 |
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 2, 2009, 07:53 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve;
We DO have something in common. I'm smoking a wonderful, and delicious blend that might partly be from Honduras too.
ex
And I'm sure it would go fabulous with the blend I'm drinking, but that's another subject.
|
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 2, 2009, 11:34 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, El:
You and I don't agree on the term "regular civilians". I include gay people who want to enjoy the same rights YOU do, as "regular civilians". You don't. I include people who are charged with a crime, as "regular civilians". You don't. I include sick people who need treatment and can't get it. You don't.
Where did you get the idea that I don't consider gays or sicj people to be civilians with the same rights as everyone else? It's not true. I believe that they should have exactly the same rights and treatments as everyone else.
What I do not believe is that they should get SPECIAL treatment, which is what you are advocating.
So, as long as you maintain your LISTS of people who aren't "regular civilians", we're not going to be able to discuss what happens to people in this country.
According to you, anyone who doesn't believe the same liberal ideas you believe in are unpatriotic, morally inferior, and are out to get everyone. The only one keeping lists of people who don't deserve the same rights as everyone else is you, and every conservative on this board is on that list.
In terms of the Constitution, sure I support it. Show me the part that says a final check on power belongs to the military... No wonder Homeland Security is viewing rightwing stuff as dangerous. You're sounding downright scary these days.
Excon
The final check on ANY power is in the hands of the military. That is why having a strong military is essential to the rule of law. That is also why the Constitution puts control of the military into the hands of the CIVILIAN LEADERS. And when someone tries to overthrow the government via non-constitutional power grabs, it is the job of the Civilian government to prevent that via use of the military if necessary. Which is exactly why the SUPREME COURT OF HONDURAS and the CONGRESS OF HONDURAS took the action of using the military to put down Zelaya and re-establish the Constitutional control of the government by the rightfully elected leaders.
This is simple civics 101. This is about the civil contract. Did you miss that part in school? Or did your teachers simply skip it.
Elliot
|
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 2, 2009, 11:37 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
So, it wasn't a military coup, and the Supreme Court wasn't being "activist".....
Dude! What flavor you drinking today?
excon
In military coups, the military takes control of the government. That is not what happened here. The military simply acted under the order of the already existing and duly elected power to remove a usurper to the presidency of Honduras and put control back into the hands of the duly elected government. There was no military coup.
Elliot
|
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 2, 2009, 11:39 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve;
We DO have something in common. I'm smoking a wonderful, and delicious blend that might partly be from Honduras too.
ex
I think you should put down whatever you're smoking, dude. It's rotting your brain.
Elliot
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 3, 2009, 04:00 AM
|
|
The President of Honduras now is a leader selected from the duly elected legislature. The military did not seize power .They were executing the law and removing a rogue leader.
I asked in the other post on this subject the hypotetical... suppose Nixon had refused to step down if Watergate had played out to it's conclusion. Would a forced removal from office had been considered a coup also ?
|
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Jul 3, 2009, 06:49 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by tomder55
The President of Honduras now is a leader selected from the duly elected legislature. The military did not seize power .They were executing the law and removing a rogue leader.
I asked in the other post on this subject the hypotetical ....suppose Nixon had refused to step down if Watergate had played out to it's conclusion. Would a forced removal from office had been considered a coup also ?
Or if Bill Clinton had been found guilty of purgery in his impeachment trial in Congress and had been required by law to step down and refused to do so. Would the military or police arresting him and removing him from his office have been a "military coup"?
Good question, Tom.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 6, 2009, 02:53 PM
|
|
Here former Honduran Minister of Culture Octavio Sanchez speaking of the constitutional removal of Zelaya:
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.
Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
Even the liberal Cato Institute agrees his removal was proper. Which side of the rule of law, democracy and the Honduran constitution does Obama stand on?
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 6, 2009, 03:57 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Even the liberal Cato Institute agrees his removal was proper
Hello Steve:
You had me up to there. Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 6, 2009, 04:47 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:
You had me up to there. Bwa, ha ha ha.
excon
Excuse me, Cato is liberal and dovish on foreign policy.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 7, 2009, 04:47 AM
|
|
Btw, just because I got a bit confused on all those institutes doesn't negate the point. So goof on me... then tell me which side of what rule of law Obama should be on.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 13, 2009, 07:19 AM
|
|
Obama has already determined the winner of Germany's election.
Walking to a joint press conference on June 26, Merkel told Obama that she "was preparing her election campaign", according to news magazine Spiegel, citing footage captured by public television channel ZDF but only partially released.
Turning to Merkel with a grin, Obama is quoted as saying: "Oh, you've already won. I don't know you're always worrying."
According to Spiegel, a surprised-looking Merkel laughed briefly.
But for her challenger in the September 27 election, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the reported comments are no laughing matter.
Spiegel reports a source close to Steinmeier as saying the minister "thinks a great deal of Obama but even an American president is not a prophet".
We wouldn't want to interfere with and take sides in a democratic election would we?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 22, 2009, 01:38 PM
|
|
Another example of Obama NOT meddling. Last week the Obama administration demanded that Israel stop construction of planned housing project in east Jerusalem.
The property to be developed - a defunct hotel - was purchased in 1985, and the developer has obtained all the necessary municipal permits.
Why, then, does the administration want the development killed? Because Sheikh Jarrah is in a largely Arab section of Jerusalem, and the developers of the planned apartments are Jews. Think about that for a moment. Six months after Barack Obama became the first black man to move into the previously all-white residential facility at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, he is fighting to prevent integration in Jerusalem.
It is impossible to imagine the opposite scenario: The administration would never demand that Israel prevent Arabs from moving into a Jewish neighborhood. And the Obama Justice Department would unleash seven kinds of hell on anyone who tried to impose racial, ethnic, or religious redlining in an American city. In the 21st century, segregation is unthinkable - except, it seems, when it comes to housing Jews in Jerusalem.
It is not easy for Israel’s government to refuse any demand from the United States, which is the Jewish state’s foremost ally. To their credit, Israeli leaders spoke truth to power, and said no. “Jerusalem residents can purchase apartments anywhere in the city,’’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday. “There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city’s east. This is the policy of an open city.’’
Once again, hypocrites of the world unite!
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
View more questions
Search
|