On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:44:35 -0400, 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....

I would expect the Honduran military to have taken an oath to protect
their constitution. They were doing so.

If that is not part of their oath, then it was erroneously overlooked.
They did what they should have done.

The fact that Chavez, Castro, a few dictators at the UN, Obama, you,
and Harry don't like it is tough bananas.
--
John H

"A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw

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?

You keep forgetting that it is the Honduran Constitution that is the law
of the land in Honduras. The Honduran Constitution may be just a bit
different than the US Constitution.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Jun 30, 8:40*am, 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?
--

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

In some places, the execution IS the trial.

"I was gambling in Honduras and I took a little risk.
Send lawyers guns and money dad, get me out of this!"

HEY!

"Gene" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:55:34 -0400, BAR wrote:

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....

Article 42 says anyone promoting the President staying in office beyond on
term loses their Honduras citizenship.

Once his citizenship was taken away, and he was deported, Article 242
(which deals with rules of succession) was carried out to the T.

"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?

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