So...if I agree with you about Mr. Chaney will it mean that I do
understand the constituion, or just that I don't have to be sent to the
gulag?
-jc
PS, so why stop with the Pres and the Congress? If you want direct
supervison by "the people", why not sit down at the motor vehicle
office and yell at your employees all day? Surely they could benefit
from being micromanaged.
-jc
On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:48 AM, Jim Hicks wrote:
> I don't think you're commie, I just think you don't understand the
> constitution.
> There is too much central planning going on as it is at the present, ie
> Dickless Cheany (who i've decided is the antichrist) making policy with
> industrilists whitout oversite, while being on the gov payroll and then
> refusing to devulge the members of that cabal.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Iraq response & Constitution
>
>
>> Nobody's said anything like that to me in a long time! For too long
>> everyone has been complaining about my drift to the right! I have to
>> listen to Rush L now and then just to make sure I he doesn't make any
>> sense...sort of check my bearings. He makes a good bouy.
>>
>> I belong here. Don't piss me off.
>>
>> -jc
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 07:40 AM, Jim Hicks wrote:
>>
>>> That he won't get to steal the next election isn't so bad but in your
>>> senario who gets to decide what's good for the US? Your frustration
>>> with all
>>> politics being local just goes with the territory. If you want
>>> central
>>> planning go back to Russia where you belong.
>>> jh
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Iraq response & Constitution
>>>
>>>
>>>> The president is the commander in chief. There certainly are
>>>> decisions
>>>> he is required to make. The Congress pays the bills and advises and
>>>> sometimes consents. One certainly can serve and lead at the same
>>>> time.
>>>> And I hope many will. The ones who keep checking to see which way
>>>> the
>>>> wind blows drive me nutz. Lead, follow or get out of the way and
>>>> let
>>>> someone else do it.
>>>>
>>>> We are creeping up on a personal peeve. I'm discusted by
>>>> representatives who go to washington to do what is good for
>>>> Minnesota...and locals who go to saint Paul to do what is good for
>>>> the
>>>> city. Damn it, I want senators and representatives to do what is
>>>> good
>>>> for the U.S. Not only when its good for Minnesota...but especially
>>>> when its bad. That's called courage, conviction and leadership.
>>>> Maybe
>>>> he won't get reelected...is that so bad?
>>>>
>>>> -jc
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 05:53 AM, Jim Hicks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The way this country was designed the Pres. isn't supposed to
>>>>> decide
>>>>> at all.
>>>>> The decision should come from the congress and it isn't a question
>>>>> of
>>>>> leading but serving. These elected officials are there, in theory,
>>>>> to
>>>>> serve
>>>>> their constituents. So maybe in this democracy?????, polls should
>>>>> account
>>>>> for something. Before WW II foreign policy was decided by the
>>>>> northeast and
>>>>> the bankers (our interests - check Smedley Butler ) and after was
>>>>> decided by
>>>>> the southwest (oil). I heard at the time that Nam was all about oil
>>>>> cause in
>>>>> the gulf of Tonkin are oil reserves as large as the Saudi's.
>>>>> jh
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "John Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 9:54 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Iraq response
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you want the President to decide War or Peace by polls? Not
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> this president has or is likely to ever pursue paths that I would
>>>>>> consider good leadership, but I have been deeply swayed by Colin
>>>>>> Powell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before all you peaceniks jump on me, I am deeply ashamed to admit
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> I have never been one to claim that violence doesn't solve
>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>> My life experience provides more than ample proof that violence
>>>>>> solve
>>>>>> problems real good. Sometimes with less humiliation and long term
>>>>>> damage than words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I am suitably embarrassed. Please don't hurt me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -jc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 09:26 PM, William Gould wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it our duty?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Fwd; [Fwd; The White House]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
>> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
>> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
>
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
