Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#42
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#44
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#45
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#46
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#47
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#48
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#49
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#50
![]()
posted to sci.military.naval,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Canada's health care crisis | General | |||
Mid life kneeling crisis | General | |||
Canada's Health Care Crisis - update | General | |||
OT--Sleazy politics...Dems caught TRYING TO EXTEND budget crisis | General |