In article <BntMi.3789$Hb2.211_at_trndny07>,
Derek Janssen <ejanss1_at_nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 9:07 am, George Peatty <pttyg47-1..._at_copper.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>In article <8shof3hrvkd28qc049bsuunbbh9q8fd..._at_4ax.com>,
> >>>George Peatty <peattyg47-1..._at_copper.net> said:
> >>
> >>>>Not the point. The issue is whether their relationship is such
> >>>>that .. need him or no .. his influence in her decisions might be
> >>>>unduly felt. That is a constitutional issue more complex than the
> >>>>Gordian knot, and I don't even want to go there.
> >>>
> >>>What does the Constitution say about whom a President may choose to
> >>>listen to or even be influenced by?
> >>
> >>Irrelevant. The issue here is how many terms can a president serve, and on
> >>that
> >>point, the constitution is clear: only two. If we elect Hillary, Bill
> >>circumvents that restriction. It is contemptible of them to even consider
> >>her
> >>nomination, considered in that light. But, that's what you get when you
> >>have
> >>ambitious, amoral politicians lusting for power ..
> >
> > ...umm ...as opposed to when? Meanwhile, afaik, the omni-wise
> > Founding Fathers thought nothing of the principle whose faux-violation
> > you're declaring "contemptible"...
>
> And by that logic, don't *sons* of presidents also "circumvent
> restrictions"?
>
> (Oh, WHAT?--I was referring to John Quincy Adams!) ;)
Sexist bastard. If we need to stop anybody, it's Chelsea!!!
:D
--
"Mmmm, au jus. Not quite gravy, not quite blood . . ."
Received on Tue Oct 02 2007 - 13:04:06 PDT