"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:


"Gene" wrote in message
. ..

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.

How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.


You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.

Ron wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is
clearly in a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could
be president for as long as he like.

obama is absolutely wrong in supporting a president who was trying to
become a dictator. one who disregarded their country's Constitution,
their Supreme Court and their Legislature.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:26:54 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is
clearly in a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could
be president for as long as he like.

obama is absolutely wrong in supporting a president who was trying to
become a dictator. one who disregarded their country's Constitution,
their Supreme Court and their Legislature.

He should have been dealt with in accordance with their constitution.
Does it prescribe that he should be thrown out of the country? Perhaps
they have courtrooms in Honduras? Lawyers? Judges?

Keith Nuttle wrote:
HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is
clearly in a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the
Constitution of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer
of hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the
other bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could be
president for as long as he like.

obama is absolutely wrong in supporting a president who was trying to
become a dictator. one who disregarded their country's Constitution,
their Supreme Court and their Legislature.

Birds of a feather, as they say.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:

"Gene" wrote in message
...

It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is
clearly in a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?

Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.

You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
ball.

You didn't answer the question.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the
Constitution of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer
of hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the
other bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could be
president for as long as he like.


Follow legal procedures that didn't involve a military coup?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:54:12 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
. ..
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
m...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|

It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.

What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.
He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out. (Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?) What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.

Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America. So far as I
know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?

Fire, aim, ready and you're welcome to the GOP!

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|

It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.

What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.
He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out. (Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?) What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.

You are a Honduran Constitutional law expert now.

Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America. So far as I
know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?


It only has to be accepted by the citizens of Honduras, it is their
country.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly
in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of
the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|


It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....


What an arrogant prick you are.

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.


In an protracted fight for the power of a country, 15% of the population is
more than enough to spark a civil war.


What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.

They did that. The Congress, and the Supreme Court both ordered the
President to halt the illegal referendum. He decided against that and called
in the assistance of a foreign country to come into the country to run the
election. That my friend is treason.


He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out.

Deporting him was doing him a favor. He has been informed he is more than
welcome to return if he wants to spend 20+ years in prison.

(Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?)

We're not talking about the US, but in the event that a sitting US President
decided to circumvent the US Constitution and hold an illegal national
referendum to circumvent the Constitution, the Congress, and the Supreme
Court I would hope that our military would act accordingly.

What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.


What they did was legal under the laws of their country.


Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America.
So far as I know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way
things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?

Honduras is a sovereign country and does not require outside approval of
their actions. What they did is in accordance with their laws, and the will
of the democratically elected representatives, and therefore the people.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:53:47 GMT, "Ron" wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly
in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of
the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|


It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....


What an arrogant prick you are.

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.


In an protracted fight for the power of a country, 15% of the population is
more than enough to spark a civil war.


What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.

They did that. The Congress, and the Supreme Court both ordered the
President to halt the illegal referendum. He decided against that and called
in the assistance of a foreign country to come into the country to run the
election. That my friend is treason.


He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out.

Deporting him was doing him a favor. He has been informed he is more than
welcome to return if he wants to spend 20+ years in prison.

(Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?)

We're not talking about the US, but in the event that a sitting US President
decided to circumvent the US Constitution and hold an illegal national
referendum to circumvent the Constitution, the Congress, and the Supreme
Court I would hope that our military would act accordingly.

What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.


What they did was legal under the laws of their country.


Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America.
So far as I know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way
things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?

Honduras is a sovereign country and does not require outside approval of
their actions. What they did is in accordance with their laws, and the will
of the democratically elected representatives, and therefore the people.

Are you an expert in Honduran law or have you been taking in the
talking points Fox News has been distributing?