![]() |
|
OT- Constitutional crisis
On Sep 9, 4:08*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 9, 2:05*pm, hk wrote: Andrew Swallow wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... wrote: On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote: wrote: Assume the following situation: McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote.. * Late in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not able to take office. *Who would become president? *The constitution is not clear on this, would it be Palin? *Would the Dems insist on a new election? *If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b president in the interim? *Would it be House majority leader? Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to bcome pres even for a few days. *The Dems go crazy. *A blue state or two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. *Republicans in these two blue states are attacked. *Palin sends in the Nat Guard..............new American Civil War. *Could it really happen this easily? You really need to read the Constitution. Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old. Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty straightforward. Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding what the Constitution says? Simple. *The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about pornographic DVDs. *The defence lawyers were having to deliberately misrepresent it to get their clients off. *Obvious misrepresentation leads to arguments from the prosecution. Andrew Swallow I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year If you would stop crossposting, we at rec.boats would sure appreciate it. Thanks!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - im not x posting. i'm responding to others who are posting. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:08 pm, John H wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 9, 2:05 pm, hk wrote: Andrew Swallow wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote: wrote: Assume the following situation: McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote. Late in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not able to take office. Who would become president? The constitution is not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a new election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader? Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen this easily? You really need to read the Constitution. Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old. Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty straightforward. Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding what the Constitution says? Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation leads to arguments from the prosecution. Andrew Swallow I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year If you would stop crossposting, we at rec.boats would sure appreciate it. Thanks!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - im not x posting. i'm responding to others who are posting. Herring thinks himself "the* net cop of net cops. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
"tankfixer" wrote in message ... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
|
OT- Constitutional crisis
|
OT- Constitutional crisis
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:19:50 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote: "tankfixer" wrote in message t... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. Raymond, would you please take 'rec.boats' off your cross posting list? It would sure be appreciated. Thanks! |
OT- Constitutional crisis
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:51:12 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:08*pm, John H wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 9, 2:05*pm, hk wrote: Andrew Swallow wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "hk" wrote in message m... wrote: On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote: wrote: Assume the following situation: McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote. * Late in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not able to take office. *Who would become president? *The constitution is not clear on this, would it be Palin? *Would the Dems insist on a new election? *If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b president in the interim? *Would it be House majority leader? Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to bcome pres even for a few days. *The Dems go crazy. *A blue state or two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. *Republicans in these two blue states are attacked. *Palin sends in the Nat Guard..............new American Civil War. *Could it really happen this easily? You really need to read the Constitution. Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old. Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty straightforward. Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding what the Constitution says? Simple. *The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about pornographic DVDs. *The defence lawyers were having to deliberately misrepresent it to get their clients off. *Obvious misrepresentation leads to arguments from the prosecution. Andrew Swallow I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year If you would stop crossposting, we at rec.boats would sure appreciate it. Thanks!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - im not x posting. i'm responding to others who are posting. If you could delete 'rec.boats' from the list of newsgroups to which your response goes, the crossposting would stop. I've just done that in response to your message. Thanks. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:19:50 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara" wrote: "tankfixer" wrote in message ... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. Raymond, would you please take 'rec.boats' off your cross posting list? It would sure be appreciated. Thanks! Ray, John H. (Herring)wants to be sure there is enough bandwidth in the rec.boats newsgroup for all the mindless off-topic crap *he* posts. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
John H. wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:51:12 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 9, 4:08 pm, John H wrote: On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 9, 2:05 pm, hk wrote: Andrew Swallow wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. wrote: On Sep 7, 10:22 pm, hk wrote: wrote: Assume the following situation: McCain wins the electoral votes but Obama wins the popular vote. Late in December, Say Dec. 28, something happens to McCain so he is not able to take office. Who would become president? The constitution is not clear on this, would it be Palin? Would the Dems insist on a new election? If the decision went beyond the inaugural date, who would b president in the interim? Would it be House majority leader? Now, I get partisan. Assume Bush says he thinks Palin is the new pres and says he will hand over to her refusing to give Pelosi any way to bcome pres even for a few days. The Dems go crazy. A blue state or two decide they will not recognize Palin as Pres. Republicans in these two blue states are attacked. Palin sends in the Nat Guard..............new American Civil War. Could it really happen this easily? You really need to read the Constitution. Harry, I spend 99.999% of my time reading techie stuff and have not read the Constitution since i was 25 yrs old. Well, it isn't a lengthy document and most of it is pretty straightforward. Then how come the judges seem to have so many conflicting opinions regarding what the Constitution says? Simple. The writers of the first amendment were *not* talking about pornographic DVDs. The defence lawyers were having to deliberately misrepresent it to get their clients off. Obvious misrepresentation leads to arguments from the prosecution. Andrew Swallow I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year If you would stop crossposting, we at rec.boats would sure appreciate it. Thanks!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - im not x posting. i'm responding to others who are posting. If you could delete 'rec.boats' from the list of newsgroups to which your response goes, the crossposting would stop. I've just done that in response to your message. Thanks. What's wrong with crossposting? If this were an ontopic boating newsgroup, I could see a reason for that. But it isn't...this is a golf, right-wing politics, photos of grandchildren and travel trailer newsgroup. The more the merrier. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:32:54 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:28:33 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:51:50 -0400, John H wrote: Played The Gauntlet down in Fredricksburg today. Lost about nine balls. Miserable course. Shot 108. Will probably never go back. You have to come up and play this nice little muni on the Montgomery/Frederick County line sometime. Damn place kicks my ass everytime and I don't have to loose any balls. I'm tired of getting my butt kicked. I started some lessons last week. Since then nothing is working. Hopefully it will get better. How much do bowling balls cost? Golf is a lot of fun if you lose the score card. Just enjoy being out in the sunshine and hitting the ball. I get a lot better bang for my golf dollar. You may only get to hit the ball 80 times or so, I get to hit it 100 or more ... from wherever I want.. You're absolutely correct. But a bad shot feels like crap. A bunch of bad shots is worse. It's like getting a nice fish up to the boat and then watching it shake the hook. Depressing. Of course landing the next one or the one after keeps one coming back for more. I never minded having a fish shake loose at the boat.. I think that's what ****es most people off, I go fishing with;) Tom....;) |
OT- Constitutional crisis
"tankfixer" wrote in message ... In article , raymond- says... "tankfixer" wrote in message ... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. Projecting are you Ray ? no paul i'm not. the rightwingers are the book burners and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. But not you ? nope, not me. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. More than that they could own their own warship if they chose. yup |
OT- Constitutional crisis
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:19:50 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara" wrote: "tankfixer" wrote in message et... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. Raymond, would you please take 'rec.boats' off your cross posting list? It would sure be appreciated. Thanks! how come you never say that to the right wingers?. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
Raymond O'Hara wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:19:50 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara" wrote: "tankfixer" wrote in message ... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. Raymond, would you please take 'rec.boats' off your cross posting list? It would sure be appreciated. Thanks! how come you never say that to the right wingers?. Hehehe. Touche. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:18:35 -0400, SmallBoats.com
wrote: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:32:54 -0400, John H. wrote: On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:28:33 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:51:50 -0400, John H wrote: Played The Gauntlet down in Fredricksburg today. Lost about nine balls. Miserable course. Shot 108. Will probably never go back. You have to come up and play this nice little muni on the Montgomery/Frederick County line sometime. Damn place kicks my ass everytime and I don't have to loose any balls. I'm tired of getting my butt kicked. I started some lessons last week. Since then nothing is working. Hopefully it will get better. How much do bowling balls cost? Golf is a lot of fun if you lose the score card. Just enjoy being out in the sunshine and hitting the ball. I get a lot better bang for my golf dollar. You may only get to hit the ball 80 times or so, I get to hit it 100 or more ... from wherever I want.. You're absolutely correct. But a bad shot feels like crap. A bunch of bad shots is worse. It's like getting a nice fish up to the boat and then watching it shake the hook. Depressing. Of course landing the next one or the one after keeps one coming back for more. I never minded having a fish shake loose at the boat.. I think that's what ****es most people off, I go fishing with;) Tom....;) Yeah, but see...you operate at a much higher moral and ethical standard than most of us. And you probably don't even like fish! |
OT- Constitutional crisis
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:23:46 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:19:50 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara" wrote: "tankfixer" wrote in message . net... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. Raymond, would you please take 'rec.boats' off your cross posting list? It would sure be appreciated. Thanks! how come you never say that to the right wingers?. I don't know any of you well enough to know the left or right wingers. I don't care about your politics. Whatever you are, you're correct. I'm just asking you to stop crossposting. Please. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:23:46 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:19:50 -0400, "Raymond O'Hara" wrote: "tankfixer" wrote in message ... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. Raymond, would you please take 'rec.boats' off your cross posting list? It would sure be appreciated. Thanks! how come you never say that to the right wingers?. I don't know any of you well enough to know the left or right wingers. I don't care about your politics. Liar. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
In article , raymond-
says... "tankfixer" wrote in message ... In article , raymond- says... "tankfixer" wrote in message ... days? Certainly. Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. Projecting are you Ray ? no paul i'm not. So you are against hate speach legislation ? the rightwingers are the book burners Only in your mind and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. But not you ? nope, not me. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. More than that they could own their own warship if they chose. yup -- Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste Goode with Ketchup. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
"tankfixer" wrote in message ... Unless you think the 1st amendment doesn't cover modern methods of publication or the 4th covers telephones. well the republican's think that is the case. Projecting are you Ray ? no paul i'm not. So you are against hate speach legislation ? yes i am. the rightwingers are the book burners Only in your mind and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons. But not you ? nope, not me. but the fact is the FFs indulged in the dirtiest smear campaigns ever and the weapons they allowed were state of the art military eeapons and people even were allowed to own cannon. More than that they could own their own warship if they chose. yup -- Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste Goode with Ketchup. |
OT- Constitutional crisis
wf3h wrote:
:On Sep 9, 2:05*pm, hk wrote: : : I wonder if the writers of the second amendment were talking about any : of the sorts of firearms around these days?- Hide quoted text - : : :or the 11,000 deaths they cause each year : CAUSE??? Just how does that work? Evil mind control rays built into the guns, or what? -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com