Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:40:24 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:58:48 -0400, Just John... for today! wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:21:25 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:42:33 -0400, Just Jim wrote: Just John... for today! wrote: Good! http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...29-713183.html -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw Who were the 4 that voted nay and how could they possibly justify their decision? Astoundingly twisted logic. Actually, it is the same sort of thing going on in Honduras. We value "X," therefore we can suspend value "Y" for the greater good. Honduras: We value the constitution, therefore we can suspend the rule of law for the greater good. That sounds nice, but isn't the constitution the basis for the rule of law? Yes, it is. Don't you have a trial before the punishment, according to the constitution? Oh, so if a man is using his office to overturn the basis for the rule of law, he should be allowed to remain in office and recieve the blessings of the basis he just chucked? Sounds like some pretty liberal thinking to me! -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Gene wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:44:07 -0400, Just John... for today! wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:40:24 -0400, Gene wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:58:48 -0400, Just John... for today! wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:21:25 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:42:33 -0400, Just Jim wrote: Just John... for today! wrote: Good! http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...29-713183.html -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw Who were the 4 that voted nay and how could they possibly justify their decision? Astoundingly twisted logic. Actually, it is the same sort of thing going on in Honduras. We value "X," therefore we can suspend value "Y" for the greater good. Honduras: We value the constitution, therefore we can suspend the rule of law for the greater good. That sounds nice, but isn't the constitution the basis for the rule of law? Yes, it is. Don't you have a trial before the punishment, according to the constitution? Oh, so if a man is using his office to overturn the basis for the rule of law, he should be allowed to remain in office Of course not, but should we follow the constitution? The Hondurans followed their constitution. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gene" wrote in message ... On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:44:07 -0400, Just John... for today! Oh, so if a man is using his office to overturn the basis for the rule of law, he should be allowed to remain in office Of course not, but should we follow the constitution? Why not tell us what part of the Honduran Constitution was violated by his deportation? |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:40:59 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:44:07 -0400, Just John... for today! wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:40:24 -0400, Gene wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:58:48 -0400, Just John... for today! wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:21:25 -0400, Gene wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:42:33 -0400, Just Jim wrote: Just John... for today! wrote: Good! http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...29-713183.html -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw Who were the 4 that voted nay and how could they possibly justify their decision? Astoundingly twisted logic. Actually, it is the same sort of thing going on in Honduras. We value "X," therefore we can suspend value "Y" for the greater good. Honduras: We value the constitution, therefore we can suspend the rule of law for the greater good. That sounds nice, but isn't the constitution the basis for the rule of law? Yes, it is. Don't you have a trial before the punishment, according to the constitution? Oh, so if a man is using his office to overturn the basis for the rule of law, he should be allowed to remain in office Of course not, but should we follow the constitution? and recieve the blessings of the basis he just chucked? Obviously, not. Sounds like some pretty liberal thinking to me! Sounds like some of the most irrational leading questions I've seen.... Leading...yes. But hardly 'irrational questions'. The case was heard by the Honduran Supreme Court. That's enough of a trial. -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|