Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 9 Feb 2010 08:30 In article <3801n5ttis53ctei2i1od0kunaajs1ldnj(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:15:37 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > wrote: > > > > ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >news:f8v0n5di4q87fntitcl71vjghenh2tfqpb(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:04:26 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>>news:7kn0n518v5f21gs2jo01qnst1gmi84n715(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:36:20 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> All politicians have advisors, but no one "handles" Obama. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> BK > >>>>> > >>>>>Riiiiight. In that case no one handled Bush then either. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> They didn't have to. Cheney made most decisions alone. > >>>> > >>>> BK > >>> > >>>Talk about urban legends. Guess who decied to try KSM in civilian court? > >>>Wasent Obama. > >>> > >>> > >> Not his call. > >> > >> BK > > > >You mean Holder made the decision alone? Gasp! > > That's what the Attorney General does, make legal decisions. KSM is an enemy combatant who falls under the purview of the POTUS. All decisions whether to conduct a military tribunal or civilian trial are at the POTUS's direction. It only becomes a civilian legal decision when the POTUS decides it is a civilian legal decision.
From: William Clark on 9 Feb 2010 09:04 In article <alangbaker-09E570.11121808022010(a)news.shawcable.com>, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > In article > <clark-F7529F.08023708022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > In article <alangbaker-EA28F9.19091307022010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > <clark-D65648.22083507022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > > > William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <tTHbn.75092$JE2.71270(a)newsfe09.iad>, assimilate(a)borg.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 7-Feb-2010, William Clark <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But if one guy with money will vote to evict ten poor people, we > > > > > > will > > > > > > call that "democracy"? I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > > eviction is a result of not meeting one's contractual obligations and > > > > > not > > > > > of > > > > > some vote taken. > > > > > > > > No, it can also be the result of someone buying out and tearing up a > > > > valid contract of a fully paid up tenant. > > > > > > > > You need to get out more. > > > > > > Give a concrete example. > > > > Alan, grow up a little - you only have to read your local papers to see > > incidents like this. You are starting to sound like Bertie. > > Come on William: > > Give a concrete example of how you can "buy out" a valid contract except > with the other party to it... Number one, you give people a contract with a loophole in. If you are poor, you don't read/understand the fine print, and you can't afford a lawyer. Or. in the case of a legal agreement, you simply harass the renter, and convince them that they do not have legal rights that they actually do. That is a very common tactic, since in many cases the renters do not have access to the kind of legal advice they need. A few typical examples from New Jersey: http://tiny.cc/8LLDQ > > > > > > > And then deal with the fact that you've assumed that those tenants will > > > have no vote... > > > > No, I am assuming they are effectively disenfranchised because someone > > has multiple votes and cancels them out and then has additional votes > > that count. > > Sorry, but no. No one has discussed the scale at which additional votes > would be alloted, so you don't know that one person's vote can > "effectively disenfranchise" ten. Well, honestly this whole discussion is a waste of bandwidth, since as you say, no one is actually coming clean about what they intend, and it is pie in the sky anyway. I'd rather talk golf.
From: bknight on 9 Feb 2010 10:06 On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:21:44 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <f8v0n5di4q87fntitcl71vjghenh2tfqpb(a)4ax.com>, >bknight(a)conramp.net says... >> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:04:26 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message >> >news:7kn0n518v5f21gs2jo01qnst1gmi84n715(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:36:20 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>> All politicians have advisors, but no one "handles" Obama. >> >>>> >> >>>> BK >> >>> >> >>>Riiiiight. In that case no one handled Bush then either. >> >>> >> >> >> >> They didn't have to. Cheney made most decisions alone. >> >> >> >> BK >> > >> >Talk about urban legends. Guess who decied to try KSM in civilian court? >> >Wasent Obama. >> > >> > >> Not his call. > >But, the Obama admitted, this weekend, that he was still trying to >figure out where to hold the trials. > >http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35543 > > > Hmmm. The Obama isn't being "handled", huh? Stunnng that the far right can switch gears so quickly. Which is it, Obama is being handled, or making decisions? BK
From: William Clark on 9 Feb 2010 10:39 In article <e8u2n55jvga28i5of6717kdfngarmnpk1v(a)4ax.com>, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:21:44 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >In article <f8v0n5di4q87fntitcl71vjghenh2tfqpb(a)4ax.com>, > >bknight(a)conramp.net says... > >> > >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:04:26 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> ><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >news:7kn0n518v5f21gs2jo01qnst1gmi84n715(a)4ax.com... > >> >> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:36:20 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>>> All politicians have advisors, but no one "handles" Obama. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> BK > >> >>> > >> >>>Riiiiight. In that case no one handled Bush then either. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> They didn't have to. Cheney made most decisions alone. > >> >> > >> >> BK > >> > > >> >Talk about urban legends. Guess who decied to try KSM in civilian court? > >> >Wasent Obama. > >> > > >> > > >> Not his call. > > > >But, the Obama admitted, this weekend, that he was still trying to > >figure out where to hold the trials. > > > >http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35543 > > > > > > > Hmmm. The Obama isn't being "handled", huh? Stunnng that the far > right can switch gears so quickly. Which is it, Obama is being > handled, or making decisions? > > BK Would this be "handled" in the sense of the Sarah Palin handprompter, I wonder?
From: Moderate on 9 Feb 2010 11:04
"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-6A0626.09040209022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <alangbaker-09E570.11121808022010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > Number one, you give people a contract with a loophole in. If you are > poor, you don't read/understand the fine print, and you can't afford a > lawyer. Or. in the case of a legal agreement, you simply harass the > renter, and convince them that they do not have legal rights that they > actually do. That is a very common tactic, since in many cases the > renters do not have access to the kind of legal advice they need. > > A few typical examples from New Jersey: > > http://tiny.cc/8LLDQ A typical Clark cite. Unread and unsupportive of his argument. Very scientific. |