Gene wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:40:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:01:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:08:00 -0400, BAR wrote:

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?
The Honduran Supreme Court ruled that the referendum that the President
wanted to hold was unconstitutional. The Honduran military was just
upholding the Honduran Constitution as order by duly elected and legal
authorities gave them orders.
Since you think I am no "expert," you apparently consider yourself
one. Therefore, Oh Magnificent Carnak, point to me the part of the
Honduran Constitution legitimizing a military coup d'etat....
It wasn't a coup d'etat according to the Honduran Supreme Court or the
Honduran Legislature. It was enforcing the Honduran Constitution.
Oh, great.... another group of folks that don't know what "is" is.
That certainly clears things up.....
One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. The historical
definition depends upon which side wins.

I can agree with that, I just don't think it has anything to do with
Honduras.

You keep referring to it as a coup d'etat but the Hondurans call it
preservation of the rule of law according to their constitution.