|
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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 |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:33:24 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. The facts seem at odds with your assessment... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...ras_referendum Facts, schmacts. Truth isn't required for conservatives to slime. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. The facts seem at odds with your assessment... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...ras_referendum What was said previously seems to paraphrase this paragraph from your article. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ His ouster came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional referendum that Zelaya was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court and the attorney general said it was illegal. ***The constitution bars changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving more than one term, they said.*** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ From the article it appears Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to allow him to be president for longer that allowed in the constitution. The author of the article does spins everything to make it appear that Zelaya is in the right. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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? |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
On Jun 29, 1:16*pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:04:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: Gene wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. The facts seem at odds with your assessment... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...t_honduras_ref.... What was said previously seems to paraphrase this paragraph from your article. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++ His ouster came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional referendum that Zelaya was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court and the attorney general said it was illegal. ***The constitution bars changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving more than one term, they said.*** +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++ From the article it appears Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to allow him to be president for longer that allowed in the constitution. The author of the article does spins everything to make it appear that Zelaya is in the right. My point is that "the Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with legal procedure" is absolute BS. Even FOX news says, "Soldiers seized the national palace and flew President Manuel Zelaya into exile Sunday, hours before a disputed constitutional referendum." For you kiddies out there, I'm old enough to remember all of the military "coup d'etats du jour" of the 50's through the 80's.... if you aren't, it's time to hit the history books... If we have learned anything from history, it should be that Obama is rightfully concerned. -- Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm The president was detained "In compliance with a court order". The courts had ruled his attempts to have this referendum was illegal and unconstitutional. If Obama was to attempt to hold such a referendum on his own and ignored court orders, he should be arrested. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and beyond? Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape. Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me. With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be a good marketing opportunity. One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is the most important factor in gas milage. Maybe for displacement hulls too. The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly due to the small pad when planing. A bigger factor is the weight of the boat. It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger. A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc. All that weight takes gas to move. Don't know if this is up your alley as an inventor, but a new lightweight composite material needs inventing. What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds. That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel. Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in that thread. The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform. What do you think? --Vic |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and beyond? Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape. Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me. With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be a good marketing opportunity. One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is the most important factor in gas milage. Maybe for displacement hulls too. The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly due to the small pad when planing. A bigger factor is the weight of the boat. It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger. A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc. All that weight takes gas to move. Don't know if this is up your alley as an inventor, but a new lightweight composite material needs inventing. What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds. That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel. Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in that thread. The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform. What do you think? --Vic Froggy will come up with three 8' sheets of "sorta marine" ply, with a 1"x8" nailed around the sides. 24' x 8' boat. Who needs steeeekin' hull hydrodynamics. Oh...he'll spec used plywood, pulled off from previous use as concrete forms. New nails, though. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
On Jun 29, 2:17*pm, HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and beyond? Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape. Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me. With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be a good marketing opportunity. One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is the most important factor in gas milage. *Maybe for displacement hulls too. The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly due to the small pad when planing. *A bigger factor is the weight of the boat. *It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger. A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc. All that weight takes gas to move. Don't know if this is up your alley as an inventor, but a new lightweight composite material needs inventing. What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds. That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel. Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in that thread. *The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform. What do you think? --Vic Froggy will come up with three 8' sheets of "sorta marine" ply, with a 1"x8" nailed around the sides. 24' x 8' boat. Who needs steeeekin' hull hydrodynamics. Oh...he'll spec used plywood, pulled off from previous use as concrete forms. New nails, though.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - How do you know? You don't know **** about building wooden boats anyway so why bother. You seem to only open your mouth to change feet... WAFA... |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. Did you see that thread about the flats boat going to Bermuda and beyond? Tunnel hull, and catamaran-like shape. Something about the tunnel hull that attracts me. With fuel being such a concern now, a gas-miser boat would seem to be a good marketing opportunity. One thing I've noticed is that when you go to planing hulls, weight is the most important factor in gas milage. Maybe for displacement hulls too. The reason the Carolina Skiff gets such good gas milage is only partly due to the small pad when planing. A bigger factor is the weight of the boat. It's about half the weight of a similar length Ranger. A lot of the weight of the higher-priced boats is all the doo-dad accessories - bait wells, heavy seats, t-tops, etc. All that weight takes gas to move. Don't know if this is up your alley as an inventor, but a new lightweight composite material needs inventing. What we need is a 24' boat with an 8' beam that weighs 1000 pounds. That sucker will move fast, and only sip fuel. Hull hydrodynamics is secondary, but you might look at the Intruder in that thread. The tunnel/cat appears to offer a good platform. What do you think? --Vic Froggy will come up with three 8' sheets of "sorta marine" ply, with a 1"x8" nailed around the sides. 24' x 8' boat. Who needs steeeekin' hull hydrodynamics. Oh...he'll spec used plywood, pulled off from previous use as concrete forms. New nails, though. Whoops...make that six sheets of ply for a 24x8 boat. And a Scott-A****er 60 hp electric start with the starting motor removed because he needed a new motor for his garage door opener. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
How do you know? You don't know **** about building wooden boats anyway so why bother. You seem to only open your mouth to change feet... WAFA... I've seen examples of your work. You built bitty rowboats and dinghies. Some expert. And you didn't even know how to blend in the color of your stitch'n'glue epoxy with the remainder of the interiors of your hulls. Strictly amateur. Well, not as amateurish as that 50 cent paint job on your personal rowboat. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
"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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
On Jun 29, 2:23*pm, HK wrote:
JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote: How do you know? You don't know **** about building wooden boats anyway so why bother. You seem to only open your mouth to change feet... * WAFA... I've seen examples of your work. You built bitty rowboats and dinghies. Some expert. And you didn't even know how to blend in the color of your stitch'n'glue epoxy with the remainder of the interiors of your hulls. Strictly amateur. Well, not as amateurish as that 50 cent paint job on your personal rowboat. How many have you built, Harry? Where did you see examples of Scotty's boats? |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
"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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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! |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:04:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: Gene wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), 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. The facts seem at odds with your assessment... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...ras_referendum What was said previously seems to paraphrase this paragraph from your article. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ His ouster came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional referendum that Zelaya was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court and the attorney general said it was illegal. ***The constitution bars changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving more than one term, they said.*** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++ From the article it appears Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to allow him to be president for longer that allowed in the constitution. The author of the article does spins everything to make it appear that Zelaya is in the right. My point is that "the Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with legal procedure" is absolute BS. Even FOX news says, "Soldiers seized the national palace and flew President Manuel Zelaya into exile Sunday, hours before a disputed constitutional referendum." For you kiddies out there, I'm old enough to remember all of the military "coup d'etats du jour" of the 50's through the 80's.... if you aren't, it's time to hit the history books... If we have learned anything from history, it should be that Obama is rightfully concerned. "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" is the clause that scares Obama. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
BAR wrote:
"support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" is the clause that scares Obama. Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh? |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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? |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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? |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
HK wrote:
BAR wrote: "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" is the clause that scares Obama. Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh? What is wrong with going out drinking with the marines. You will get a better picture of what is actually happening in Iraq than going out drinking with a bunch of leftist whose whole life is in the virtual world of their computers. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
Keith Nuttle wrote:
HK wrote: BAR wrote: "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" is the clause that scares Obama. Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh? What is wrong with going out drinking with the marines. You will get a better picture of what is actually happening in Iraq than going out drinking with a bunch of leftist whose whole life is in the virtual world of their computers. Harry hasn't ever had to take an oath of office. And, Harry doesn't understand the implications of that oath of office. The oath is not sworn to a man but sworn to uphold the Constitution against all of those who would subvert the Constitution regardless of who they are and where they are. The interesting thing is that the deposed president of Honduras was trying to pull a Hugo Chavez and the people of Honduras through their duly constituted government said that ain't gonna happen here and flew the ******* to Costa Rica. Try to hold an referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional and you get a one-way ticket out of the country. Seems like a fair trade. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
BAR wrote:
Keith Nuttle wrote: HK wrote: BAR wrote: "support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" is the clause that scares Obama. Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh? What is wrong with going out drinking with the marines. You will get a better picture of what is actually happening in Iraq than going out drinking with a bunch of leftist whose whole life is in the virtual world of their computers. Harry hasn't ever had to take an oath of office. And, Harry doesn't understand the implications of that oath of office. The oath is not sworn to a man but sworn to uphold the Constitution against all of those who would subvert the Constitution regardless of who they are and where they are. The interesting thing is that the deposed president of Honduras was trying to pull a Hugo Chavez and the people of Honduras through their duly constituted government said that ain't gonna happen here and flew the ******* to Costa Rica. Try to hold an referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional and you get a one-way ticket out of the country. Seems like a fair trade. If Harry was ever elected or appointed to an office he would, undoubtedly ask his BFF Barney Frank to administer the oath of orifice. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
"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. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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? |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
"jps" wrote in message ... On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:53:47 GMT, "Ron" wrote: Are you an expert in Honduran law Compared to you, yes. |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
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. You have to remember that most liberals believe our laws should be approved by every socialist country. -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw |
Obama, Chavez and Castro
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:13:25 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:53:47 GMT, "Ron" wrote: Are you an expert in Honduran law Compared to you, yes. I'm not the one professing an acute knowledge of the legalities involved. Is this some kind of conservative personality disorder? Putting yourself up as something you're not? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com