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