Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: plowhand
why did i know u would be the one to suck up to the un?

First, let's correct the spelling and grammar on your question. This is Free Republic, not a chat room for illiterates.

why Why did i I know u you would be the one to suck up to the un UN?

Second, I noticed that you didn't address the substance of my post--namely, that the anti-UN ordinance is grossly unconstitutional. I am not alone in saying this; the John Birch Society agrees with me. Defending the Constitution is NOT "sucking up to the UN," it's defending the Constitution.

14 posted on 05/23/2002 10:13:36 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Poohbah
So, lets see the words and critique.
17 posted on 05/23/2002 10:18:19 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Poohbah
why Why did i I know u you would be the one to suck up to the un UN?

In your correction of Plowhand's spelling and grammar, you left out the periods after U and N. You also loused up the word privilege in your post #33. It is not spelled privelege.

Your theory that the Grant County ordinance may be unconstitutional may have merit. But, IMHO, you should stick to debating topics and not try to correct someone else's use of common, acceptable shorthand. You'll come across better.

37 posted on 05/23/2002 12:11:13 PM PDT by jackliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Poohbah
Defending the Constitution is NOT "sucking up to the UN," it's defending the Constitution.

Not to mention that it'll be about as effective as all those universities that declared themselves "Nuclear Free Zones" back in the '80s.

Sorry, folks, but this is the kind of stuff that will put Grant County, Oregon on a lot of peoples' "Whackjob Places to Avoid and Make Fun Of" list. It certainly won't do them any good.

47 posted on 05/23/2002 1:48:28 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Poohbah; plowhand
To: plowhand
"...I noticed that you didn't address the substance of my post--
namely, that the anti-UN ordinance is grossly unconstitutional..."
# 14 by Poohbah

********************

If the United States makes a treaty with the United Nations, or any other foreign power, detailing a new way to elect members of Congress, that would be un-Constitutional.

If the United States signed a United Nations treaty saying how American merchants are allowed to sale their products within the United States, that would be un-Constitutional.

International interference with our internal affairs is un-Constitutional.

70 posted on 05/23/2002 8:22:19 PM PDT by exodus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: Poohbah
Sorry--It is perfectly constitutional--no matter WHAT you say about the UN. The UN, after all, is not an American institution. It is foreign. Any community can choose to exclude foreign entities.
85 posted on 05/24/2002 5:20:26 AM PDT by ShadowAce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson