really funny in some ways, Karen. |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
<snip> > The general welfare is only mentioned in the Preamble, which does *NOT* > provide any meaningful constitutional authority for anything. > The Preamble only states the sentiment and intent of the People of the > United States in implementing the Constitution. Yes. > George W. Bush certainly can claim to be > promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*. Yes, of course he can. However, some of the things he has done directly violate provisions of the Constitution which *are* specifically set out in the document. <snip> |
National Parks
I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case. |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud
mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > <snip> > >> The general welfare is only mentioned in the Preamble, which does *NOT* >> provide any meaningful constitutional authority for anything. >> The Preamble only states the sentiment and intent of the People of the >> United States in implementing the Constitution. > > > Yes. Yes. <smirk> > >> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be >> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*. > > > Yes, of course he can. So you're hosed. > However, some of the things he has > done directly violate provisions of the Constitution > which *are* specifically set out in the document. Not that anyone is going to take *your* word on that, Karen. >>>> BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? >>> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. >> Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago >> that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just >> answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush >> administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you >> still proud of your son, Karen? No comment, Karen? Come on, Karen - are you proud of your son? |
The Status of animals
Leif Erikson wrote:
> proud mother of a > jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq >>> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be >>> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*. >> Yes, of course he can. > So you're hosed. What does "hosed" mean? All political figures claim to be acting for the welfare of the people they control, whatever they see as the source of their authority. It does not mean they are. Would you expect Bush to admit he is acting unconstitutionally? Would you even expect Bush to *know* he is acting unconstitutionally? > >>> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. > Are you > >> still proud of your son? You are amusing, Leif. Here you are trying the same clumsy and transparent technique you tried when you attacked science fiction -- a variant on "Have you stopped beating your wife." If I did have a son, and if I claimed not to be proud of him, you would attack with claims that I did not display proper maternal feelings. If I had a son, and claimed to be proud of him, you would use the sophomoric language above. "Jack-booted baby killer" sounds like something a stoned hippie from the 60's would say. Grow up. "Hey, Hey LBJ -- how many kids did you kill today?" Hmmm...possibly the slogan could use recycling...but by someone with more literary talent than Leif. |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud
mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > >> Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied: > > >>>> George W. Bush certainly can claim to be >>>> promoting the general welfare of the people *as he sees it*. > > >>> Yes, of course he can. > > >> So you're hosed. > > > What does "hosed" mean? You're not that naive. >>>>BTW, has your son been blown up by an improvised explosive device yet? >>> >>> I haven't even said whether I *have* children or not. >> >> Yes, Karen, you most certainly have. You told us a couple of years ago >> that your son is in the Army in Iraq. Cut the shit, Karen. Just >> answer the question: has he been killed carrying out the Bush >> administration's invasion, an invasion you claim to oppose? Are you >> still proud of your son, Karen? > > You are amusing, Leif. Not a fraction as amusing as you, Karen. All the regulars here - Dutch, Rick, ****wit, Mr. Suspect (when he drops in), Derek, and I - know that you're Karen Winter, despite your oafish denials. It's a real hoot seeing you continue your little solo dance. You have a son you detest, and yet strangely you've expressed pride in him; you have a grandson whom you hope to turn into a queer. YOU are the transparent one, Karen. > If I had a son, You do; or, at least, you did. > and claimed to be proud of him, You have done, in the past, even though you also detest him. You're very weird, Karen. |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter, ignorant totalitarian statist and proud
mother of a jack-booted baby-killer in Iraq, lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > > .>> So you're hosed. > >>> What does "hosed" mean? > > >> You're not that naive. > > > I don't know the word. There's lots of useful stuff you don't know, Karen, beginning with a proper understanding of the Constitution, and the basics of logic. What you know is stale left-wing dogma from the mid 1960s and earlier. You're a ****ing dinosaur, Karen. >>> You are still amusing, Leif. >> >>Not a fraction as amusing as you, Karen. All the regulars >>here - Dutch, Rick, ****wit, Mr. Suspect (when he drops in), >>Derek, and I - know that you're Karen Winter, despite your >>oafish denials. It's a real hoot seeing you continue your >>little solo dance. >> >>You have a son you detest, and yet strangely you've expressed >>pride in him; you have a grandson whom you hope to turn into >>a queer. YOU are the transparent one, Karen. >> >>> If I had a son, >> >>You do; or, at least, you did. >> >>> and claimed to be proud of him, >> >>You have done, in the past, even though you also detest him. >>You're very weird, Karen. And getting weirder every day. So, you never answered, Karen: was your son blown up by an IED in Iraq? If so, I think Sylvia must have been ecstatic. Sylvia Stevens is a foul lump of shit. Some day, I'm going to send her right over the edge, and I'll never get within a thousand miles of her. Ha ha ha ha ha! |
The Status of animals
Karen Winter attempted to explain her error:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > Karen Winter lied: > > >>The system was set up by an act of Congress, and Congress > >>are the representatives of the people. > > > Congress may not authorize the federal government to do things that the > > Constitution does not allow it to do. This is basic civics. > > If it is not stated specifically in the Constitution, then > powers are reserved to the States *OR* to the people. > As their elected representatives, Congress are the people. This is simply false. Congress is the body of the people's elected representatives *only* for the purpose of the federal government. Congress enacts federal laws. They may *only* constitutionally enact federal laws in areas allowed to them by the Constitution. Your interpretations of the Constitution are getting screwier all the time. First, the Constitution does not tell Congress the areas in which they may *not* act; it tells them the areas in which they *are* authorized to act, and everything else is BY PRESUMPTION forbidden to them. Secondly, Congress is NOT "the people". It is the body of the people's representatives *only* for the purpose of the federal government. |
National Parks
Karen Winter, motivated only by her false belief of herself as the
smartest person around, lied: > I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is > better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends > on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state > attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM > to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and > drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case. In other words, Karen, there is no principle behind your stance, save the principle of trying to get what you want by any means possible. But we already knew that. |
National Parks
Leif Erikson wrote:
Glorfindel: >>I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is >>better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends >>on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state >>attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM >>to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and >>drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case. > In other words, there is no principle behind your stance, That's even more feeble than usual for you, Leif. You're losing it. |
National Parks
Karen Winter, motivated only by her false belief of herself as the
smartest person around, lied: > Leif Erikson wrote: > > Karen Winter, motivated only by her false belief of herself as the smartest person > around, lied: > > >>I don't necessarily think that federal control of wilderness lands is > >>better than state or local control of wilderness lands. It depends > >>on the state. In New Mexico at least, the governor and the state > >>attorney general are fighting the federal government and the BLM > >>to protect wilderness areas from oil and gas exploration and > >>drilling. So I'd side with the state in this case. > > > In other words, Karen, there is no principle behind your stance, save > > the principle of trying to get what you want by any means possible. > > > > But we already knew that, Karen. > > That's even more That's exactly right, Karen, and it's laughably obvious. If you can get what you want in some instance by favoring states' rights, you'll do it; if you can get what you want in another by favoring federal power, you'll do that. You do not operate according to any principle other than the principle of getting what you want. That is, you are unprincipled as most people understand the word. But we already knew that, Karen. |
The Status of animals
Somewhere between "tasty" and "nutritious", I believe...
-- -- Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women should have to fistfight with 210lb. rapists. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter