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
 

John H wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:07:01 -0400, BAR wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:50:18 -0400, BAR wrote:

Andrew Swallow wrote:
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?

They were talking about anything a State Government may use to shoot an
invasion by British soldiers.
Or Federal troops.
Not crossposted.

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?

I have one available. Since my chielectomy, great toe on right foot, I
can't bend it and I refuse to swing the ball with both hands between my
legs.

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
 

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 ?

and some ultra-lefties think the 2nd doesn't mean modern weapons.

But not you ?


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.

--
Meddle ye not in the Affairs of Dragons, for Thou art Crunchy and taste
Goode with Ketchup.

OT- Constitutional crisis
 

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.

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.