|
The Firefighters Won
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 |
The Firefighters Won
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? |
The Firefighters Won
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? They wanted to be on the same side as Sotomayor. -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw |
The Firefighters Won
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? It's not about closely keeping the politicians close to the Constitution and individual rights. It is about partisan views and politics. |
The Firefighters Won
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. US: We value multiculturalism, therefore we can allow racism for the greater good. What amazes me is that so many people cannot see the forest because of all of those damn trees. Amazing. Sad, but amazing. I am, however, encouraged by the 5 on the USSC that actually saw the forest.... and I hope those firefighters (they *earned* them) see their promotions, though I fear it is still an uphill battle. Yes. This decision is a faint light at the end of a long dark tunnel. I hope this gets a lot more play in the press, but I suspect we won't hear much more about it. It will be brushed under the rug in favor of more important news like the life and death of Jocko or Billy Mays. |
The Firefighters Won
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? -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw |
The Firefighters Won
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. |
The Firefighters Won
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. The Honduran military perpetrated a military coup, something that gives you mustered out old soldier boys a woody. |
The Firefighters Won
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 |
The Firefighters Won
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. The Honduran military probably took an oath to uphold and protect their constitution. If protecting the constitution meant taking out the person who would trash it, then more power to the military. The liberals can suck eggs on this one. -- John H "A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw |
The Firefighters Won
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 |
The Firefighters Won
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. |
The Firefighters Won
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. |
The Firefighters Won
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. |
The Firefighters Won
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. |
The Firefighters Won
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. |
The Firefighters Won
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! |
The Firefighters Won
"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. |
The Firefighters Won
"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? |
The Firefighters Won
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com