Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default Constitutional crisis

John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:37:00 -0700, "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?


[Note: this reply is not cross posted.]

It's like religion. Some folks believe in a strict, word by word
interpretation of the bible, some use it as a guide while making their own
rules.

Conservatives like to stick with what the constitution actually says,
liberals like to make their own laws picking and choosing the
'constitutional' words they will use.



Conservatives like to *say* they are sticking with what the Constitution
says, but the reality is, as evidenced by the last eight years of the
Bush Administration, that they "interpret" or simply ignore the document
as it suits their purposes.
  #12   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default OT- Constitutional crisis

hk wrote:
John H wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:37:00 -0700, "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?


[Note: this reply is not cross posted.]

It's like religion. Some folks believe in a strict, word by word
interpretation of the bible, some use it as a guide while making their
own
rules.

Conservatives like to stick with what the constitution actually says,
liberals like to make their own laws picking and choosing the
'constitutional' words they will use.



Conservatives like to *say* they are sticking with what the Constitution
says, but the reality is, as evidenced by the last eight years of the
Bush Administration, that they "interpret" or simply ignore the document
as it suits their purposes.



Forgot to put OT in the subject header... :)
  #13   Report Post  
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 5
Default Constitutional crisis

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
  #14   Report Post  
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default OT- Constitutional crisis

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?

  #15   Report Post  
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,892
Default Constitutional crisis

On Sep 9, 2:37*am, "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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Bill, see the thread titled "So, who is in? " Please?


  #16   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default OT- Constitutional crisis

wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:37 am, "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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Bill, see the thread titled "So, who is in? " Please?


  #17   Report Post  
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 23
Default Constitutional crisis

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


ahem

Where is the Pornography exception found?

exactly how do you "know" "The writers of the first amendment were *not*
talking about pornographic DVDs."

Vince
  #18   Report Post  
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,728
Default OT- Constitutional crisis


"hk" wrote in message
. ..
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?


They would of allowed those arms also. The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.


  #19   Report Post  
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 7,609
Default OT- Constitutional crisis

On Sep 9, 3:13*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

They would of allowed those arms also. *The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hey Bill, check out this thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...34881f48773a0#
It will explain a lot of what is going on here today, and why...
It would be great to have you on board... Most everybody else is...
  #20   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
HK HK is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: May 2007
Posts: 13,347
Default OT- OT- Constitutional crisis

wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:13 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
They would of allowed those arms also. The 2nd was not about hunting and
fishing, was about the ability to toss a bad government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hey Bill, check out this thread...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...34881f48773a0#
It will explain a lot of what is going on here today, and why...
It would be great to have you on board... Most everybody else is...




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canada's health care crisis Scott Weiser General 663 December 31st 10 01:32 PM
Mid life kneeling crisis S. Tilts General 10 August 18th 07 12:38 AM
Canada's Health Care Crisis - update Scott Weiser General 53 July 3rd 05 11:09 PM
OT--Sleazy politics...Dems caught TRYING TO EXTEND budget crisis NOYB General 12 July 25th 03 06:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017