--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
So the views of the Founding Fathers
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
marriage
isn't going to be a wildly popular idea
Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the
legal and religious portions.
How does
On 27/10/2006, at 9:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
marriage
isn't going to be a wildly popular idea
Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. So much for
well-reasoned
Yes, those are anecdotal, of course. But did we forget the wee matter
of
155 Senate votes on veterans issues since 9/11? Or is that just 155
anecdotes?
On 27/10/2006, at 9:48 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006. Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.
...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which
Charlie Bell wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Further, I would note that you and everyone else here has, in any
number of discussions in the past, chosen to ignore some questions
or comments on any topic. This may be tacitly ceding a given point,
or (as in my case this time) not really understanding
On 27 Oct 2006, at 12:46PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?
Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it wasn't
in a church. But
On 27/10/2006, at 11:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006, at 12:46PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?
Until very recently it had to be in
Charlie wrote:
Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it wasn't
in a church. But again, you have to have a wedding.
Over here, the simplest way is to garland each other in the registrar's
office and then sign the register. The elaborate ways last for weeks,
with the
Charlie said:
Yeah, you can do that in England now too. I think you're now allowed
to marry in the open air too, which you weren't even after they
relaxed the registry office or place of worship rule.
*g*
Here, Hindu marriages are *supposed* to be held in the open air. The
only
On 10/27/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know that its very easy for you to believe that Republicans are
cold-hearted monsters - but demonisation of your opponents is rarely
true. I don't know what the specific answer is in this case, but I
suspect that the above questions are
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 12:25 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are
On 10/27/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which would be 6.35M in
2001 dollars. So a very modest cut in real terms from the 2001
levels. I'd have to say John's points on questions of how much it was
using, what it has used it for, and how
How do you spin the shifting of a big chunk of the VA budget onto the
veterans through increased fees, copayments, etc.? The increases are far,
far more than inflation would account for. There is no change in how the
money is spent, only who it is collected from. How do you justify that?
On Behalf Of jdiebremse
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Most of the things I'm reading call him Horned Rim Glasses
Man
or HRG for short (or sometimes HRM).
I doubt it. The hotel lady didn't know what happened to FlyingGuy
in the morning. Unless she was a
On 10/27/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick, it's not really that simple. My dad and uncles were vets, and I
grew
up with their views of the VA. Ending up in a VA hospital was considered
a
very bad thing at the time. The VA administration was considered as a
last
resort.
How
I am going to London from Sunday 2006-10-29 to Thursday 2006-11-02.
Any good suggestions? How cold is it? Remember that I am Tropical,
anything below 20 Celsius is f freezing!
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
In a message dated 10/27/2006 10:18:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am going to London from Sunday 2006-10-29 to Thursday 2006-11-02.
Any good suggestions? How cold is it? Remember that I am Tropical,
anything below 20 Celsius is f freezing!
!. Read
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nick Arnett
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Who REALLY supports the troops
On 10/27/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick, it's not
On 10/27/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we really need to look under the numbers quoted by an advocate. If
veterans chose the VA system for maintenance, but chose other hospitals
for
high cost options, such as long stays in intensive care, then even a very
inefficient VA will,
On 10/27/2006 8:16:31 AM, Ritu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it
wasn't
in a church. But again, you have to have a wedding.
Over here, the simplest way is to garland each other in the
registrar's
office and then sign
- Original Message
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]Matt Sez:
] He also seems to understand his powers much more completely.
] There was mention of causing a rift
]
]*
]The Dialogue:
]
]Hiro: I don't have much time. I'm risking a rift just by coming here.
]
Eeewww! I hope that the Dr. Who production budgets never sink that low.
- Original Message
From: Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:30:22 PM
Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 10/26/2006 10:12:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship
([EMAIL
Hear Hear! Marriage as a word gets to be defined by religious organizations,
and the legally binding contract retains a different name and much more
flexibility.
-- Matt
- Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent:
On 28/10/2006, at 12:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority, especially those on
On 28/10/2006, at 9:40 AM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
I agree, there's nothing wrong with calling it a
civil union, and that should maybe be the
official name. But I confess that I'd personally
call such things marriages, just to upset
traditionalists.
Eventually, they'll be called that
At 06:33 AM Friday 10/27/2006, jdiebremse wrote:
Again, I don't see how this differs from the current state of affairs.
In the US, atheists have no difficulty in getting married in the secular
ceremony of their choice. Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are
http://www.slate.com/id/2152252?GT1=8702
Political assumptions can remain constant for long periods and then
change very quickly. And so they have in the approximately 10 days
since the publication of Barack Obama's book The Audacity of Hope. In
the brief time he's been on book tour, Obama
At 06:28 PM Friday 10/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
- Original Message From: Robert G.
Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 26,
2006 8:30:22 PM Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 10/26/2006 10:12:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JDG wrote:
Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last questions
I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally don't know much
about a progressive income tax's Constitutionality.
The progressive income tax is a
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority,
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
agree with it.
I am appalled at the way it was handed down.
I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling is even more
twisted that I had thought.
First,
On 28/10/2006, at 12:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?
Is it really not obvious to you?
No, it's not.
The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ
Legislature to
either:
1) Create gay marriages
2) Create gay
On 28/10/2006, at 1:05 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
agree with it.
I am appalled at the way it was handed down.
I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling
St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.
Man, I like the sound of that!
- jmh
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any
On 28/10/2006, at 2:47 PM, Horn, John wrote:
St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.
*cough* Time they allowed other countries in, eh?
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Horn, John wrote:
St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.
Man, I like the sound of that!
- jmh
You know, the moon is in a different phase than it was when the World
Series was won in 2004. I remember the end of the World Series in 2004,
and I remember how the moon looked when I got back
38 matches
Mail list logo
