On Jun 29, 12:27*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. *However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. *The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court *took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. *The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. *He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. *Does this bode well for an election in 2012? *Start buying
ammo now.

Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:27 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. Does this bode well for an election in 2012? Start buying
ammo now.
Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

What we have proof of here is that you cannot write.

On Jun 29, 12:32*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:27 pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. *However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. *The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court *took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. *The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. *He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. *Does this bode well for an election in 2012? *Start buying
ammo now.
Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

What we have proof of here is that you cannot write.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You do nothing here but cut and paste.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:29:39 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Jun 29, 12:27*pm, HK wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. *However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. *The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court *took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. *The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. *He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. *Does this bode well for an election in 2012? *Start buying
ammo now.

Your morning contribution to the "Are you as stupid as frogwatch?" saga?
Good start.

More proof, Dems can't think

Wow, that's a pretty wide brush you're wielding.

That doesn't speak so well of the Reptilians since the Dems thought
well enough to get elected into a wide majority.

Were the R's brains sidelined because of injury?