|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:52:47 GMT, Gunner
wrote: "If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance," Mr. Brown wrote. So? Found all those WMDs did he? Find any bigger lies & blunders? Where's poor Monica to use as a counter-example? HTH -- Cliff |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:50:32 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Lebanese And that car bomb went off where & killed who? -- Cliff |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:52:14 GMT, Gunner
wrote: Libs very quiet on the Iraqi elections Which the SOCIALISTS won? LOL -- Cliff |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:05:25 -0600, "shu" wrote:
I'm all a' quaver http://www.iriskyle.com/gallery/4ima...5/DSC_0315.jpg They belong on the front, don't they? -- Cliff |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:49:11 -0600, "shu" wrote:
there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and interenet news sources in general. such as drudge Now a lot of things are becoming clearer... snip pull your head outta your butt for a moment there? Drudge is not a journalist, nor has he claimed to be. He's a rumor monger, like the little old ladies who used to write the society columns in newspapers. He rarely checks his facts and his decisions to run something or not has nothing to do with the credibility of his (usually) single source. It all depends on how provocative or controversial it is. Sometimes he gets a scoop, often he gets it wrong, and nobody cares as long as it's understood what he is and what he's doing. I don't blame Drudge for the way his site has been misused. That's the fault of his undiscriminating, ill-informed readers. I pretty much agree with you about drudge But YOU JUST used him as a NAMED PRIME EXAMPLE of good news reporting !!!! Can't you even read your OWN posts? Or did you, in typical winger fashion, just steal that from someone else & post it unread and uncomprehended? You are not very honest, Shu, IMHO. -- Cliff |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:40:25 -0600, "shu" wrote:
You miss spelled Rather.... Gunner lol Gummer's only complaint .... it's really too bad that he does not read poor Shu's posts .... -- Cliff |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:47:08 +0000, Guido wrote:
shu wrote: there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and interenet news sources in general. such as drudge Hey what are reading Drudge for? I thought you said you had no truck with unethical thieves? http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblo...25.html#001662 Good point but she forgot ...... OTOH Wingers LOVE to steal blogs ..... -- Cliff |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:18:01 GMT, Gunner
wrote: On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle. Of the Left. You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle and who is on the fringe? You're out there where they hang on to the earth by their fingernails. Republitarians, however, are hanging on to both edges at once. g Pushing the envelope is always dangerous work. But has great rewards G http://www.bodybuilder-photos.com/ga...e_IMG_3120.jpg HTH -- Cliff |
"Cliff" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: overturning Florida's state-constitution-mandated judicial review in order to win the 2000 election; etc., etc., etc....). Oh geeze Ed..you are not one of those whining Selected not Elected fools are you? As I recall, it was the Supreme Court of the United States that spanked Floridas courts for their hanky panky with the 2000 election when the Florida court tried to change the rules. That's because you've probably never read the case, nor the reviews of it by leading constitutional scholars. The consensus is that the USSC had no constitutional basis for contramanding Florida's own judicial review procedure, which was created by its own legislature. Poor gummer is CLEARLY against State's Rights. Only on Tuesdays, or when they write a gun-control law. Otherwise...well, it depends on whether it's one of his favorite rights or not. g -- Ed Huntress |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:07:33 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: You ARE one of the Selected not elected crowd....interesting how you out yourself occasionally. How would you know? Within a couple of days of the decision, 634 federal law practioners filed a complaint against the Court for usurping its authority. Yes and? And every one of them has forgotten more about federal law than you'll ever know. And the results of the complaints were? And the political party of those 634 people was what again? Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:27:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Pick the dumbest and least defensible position and there you'll find Gunner. Oh, jeez. Then I hope he never finds out you're a closet Democrat. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Closet Democrat? Is that the new definition for Socialist Scum? So, you think that Guido is a scum? Have you washed that mouth of yours out lately, fascista? Socialists by definition are scum. Is Guido a socialist or not? Sweet talking me will get you nowhere, big boy. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:13:59 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:38:13 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "shu" wrote in message . .. snip What a crok. the truth is a lot more simple. there *is* a large media establishment. it IS liberally biased. and it Does NOT like competition, Look out, shu. They've heard about you, and they're coming to get you. there is also a slowly growing "campaign" to descredit bloggers, and interenet news sources in general. such as drudge "News" sources such as Drudge? Haha! Now a lot of things are becoming clearer... snip You prefer "news" sources like Dan Rather or Michael Moore. Correct? Mostly I read The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, in that order. But I read a few foreign papers online. But comparing Matt Drudge to Michael Moore is very apt. They're two peas in a pod. Really? Drudge presents links to other sources, Jabba the Moore makes "documentaries" that are filled with lies, spin and hate. Oh yes..two peas in a pod indeed. Sure Comrade, sure. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:16:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Cliff" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: overturning Florida's state-constitution-mandated judicial review in order to win the 2000 election; etc., etc., etc....). Oh geeze Ed..you are not one of those whining Selected not Elected fools are you? As I recall, it was the Supreme Court of the United States that spanked Floridas courts for their hanky panky with the 2000 election when the Florida court tried to change the rules. That's because you've probably never read the case, nor the reviews of it by leading constitutional scholars. The consensus is that the USSC had no constitutional basis for contramanding Florida's own judicial review procedure, which was created by its own legislature. Poor gummer is CLEARLY against State's Rights. Only on Tuesdays, or when they write a gun-control law. Otherwise...well, it depends on whether it's one of his favorite rights or not. g My stand on States Rights is quite clear. Each state may make whatever law it so desires, but it may NOT violate any article or amendment in the Constitution or BOR. Those articles and amendments are the Contract between the Federal Government, the States themselves and the citizens. Anything not covered in the Constitution and BOR is the province of the States and its citizens. States may set their own speed limits. States may NOT interfere with the 1st Amendment and set up a mandated state religion for example. Each state is a sovereign individual, in a union with other states. The agreement of all the states who wish to be in the union is the following of the Constitution and the BOR. Quite simple. Very clear. No ambiguity. If it were not so...no state would have its own contract with its citizens...state constitutions. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
In article , Ed Huntress says...
And every one of them has forgotten more about federal law than you'll ever know. And *I'm* the one getting the business for stepping on gunners toes! g Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Cliff wrote:
You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle and who is on the fringe? I recommend that you give it up Cliff. Sure, Gunner is FUBAR, but your juvenile attacks are easy for him to ridicule, and you detract from the legitimate ideas of worthier opponents. Or is that your intention? Please don't be offended or incredulous..... I've seen it before. Gio |
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
... "Mark Cook" wrote in message m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Gunner" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:38:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Wait a minute. One one hand, you're saying Lincoln had no authority to do these things, even during an insurrection by known combatants, while on the other hand, you're saying that George Bush does, even though he doesn't know who is the enemy and who is not. Which is it that you believe? -- You are of the mistaken belief that Bush has done what Lincoln spit did. Of course, from your vantage point on the fringe..it may appear so. My vantage point, as you well know, is dead smack in the middle. As for Bush doing what Lincoln did, it was somewhat worse. The case law on "war powers" allows them in time of "invasion or rebellion." Bush has neither invasion nor rebellion to excuse himself. The "invaders" are already dead. Btw...according to constitutional scholars..SCOTUS held the florida courts feet to the fire...making them follow their OWN rules, rather than letting them change the rules in the middle of the game. Hardly making them do something that was improper. You ARE one of the Selected not elected crowd....interesting how you out yourself occasionally. How would you know? Within a couple of days of the decision, 634 federal law practioners filed a complaint against the Court for usurping its authority. And I didn't say Bush wasn't elected. It may well be that he won Florida. But, since the Supreme Court intervened, we'll never really know the answer to that one, either. A standardless, partial recount of disputed ballots, as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, was not going to settle the issue. Bush was already certified, and because of the changes to Florida Code by the Florida Supreme Court, Bush was going to have a second slate of electors. Not necessarily. The USSC said, in the Bush v. Gore decision, "The press of time does not diminish the constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." But then, later in the decision, the Court based its conclusion partly upon the December 12th deadline mandated by state statute. The problem is "safe harbor". Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, if a state wants the benefits of the safe harbor provisions of this act, all election disputes must be settled by that date. The Florida Supreme Court rule twice, (11/21/2000 and 12/11/2000) that the state legislature wanted to take advantage of these protections, thus Florida Code required all recounts to be completed by this date. The question is if the Consitution gives the state legislature the right to enact election code, then can a court tell the state that they are not allowed to take advantage of those provisions of the ECA of 1887? The FSC ruled 7-0 that they could not take that right away, the USSC rule 5-4. From: Palm Beach County Canvassing Board vs. Katherine Harris, 11/21/2000. "Ignoring the county's returns is a drastic measure and is appropriate only if the returns submitted the Department so late that their inclusion will compromise the integrity of the electoral process in either of two way: (1) by precluding a candidate, elector, or taxpayer from contesting the certification of an election pursuant to section 102.168; or (2) by precluding Florida voters from participating fully in the federal electoral process." (reference to footnote 55) "Footnote #55 See: 3 U.S.C. § § 1-10 (1994)." The Safe Harbor date can be found in the above US Code. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/sc00-2346.pdf Also see their decision on 12/11/2000 http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/...346-remand.pdf Furthermore, the Court did not challenge the Fla. Supreme Court's decision to hold a recount. It decided against the recount on procedural grounds, because the USSC said it didn't satisfy the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and, again, because no remedy was available that would meet the statutory deadline. If the USSC had found those procedures acceptable, the state legislature would also face the decision by the USSC in Bush v. Palm Beach. The Court had already decided in that case that the state legislature could not change the law after the election was held -- and the state law was that the electors would be chosen by popular vote. If the Court further decided that a recount reflected the true popular vote, the legislature was screwed. That is not quite correct. While the state legislature cannot change the laws after the fact, they can take over the process and send their own slate of electors. Bush vs. Gore.... "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html So the Court said that equal protection guarentees must be followed and that the deadline must be met. But it did not suggest that allowing the vote as originally counted was fair or that it met equal protection guarentees itself. This is one of the several contradictions in the case that has led Constitutional scholars to say this will go down as one of the most controversial cases in Court history. The original count is not at issue in this case. In other words, since the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 does not allow a court to move a slate of electors, the court has no say in how the original count was conducted. It is up to Congress to decide if the original count was fair, moreover, if it met the requirements of 3 U.S.C. section 5. IF it does not meet those requirements, then Congress has the authority to remove those electors. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/3/15.html IF Gore managed to get a slate of his own electors because of this flawed recount, he still had to get past Bush's two slates of electors, AND keep Congress from throwing his slate out for violations to 3 U.S.C. section 5. If the USSC had already decided in favor of a recount and if Gore had won, Congress wouldn't have been able to challenge it. The Court would have decided which slate was the valid one. The Court doubtless would have issued a writ of mandamus to Fla. to withdraw the second slate. How's that for a constitutional crisis? g Under the US Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the courts DO NOT have the authority to decide which slate is valid. That responsibility rest with Congress. Justice Breyer discussed this process in his dissent. "The legislative history of the Act makes clear its intent to commit the power to resolve such disputes to Congress, rather than the courts:" “The two Houses are, by the Constitution, authorized to make the count of electoral votes. They can only count legal votes, and in doing so must determine, from the best evidence to be had, what are legal votes .... The power to determine rests with the two Houses, and there is no other constitutional tribunal.” H. Rep. No. 1638, 49th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1886) (report submitted by Rep. Caldwell, Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President). The Member of Congress who introduced the Act added: “The power to judge of the legality of the votes is a necessary consequent of the power to count. The existence of this power is of absolute necessity to the preservation of the Government. The interests of all the States in their relations to each other in the Federal Union demand that the ultimate tribunal to decide upon the election of President should be a constituent body, in which the States in their federal relationships and the people in their sovereign capacity should be represented.” 18 Cong. Rec. 30 (1886). “Under the Constitution who else could decide? Who is nearer to the State in determining a question of vital importance to the whole union of States than the constituent body upon whom the Constitution has devolved the duty to count the vote?” Id., at 31." "The Act goes on to set out rules for the congressional determination of disputes about those votes. If, for example, a state submits a single slate of electors, Congress must count those votes unless both Houses agree that the votes “have not been . . . regularly given.” 3 U.S.C. § 15. If, as occurred in 1876, one or more states submits two sets of electors, then Congress must determine whether a slate has entered the safe harbor of §5, in which case its votes will have “conclusive” effect. Ibid. If, as also occurred in 1876, there is controversy about “which of two or more of such State authorities . . . is the lawful tribunal” authorized to appoint electors, then each House shall determine separately which votes are “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.” Ibid. If the two Houses of Congress agree, the votes they have approved will be counted. If they disagree, then “the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.” Ibid." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD3.html Notice the last line, if the House and Senate cannot agree, those sent with the signature of the executive of the State will be the legal slate. Bush received these electors on 11/26/2000 via the remedy crafted by the Democrat majority of the Florida Supreme Court. Since the Democrats held the Senate (50/50 with Gore as the tie breaker) and the Republicans held the US House, Bush was going to win the electoral college election. It doesn't matter what the court rule or what the Florida Legislature decides after this date. Gore lost the election as soon as Bush was certified the winner of Florida (11/26/2000). The courts could not take away Bush's electors That's not the basis on which Bush v. Gore was decided. The USSC accepted the challenge to that certification when it decided to hear the case, and the terms on which it made its decision -- equal protection in a recount -- by definition says that they were deciding whether the certified slate would be allowed to stand. If the Court had actually entertained the idea of allowing Gore to prevail, they would have put themselves in one hell of a fix. The remedy by the court could only be a slate of electors for Gore. The courts do not have the power to remove a slate of electors. From The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 12/12/2000....... "More political than legal" MARGARET WARNER: Stuart Taylor, weigh in on this. What do you see could be the reason for, or the benefit to Republicans of the Bush forces to have the Florida legislature act? STUART TAYLOR: I think I agree with the thrust of what has been said, which is it's more a political benefit than legal. There are already Bush electors sitting - figuratively speaking -- in Washington, D.C. Nothing makes them disappear. The legislature weighing in is probably a debating point for people in Congress who want to say, here's another reason we should take the Bush electors if it ever comes to that. MARGARET WARNER: So you don't think they're afraid, though, that there could be a court ordered recount and a court could order the current slate of Bush electors replaced, say, with a Gore slate? STUART TAYLOR: I suppose that's a remote contingency. But my reading of the United States Code provisions, which Congress passed in 1887 on this, is that it would violate federal law for any court to try and make the slate of electors that's already certified disappear, and that if you get another slate certified, the solution is Congress figures out which ones to count and the courts have no part in it. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/elect...gal_12-12.html The final USSC decision was solely a technical one based on the practicalities of meeting the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, while ostensibly adhering to Florida election law. The Opinion of the Court, because it was per curiam and because five different Justices weighed in with concurring or dissenting opinions, is not a very enlightening document in itself. However, the concurring Justices -- Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia -- all joined the per curiam decision. It's a brief and superficially simple decision, but its implications will keep scholars busy for a long time to come. The Court said: "The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. "The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards." Strictly speaking, the Court avoided the question of whether a recount would have been constitutional if those minimums were met, which was a proper thing for them to do. But the question hangs in the air, as it often does with intentionally narrow decisions, and it gives rise to the more complex and more controversial positions taken in the concurring and dissenting opinions. Those are the opinions in which the question comes up about when the federal courts can intervene. Interestingly, the conservative justices said the USSC can intervene in such a case, and the more liberal ones said they cannot. This, of course, is the opposite of the usual conservative/liberal split on the Court. ..., and Congress, or at least the US House were not going to allow Gore to win because a change in the election practices in Florida, i.e., dimpled chads had never been considered legal votes in that State of Florida. Once the Court got into the issue of deciding what constituted proper procedure in the recount, on constitutional grounds, Congress was out of the picture. The constitutional issue would already have been decided. This case presented the country with the potential for a major constitutional crises. The one good thing about the Bush v. Gore decision was that, although it was a flawed decision in the opinion of a large number of experts, it probably minimized the constitutional crisis itself, regardless of the merits of the decision. I have always looked at Bush vs.. Gore as a case that did not allow a lower court to take away the rights of the state legislature to enact election code. To me the crisis was allowing a biased recount to show Gore the winner, and then have Congress strike it down. -- Ed Huntress |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:31:26 GMT in misc.survivalism : States may set their own speed limits. States may NOT interfere with the 1st Amendment and set up a mandated state religion for example. I'll argue this one, but as a moot case. At the time of the signing, 11 of the 13 had an "established" church (meaning the state acted as usher and vestry/board of deacons/"the folks who sign the checks", as well as requiring membership for some elected offices.). Nowadays, I think the lesson has been learned that having the state involved in running churches is a bad thing. And vice versa. But at the Federal Level, well, better no established church than the wrong church. (And you know as well as I, were Congress to get into the establishing a particular denomination, Congress would get that wrong too.) Each state is a sovereign individual, in a union with other states. The agreement of all the states who wish to be in the union is the following of the Constitution and the BOR. Quite simple. Very clear. No ambiguity. If it were not so...no state would have its own contract with its citizens...state constitutions. Amen. Err ... "what he said." There are still elements of "I don't care how they do it in New York, this isn't New York!" "For which we can all be grateful." -- pyotr filipivich "With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone." |
In article , Gunner says...
States may set their own speed limits. States may NOT interfere with the 1st Amendment and set up a mandated state religion for example. Each state is a sovereign individual, in a union with other states. The agreement of all the states who wish to be in the union is the following of the Constitution and the BOR. What happens when the feds step in and try to nullify existing state laws? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:12:21 -0500, Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle and who is on the fringe? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Nuttier than a fruitcake [ ] Mostly illiterate [ ] Wait til he gets out of the bunker to see [ ] Other (specify) ______________________ One more time, I'll point out to little Cliffie Moron that "winger" is so vague it's meaningless. There are left-wingers and right-wingers, and probably other-wingers too. Then there are attention sluts like little Cliffie toddling around the newsgroup demanding everybody's attention. HEY EVERYBODY, LOOK AT ME!!!!!! Ok, Cliffie, here's your attention. |
On 25 Feb 2005 09:10:40 -0800, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... States may set their own speed limits. States may NOT interfere with the 1st Amendment and set up a mandated state religion for example. Each state is a sovereign individual, in a union with other states. The agreement of all the states who wish to be in the union is the following of the Constitution and the BOR. What happens when the feds step in and try to nullify existing state laws? Jim It goes to SCOTUS..supposedly. But its long been a perversion of the Constitution that the Feral Government (since Lincoln btw) will and can do just that. California's Medical Marijuana law is a perfect example of the Feral Government overstepping its bounds when it ignores the law the Voters of California passed and implimented. Just cause the Feral Government does it, doesnt make it right,any more than simply because the German government stuff Jews into the ovens, it was right. Gunner Rule #35 "That which does not kill you, has made a huge tactical error" |
In article , Gunner says...
It goes to SCOTUS..supposedly. But its long been a perversion of the Constitution that the Feral Government (since Lincoln btw) will and can do just that. There has been an ever-increasing effort on the part of the federal govenment to insinuate itself in issues that are really reserved for the states. California's Medical Marijuana law is a perfect example of the Feral Government overstepping its bounds when it ignores the law the Voters of California passed and implimented. Same as the gay marriage thing. This is a state issue. The feds have no reason to go in any of those places. I think the marijuana issue has yet to really be resolved. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: So, you think that Guido is a scum? Have you washed that mouth of yours out lately, fascista? Socialists by definition are scum. Is Guido a socialist or not? You are such a whinny putz. However, Mr McCarthy I have been a card carrying member of the Communist Party Great Britain, and an area organiser too. |
"Mark Cook" wrote in message
. .. snip That's very interesting stuff and a lot to think about, Mark. I'm going to have to save that one to look at later this weekend, when I can give it its due. -- Ed Huntress |
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... And every one of them has forgotten more about federal law than you'll ever know. And *I'm* the one getting the business for stepping on gunners toes! g Jim The trick is to step hard, and be ready to step even harder when he gives you the business. Make it something that he can't even *attempt* to refute without looking silly, too. d8-) -- Ed Huntress |
shu wrote:
I'm all a' quaver You know I can't read that without wanting to add 'cheesy' to it as in 'Cheesy quaver': http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/...#CHEESY_QUAVER which we all know means: http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...term=favor&r=f |
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:07:33 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:16 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: You ARE one of the Selected not elected crowd....interesting how you out yourself occasionally. How would you know? Within a couple of days of the decision, 634 federal law practioners filed a complaint against the Court for usurping its authority. Yes and? And every one of them has forgotten more about federal law than you'll ever know. And the results of the complaints were? And the political party of those 634 people was what again? Gunner Looking it up for yourself would be good therapy and an important step toward recovery, Gunner. d8-) The Brookings Institution has assembled a great collection of the important documents in the case, including various commentaries, all available from one web page. Unfortunately the site seems to be down right now, but keep this URL handy in case you really want to look at the documents yourself: www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/bushvgore/ Don't worry, the site is the companion to a book about the election, co-written by certified-neocon William Kristol. g Google's cache will give you access to it right now. Search on this: Bush v. Go Web Companion to the Book -- Ed Huntress |
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Gunner says... It goes to SCOTUS..supposedly. But its long been a perversion of the Constitution that the Feral Government (since Lincoln btw) will and can do just that. There has been an ever-increasing effort on the part of the federal govenment to insinuate itself in issues that are really reserved for the states. California's Medical Marijuana law is a perfect example of the Feral Government overstepping its bounds when it ignores the law the Voters of California passed and implimented. Same as the gay marriage thing. This is a state issue. The feds have no reason to go in any of those places. I think the marijuana issue has yet to really be resolved. Jim It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. Strict-constructionist/libertarian-neocon John Ashcroft ! has decided that medical marijuana is a federal issue, because he wants it to be, so he can prosecute people for it. So he found a way to do it. Likewise, physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. He can't attack that, so he's going in by the back door, via the Controlled Substances Act. But be careful what you wish for. "State's rights" brought you most of gun control, racial discrimination in voting and public accomodation, and lots of other unpleasant surprises. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, along with the due process clauses of the 14th and 5th, have prevented a lot of states from violating rights that most of us feel are the entitlements of all Americans. -- Ed Huntress |
In article , Ed Huntress says...
"jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Gunner says... It goes to SCOTUS..supposedly. But its long been a perversion of the Constitution that the Feral Government (since Lincoln btw) will and can do just that. There has been an ever-increasing effort on the part of the federal govenment to insinuate itself in issues that are really reserved for the states. California's Medical Marijuana law is a perfect example of the Feral Government overstepping its bounds when it ignores the law the Voters of California passed and implimented. Same as the gay marriage thing. This is a state issue. The feds have no reason to go in any of those places. I think the marijuana issue has yet to really be resolved. Jim It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. Strict-constructionist/libertarian-neocon John Ashcroft ! has decided that medical marijuana is a federal issue, because he wants it to be, so he can prosecute people for it. So he found a way to do it. Likewise, physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. He can't attack that, so he's going in by the back door, via the Controlled Substances Act. But be careful what you wish for. "State's rights" brought you most of gun control, racial discrimination in voting and public accomodation, and lots of other unpleasant surprises. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, along with the due process clauses of the 14th and 5th, have prevented a lot of states from violating rights that most of us feel are the entitlements of all Americans. The 14th applies most of the bill of rights to the states, yes? It does not extend the federal's influence over things that are not supposed to be functions of the federal government. Gun control - ie, laws about what weapons can and cannot be owned or used - are indeed done on a state-by state basis. What I can do in NY is different from what I could do as a citizen of Arizona or Texas. I think most gun owners like that because it means each state is free to be as restrictive as the legislature wants. If it were controlled by the federals, there's a reasonable chance that Texas would wind up with NY-style gun laws. To put it another way, Ashcroft isn't using the 14th to say "We control drug laws in california." He's probably trying to use the interstate commerce issue. Or, maybe, he's just doing it because "we have a mandate." Wouldn't be the first time. Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
"Gunner" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:11:11 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:27:35 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Pick the dumbest and least defensible position and there you'll find Gunner. Oh, jeez. Then I hope he never finds out you're a closet Democrat. d8-) -- Ed Huntress Closet Democrat? Is that the new definition for Socialist Scum? So, you think that Guido is a scum? Have you washed that mouth of yours out lately, fascista? Socialists by definition are scum. Is Guido a socialist or not? Sweet talking me will get you nowhere, big boy. Gunner Republitarians by definition are scum. Fascists at heart, they lie about their true intentions constantly, hiding behind a veil of neo-anarchism so they can cheat and steal with impugnity. Opposed to all government regulation of business, they want an open field for their theivery, which is the "free enterprise" on which they spend most of their time. They'll kill anyone to achieve their ends, even invading foreign countries to assure a compliant nation of serfs from which they can steal raw materials at artificially low prices. They support inhuman working conditions for slave wages wherever they can get away with it, in Central America, parts of Asia, and wherever else they can buy off the local politicans, or kill them if they get in the way. How's that? It's the flip side of your attitude. Some of the friends I acquired in Europe years ago were, and some still are, socialists. They've some of the finest people I've ever known. We disagree about almost everything, but their motivations, their spirit, and their behavior are first-class. -- Ed Huntress |
"jim rozen" wrote in message
... In article , Ed Huntress says... "jim rozen" wrote in message ... In article , Gunner says... It goes to SCOTUS..supposedly. But its long been a perversion of the Constitution that the Feral Government (since Lincoln btw) will and can do just that. There has been an ever-increasing effort on the part of the federal govenment to insinuate itself in issues that are really reserved for the states. California's Medical Marijuana law is a perfect example of the Feral Government overstepping its bounds when it ignores the law the Voters of California passed and implimented. Same as the gay marriage thing. This is a state issue. The feds have no reason to go in any of those places. I think the marijuana issue has yet to really be resolved. Jim It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. Strict-constructionist/libertarian-neocon John Ashcroft ! has decided that medical marijuana is a federal issue, because he wants it to be, so he can prosecute people for it. So he found a way to do it. Likewise, physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. He can't attack that, so he's going in by the back door, via the Controlled Substances Act. But be careful what you wish for. "State's rights" brought you most of gun control, racial discrimination in voting and public accomodation, and lots of other unpleasant surprises. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, along with the due process clauses of the 14th and 5th, have prevented a lot of states from violating rights that most of us feel are the entitlements of all Americans. The 14th applies most of the bill of rights to the states, yes? It does not extend the federal's influence over things that are not supposed to be functions of the federal government. Oh, indeed it does. Look up the cases that have been decided on the basis of the 14th. It's stuck the federal government into all sorts of things, extending the Bill of Rights over the heads of the states. Then look up "states' rights," and see what the issues are that the states have argued for, against the federal government. Probably five-to-one, they're cases of *restricting* their own citizens, not the other way around. Gun control - ie, laws about what weapons can and cannot be owned or used - are indeed done on a state-by state basis. What I can do in NY is different from what I could do as a citizen of Arizona or Texas. I think most gun owners like that because it means each state is free to be as restrictive as the legislature wants. I think mnay gun-rights advocates go ballistic over state gun-control laws more than federal ones by a huge margin. According to the NRA, there are (or were) something like 10,000 gun control laws in the US. Almost all of them are state or local laws. If it were controlled by the federals, there's a reasonable chance that Texas would wind up with NY-style gun laws. To put it another way, Ashcroft isn't using the 14th to say "We control drug laws in california." He's probably trying to use the interstate commerce issue. Or, maybe, he's just doing it because "we have a mandate." He's using federal drug-control laws. His mandate is his religion. -- Ed Huntress (remove "3" from email address for email reply) |
"Gunner" wrote in message
... My stand on States Rights is quite clear. Each state may make whatever law it so desires, but it may NOT violate any article or amendment in the Constitution or BOR. Those articles and amendments are the Contract between the Federal Government, the States themselves and the citizens. Anything not covered in the Constitution and BOR is the province of the States and its citizens. States may set their own speed limits. States may NOT interfere with the 1st Amendment and set up a mandated state religion for example. Each state is a sovereign individual, in a union with other states. The agreement of all the states who wish to be in the union is the following of the Constitution and the BOR. Quite simple. Very clear. No ambiguity. And why is it you think that the 1st Amendment disallows states from setting up state-sponsored religions? Is it because of the way the Amendment is written, or something else? -- Ed Huntress |
|
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:45 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a whole nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....( hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the streets with roses"....... -- SVL Flip-floppers. Yup. -- SVL |
"Gunner" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:45 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a whole nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....( hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the streets with roses"....... -- SVL http://piratescove.typepad.com/pirat...ery_quiet.html February 02, 2005 Libs very quiet on the Iraqi elections You remember, those elections that we were told would 1. Never happen 2. Be delayed 3. fail miserably 4. paint the streets red with blood snip None of those were *my* predictions....... You gonna send me a dozen roses now that we got that one straightened up ??? -- SVL |
On 26 Feb 2005 02:33:37 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:34:57 -0500, "Ed Huntress" wrote: You wanna try some polls and election results, and see who is on the middle and who is on the fringe? Gunner is eccentric; but there is nothing to suggest in the slightest that he lacks mental balance or is a mindless drone on either the right or left wing. FW Eccentric? I won? I won! I won I won I won!!!1 I wish to thank my Mom and Dad..and all the members of the Academy for this great honor, and of course all my handlers at the Home, the nice men in white coats over at HARRP HQ, the Sons of the Pioneers, Ed Huntress for polishing my boots, Hamie for sending a couple of his low class chink hookers to give me a delightful I &I, and all the Little People, like John Moses Browning, and Samuel Colt, and Felix the Cat. I wish to further give thanks for the people who designed Jim Rozens Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie and the selflish lads manning the black helicopters and the mind control rays. Great Job guys! I accept this title with the greatest honor and thanks to you all! Good night, sleep tight and dont let the bedbugs bite. Who brought the bean dip? Thats good **** Maynard! Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:41:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: The point was, Frank, that Gunner claimed that I'm on the left, which I most definitely am not. After years of looking at polls and election results I can document that I'm about as close as you'll see to the center of American opinion on political issues. Sure Ed...if you repeat it long enough, perhaps someone will start to believe you. Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:40:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Republitarians by definition are scum. Fascists at heart, they lie about their true intentions constantly, hiding behind a veil of neo-anarchism so they can cheat and steal with impugnity. Opposed to all government regulation of business, they want an open field for their theivery, which is the "free enterprise" on which they spend most of their time. They'll kill anyone to achieve their ends, even invading foreign countries to assure a compliant nation of serfs from which they can steal raw materials at artificially low prices. They support inhuman working conditions for slave wages wherever they can get away with it, in Central America, parts of Asia, and wherever else they can buy off the local politicans, or kill them if they get in the way. Cool! Can I use that for a sig, but change a few things? EG How's that? It's the flip side of your attitude. Some of the friends I acquired in Europe years ago were, and some still are, socialists. They've some of the finest people I've ever known. We disagree about almost everything, but their motivations, their spirit, and their behavior are first-class. -- Ed Huntress Im sure there were some nice people in the Nazi Party too. Not everyone in the NKVD was a bad person. Even some of the Geheimstatz Polizi loved their kids. Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:16:00 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . My stand on States Rights is quite clear. Each state may make whatever law it so desires, but it may NOT violate any article or amendment in the Constitution or BOR. Those articles and amendments are the Contract between the Federal Government, the States themselves and the citizens. Anything not covered in the Constitution and BOR is the province of the States and its citizens. States may set their own speed limits. States may NOT interfere with the 1st Amendment and set up a mandated state religion for example. Each state is a sovereign individual, in a union with other states. The agreement of all the states who wish to be in the union is the following of the Constitution and the BOR. Quite simple. Very clear. No ambiguity. And why is it you think that the 1st Amendment disallows states from setting up state-sponsored religions? Is it because of the way the Amendment is written, or something else? Because the very wise men who wrote it intended it to be this way..and then everyone agreed to it and signed on to the Contract..and made sure that any new states must honor the same contract before they would be accepted into the Union. Btw...the Seperation of Church and State is a false construct..with no finding in the Constitution. Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:13:42 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT"
wrote: "Gunner" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:56:45 -0800, "PrecisionMachinisT" wrote: While you've identified one quite large group of paranoids, there's a whole nother group of them you seem completely incapable of recognizing....( hint )--they're pretty much the same ones that "are gonna greet us in the streets with roses"....... -- SVL http://piratescove.typepad.com/pirat...ery_quiet.html February 02, 2005 Libs very quiet on the Iraqi elections You remember, those elections that we were told would 1. Never happen 2. Be delayed 3. fail miserably 4. paint the streets red with blood snip None of those were *my* predictions....... You gonna send me a dozen roses now that we got that one straightened up ??? Shrug..your Ilk (I love that word) said it..and you lay up with them...so even if you didnt say it outright ...and Im sure if I wanted to take the time to use Google archives Im sure I can find data that would indicate you and a number of others here stated something similar.... If you lay down with the dogs..dont be surprised if you get fleas..or at least..branded a dog. Gunner It's better to be a red person in a blue state than a blue person in a red state. As a red person, if your blue neighbors turn into a mob at least you have a gun to protect yourself. As a blue person, your only hope is to appease the red mob with herbal tea and marinated tofu. (Phil Garding) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter