To: livianne
actually, one of his issues IS that it isn't a fast response. Which you pointed out: "Even if he is wrong about the odds of it passing, he is right about the time frame."
To which I said, "Who said it was fast?" Half the article is fairly obvious, half is just wrong.
17 posted on
11/19/2003 12:55:05 PM PST by
JohnnyZ
(D-R-E-I-E-R . . . . . . H-U-M-P-H-R-E-Y-S)
To: JohnnyZ
To which I said, "Who said it was fast?" Half the article is fairly obvious, half is just wrong. You know for a fact that this amendment would pass? Despite the fact that the passage of a constitutional amendment is deliberately very difficult? And even if it does pass, it could take YEARS to be ratified. That makes an amendment pretty much hopeless in terms of dealing with what is going on NOW. You can't wait 2-4 years to fight someone who's got you on the ropes today.
25 posted on
11/19/2003 1:21:23 PM PST by
livianne
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson