Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted,not a Madonna concert !
There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the
climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and count all the votes. http://surftofind.com/obama |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes arecounted, not a Madonna concert !
On May 21, 7:16*pm, tobetbaa wrote:
There are only two plausible choices in this election, given the climate, the character and the tumultuous times we are living in. It will either be President Clinton or President McBush. This is an election where all the votes should be counted, it is not about staging the biggest rally money can buy in Tampa, to claim victory after a pathetic voter tally in Kentucky. This is an election, not a Madonna concert, get real, get serious, cut the stage production and count all the votes. http://surftofind.com/obama In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'. I do not want a presidenct who is incapable of recognizing a loseing position...to say nothing of her stated goals "nuke Iran" indeed! Harry K |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted,not a Madonna concert !
On 5/21/2008 7:39 PM Harry K spake thus:
I do not want a presidenct who is incapable of recognizing a loseing position...to say nothing of her stated goals "nuke Iran" indeed! Yes; thank you for that. The problem being, of course, that none of the 3 candidates really differ at all w/respect to attacking Iran, which is apparently the next irrational* imperative of the (dying) American Empire, but whatever. *Or not: I think Noam Chomsky has it right when he says that such things are, basically, to show 'em who's the boss. As in, "how did our oil get under your land?". -- The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Attributed to Winston Churchill |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Harry K wrote:
In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'. Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes arecounted, not a Madonna concert !
On May 22, 5:46*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Harry K wrote: In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. *Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'. Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Right. Just consider their 'super delegates' who can overrule whatever the voters decide. Why have primaries at all if they don't count? Harry K |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Harry K wrote:
On May 22, 5:46 am, "HeyBub" wrote: Harry K wrote: In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'. Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Right. Just consider their 'super delegates' who can overrule whatever the voters decide. Why have primaries at all if they don't count? Because of the "Madness of Crowds." The Super-Delegate business was put in to temper the frenzy of the easily excited electorate following Gene McCarthy's nomination. It was thought that seasoned professionals - cooler heads, if you will - could prevail. Obama, for example, maintains that the Super Delegates should follow the will of their home states. But when Clinton won West Virginia 65-35%, Obama didn't decline the support of Harry Byrd. Which brings up another interesting idea: A Klansman supporting a Negro. Is this a great country or what? |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: Obama, for example, maintains that the Super Delegates should follow the will of their home states. But when Clinton won West Virginia 65-35%, Obama didn't decline the support of Harry Byrd. Which brings up another interesting idea: A Klansman supporting a Negro. Is this a great country or what? Heck the leader of the group that tried to stop the Voting Rights Act of '65 supporting an AA. Didn't want him to be able to vote at the time, but wants to vote FOR him. Is this a great country or what? |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
still a waste of time.
It's still a waste of time.
|
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
"HeyBub" wrote in message ... Harry K wrote: In the game of life there are few 'do overs'. Florida and Michigan were warned of the consequences, did it anyhow and now they want a 'do over'...well actually, a whiney, crying bitch wants a 'do over'. Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes. |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote: Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes. The only differences between the wingnuts on both sides is the number of the amendment they think is expendable. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Bob F wrote:
Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes. Huh? |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
|
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
|
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Bob F wrote:
Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes. I've heard this before. Usually regarding the folks at Guantanamo and always by people who have only rudimentary understandings about the Constitution they say is being trashed. 1. The constitutional rights that are said to be being violated are those that apply to criminals (i.e., "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial..."). 2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: 2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington. Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get a kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated according to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
|
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
In article
, Kurt Ullman wrote: In article , "HeyBub" wrote: 2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington. Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get a kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated according to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution. I can't seem to find that section, now. I might have it confused with something else, so I'll withdraw the comment until I find some time to look at it more in depth. We now rejoin the flame fest already in progress. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
|
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote: 2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are "unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the constitutional protections afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial, no indictment by a grand jury, no witnesses, nada. Neither are they POWs. They fall into the same group as spys, saboteurs, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on the battlefield. They are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva Conventions on War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was Major Andre, who was hanged by George Washington. Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get a kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated according to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution. I think the conventions and protocols define "lawful enemy combatant" as someone who evidences four specific requirements: 1) Wears a uniform or distinctive regalia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Has a defined chain of command, and 4) Conducts themselves according to the rules of war. Any other combatant is, by definition, an "unlawful enemy combatant," and our U.S. Supreme Court says they can be executed out-of-hand. (U.S. v Quinn). There are provisions in the conventions for dealing with non-combatants captured on the battlefield: Medical personnel, construction workers, transport drivers, and others who may be aiding a war effort as well as exceptions for hastily-organized militias. But other combatants, spys, guerrillas, saboteurs, and the like, by any other name, are "unlawful." |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
|
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted,not a Madonna concert !
clifto wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not make it so. Yes it does. The President, or his representative, has the sole authority to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant." It still doesn't make it so. The president does not dictate what the truth is. You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you? You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making me safer? I don't think so. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Nate Nagel wrote in
: clifto wrote: wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote: wrote: The Bush administration CLAIMS that's what they are. That does not make it so. Yes it does. The President, or his representative, has the sole authority to designate anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant." It still doesn't make it so. The president does not dictate what the truth is. You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you? You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making me safer? I don't think so. nate yeah,he just picks someone at random and says he's going to be an "enemy combatant".Just like they listen to random phone calls and then send the FBI after them.Better read some of what Andrew McCarthy has written so you'll have a better understanding of what's going on. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Nate Nagel wrote:
clifto wrote: wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub" You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you? You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making me safer? I don't think so. What you or I believe or what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be proven is all: There's an interesting timeline on terroristic activities available. It concludes with: 2004 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2005 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2006 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2007 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2008 So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020600.php |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... Bob F wrote: Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes. Huh? Warrentless searches, torture, habius corpus,..... |
#26
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... Nate Nagel wrote: clifto wrote: wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:29:25 -0500, "HeyBub" You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you? You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making me safer? I don't think so. What you or I believe or what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be proven is all: There's an interesting timeline on terroristic activities available. It concludes with: 2004 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2005 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2006 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2007 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2008 So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020600.php Someone forgot to look at Iraq and Afganistan. Plenty of terrorist attacks on American interests there. |
#27
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Bob F wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote... Nate Nagel wrote: clifto wrote: You really do hate the laws that protect us, don't you? You mean allowing the President to lie and get away with it is making me safer? I don't think so. What you or I believe or what you or I think is irrelevant. What can be proven is all: There's an interesting timeline on terroristic activities available. It concludes with: 2004 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2005 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2006 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2007 There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. 2008 So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../05/020600.php Someone forgot to look at Iraq and Afganistan. Plenty of terrorist attacks on American interests there. See, that's why allowing the President to tell the truth and get away with it aggravates Nate so badly, because it obviously is making him safer. -- "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes - and I see many of them in the audience here today - our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." -- Barack Obama's seance |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
This is supposed to be an election where all the votes are counted, not a Madonna concert !
Bob F wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message m... Bob F wrote: Not for Democrats. Usually. Republicans are generally "rule oriented." Democrats are generally "goal oriented." Republicans tend to accept the end if it follows the stated rules, Democrats tend to adjust the rules to accomplish the desired results. Boy is this a pile. The republicraps are the ones who are ignoring the law and the constitution when it suits their purposes. Huh? Warrentless searches, torture, habius corpus,..... Janet Reno was fired when Bush took office. -- "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes - and I see many of them in the audience here today - our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." -- Barack Obama's seance |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Flash Flood ended the Concert | Home Repair | |||
DIY and the election | UK diy | |||
A World Class Concert Hall | Woodworking |