Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bizzarro Gunner - aka "Cliff" | Metalworking | |||
Welcome back Gunner | Metalworking | |||
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner - A Song | Woodworking | |||
Nahmie The Brad Nail Gunner | Woodworking |