Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 19:13:27 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"You liberals"? George, the only people who think I'm "liberal" are

people
who are trying to hold up some stupid right-wing position and who get
themselves too frustrated to pay attention. It's a sign of poor thinking

and
being verbally challenged. g


For a New Jerseyite..Ed is conservative.

For the majority of the rest of the nation...Ed is center Left.


Nope. Dead center. 'Voted once for Bush, once against him. That's splitting
perfectly down the American demographic, and I'm hitting the middle on most
social issues in polls. On economic issues, I was conservative a few years
ago, but the rest of the country is coming to dislike big deficits, too. So
the typical American voter is gravitating right about to where I am. g

--
Ed Huntress


  #162   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

We suggest however that you refrain from using a cell phone during our
work, or you may be run over by a bulldozer.


Jaysus, I get a cell phone too?! How much better can it be?

I've used the things, but I don't own one. I'm strictly a
landline kind of guy. All the phones are teathered to the
walls of the house with those old-fashioned wire things.

Most of them are candlestick type.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #163   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

The USSC denied cert on this thing. What are you going to do, abolish
the supreme court so the republicans can get their toys back?


Denied cert means they were not going to hear it. This means what in
regards to Judicial Activism?


What it means is, the USSC things the terry law, championed by
the executive branch, is a large drum of sewage. Complete
crap. Unmititaged dung. They wouldn't touch it for all the
law books in the world. So they sent the thing back where it
belonged, to the district court of appeals, who had already
said, this is crap. It's unconstitutional. And anyone who
keeps trotting it out, to pander to the religious right, is
a complete moron.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #164   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

you plonked someone for telling the truth?


No, because he is tedious. I don't mind if somebody
disagrees with me, but when they *ask* for an example
and I give it to them, they might at least go 'humph.'

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #165   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Thats why there are three branchs of government.


And if your buddy has his way, it'll be down to two
shortly. Did you even *read* the law he was trying
to ram though? Basically it was instructing the
court how to rule on a particular case.

Is any of this getting though to you?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================


  #166   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:22:13 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
Are you asking if the Congress has authority to authorize the National
Endowment for the Arts if they decide it's in the interest of furthering the
public welfare? The answer is, yes.

Public welfare is a crucifix in a jar of ****?


I believe he said that Congress has the athority to make really
bad decisions. Cryin' shame, isn't it? I mean, what would we do
without the Belichick "Mud Flap II" sculpture, fecal art, and
urinary artistic achievements? thud


"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?


****ing off the religious right. That's an important part of the general
welfare. g


Then hanging the more egregious Liberals like pinatas from lamp posts
would also qualify.


OK, you guys are 2 for 2 there.


--------------------------------------------
Proud (occasional) maker of Hungarian Paper Towels.
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================== ====
  #167   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Apr 2005 23:32:01 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

We suggest however that you refrain from using a cell phone during our
work, or you may be run over by a bulldozer.


Jaysus, I get a cell phone too?! How much better can it be?

I've used the things, but I don't own one. I'm strictly a
landline kind of guy. All the phones are teathered to the
walls of the house with those old-fashioned wire things.

Most of them are candlestick type.

Jim


After the bulldozers come in...dont expect them to work.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #168   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Apr 2005 23:35:38 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:


What it means is, the USSC things the terry law, championed by
the executive branch, is a large drum of sewage. Complete
crap. Unmititaged dung. They wouldn't touch it for all the
law books in the world. So they sent the thing back where it
belonged, to the district court of appeals, who had already
said, this is crap. It's unconstitutional. And anyone who
keeps trotting it out, to pander to the religious right, is
a complete moron.

Jim


It means they didnt want to hear it. Its only unconstitutional when
its so ruled.

Do your homework better. Perhaps Remedial Civics 101 taught at a
Catholic school may be in order?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #169   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Apr 2005 23:43:59 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Thats why there are three branchs of government.


And if your buddy has his way, it'll be down to two
shortly. Did you even *read* the law he was trying
to ram though? Basically it was instructing the
court how to rule on a particular case.

Is any of this getting though to you?

Jim


Cites?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #170   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 00:24:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .


"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?

****ing off the religious right. That's an important part of the general
welfare. g


Then hanging the more egregious Liberals like pinatas from lamp posts
would also qualify.


Nope, that's killing. If you're conservative, it's OK to kill people if they
aren't Americans (as long as they're "collateral damage"), but killing
Americans is very problematic.


Tell that to LBJ, and Bill Clinton
And FDR, and all the other Democrat "war presidents"



Please be specific.

That was specific.

BTW, the Army's been active for more than two years now. Under the
Constitution, time's up.


The vote for the next two years funding was done. Hence, its
constitutional.


Not if you're an originalist. You're one of those, aren't you?


Its a gift.

Gunner


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"


  #171   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 05:27:14 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 04:22:13 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:55:06 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
Are you asking if the Congress has authority to authorize the National
Endowment for the Arts if they decide it's in the interest of furthering the
public welfare? The answer is, yes.

Public welfare is a crucifix in a jar of ****?


I believe he said that Congress has the athority to make really
bad decisions. Cryin' shame, isn't it? I mean, what would we do
without the Belichick "Mud Flap II" sculpture, fecal art, and
urinary artistic achievements? thud


"**** Christ" falls under which category? Defense? General Welfare?

****ing off the religious right. That's an important part of the general
welfare. g


Then hanging the more egregious Liberals like pinatas from lamp posts
would also qualify.


OK, you guys are 2 for 2 there.


G

Gunner

--------------------------------------------
Proud (occasional) maker of Hungarian Paper Towels.
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design
================================================= =====


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #172   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Apr 2005 23:39:35 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

you plonked someone for telling the truth?


No, because he is tedious. I don't mind if somebody
disagrees with me, but when they *ask* for an example
and I give it to them, they might at least go 'humph.'

Jim


Point taken. Only thing is...you tend to ignore examples yourself.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #173   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Point taken. Only thing is...you tend to ignore examples yourself.


Many of the examples provided, are unrequested. The one I gave
to him was *specifically* requested, by him.

Granted it was a bit of a setup. The Terry thing probably has
more than half the voting republicans turning a bit green. I think
it was a *big* mistake for Bush to get involved with that.

A) because it the law was *so* blatantly unconstitutional, and
B) because the feeling of a large majority of the population was
very much at odds with what they were trying to do, ignoring the
legal, constitutional issues.

I guess I've found *one* person who felt that she should have had
the feeding tube kept in under the circustances - and more than
a hundred that I've talked to, who said they felt that the maneuvering
on the part of the religious right, and her parents, to gain control
and keep her alive longer, was a real travesty.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #174   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Cites?


The decision, declaring bush's law unconstitutional was in that
pdf file link I gave to George W. Is that what you were asking
for?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #175   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

It means they didnt want to hear it. Its only unconstitutional when
its so ruled.


No, the idea is that the USSC will do everything in its power
to *avoid* hearing a case. The decision from the circuit court
however was, it was unconstitutional.

Apparently this is a fine point, I am told. The decison was issued
unsigned from the federal circuit (one step below the USSC) and
did not have to reach for a constitutional issue. But the part
they added in (that I quoted for George W.) is 'per curium' which
means, as I understand it, "if we were required to rule on the
issue of constitutionality, this is how we would go."

I'm not sure what the precedential implications are. But this
had been litigated for *so* long and the so insistently, with
the parents being slapped down at every turn, every time, I think
the circuit court had to make the statement they did.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================


  #176   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

After the bulldozers come in...dont expect them to work.


Bulldozers! Now I can repave my driveway too...

Why didn't I do this a long time ago.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #177   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Apr 2005 15:19:24 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

After the bulldozers come in...dont expect them to work.


Bulldozers! Now I can repave my driveway too...

Why didn't I do this a long time ago.

Jim


You have other assets that will pay for the driveway?

Not any more.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #178   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Gunner says...

Bulldozers! Now I can repave my driveway too...


You have other assets that will pay for the driveway?


Ha, no. I was going to borrow the machines in the
night, and do the work myself.

To paraphrase: "I've always *wanted* to learn to
run a bulldozer!"

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #179   Report Post  
David R. Birch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 03:47:38 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Because, in my opinion..Shakespear sucks. What part of that dont you
get? Is it written in stone somewhere in your genetic code that one
must think Shakespear is the best thing since sliced bread?
Alas poor Yoric....



LOL ..... it's "Yorick". And "Shakespeare".

Is it genetic to wingers?


"Shakespeare" is not among the various ways that the Bard spelled his own name.

David
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bizzarro Gunner - aka "Cliff" Lex Luthor Metalworking 5 January 30th 05 02:05 AM
Welcome back Gunner GMasterman Metalworking 5 June 20th 04 05:53 AM
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner - A Song Tom Watson Woodworking 5 December 10th 03 11:28 AM
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner Tom Watson Woodworking 0 December 9th 03 10:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"