--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He's got a long way to go to prove that to me. You can put up gaudy
numbers and win a lot of regular season games (Dan Marino and the
young John Elway) but you don't achieve greatness in football in the
regular season. Montana, the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
WARNING***SPOILERS
(And not necessarily all that accurate - rob)
Claire's dad isn't the bad guy, here, though he was set up as such.
Not saying he's nice, either, but he's not hellbent on destruction
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
Except that the previous thread
JDG wrote:
This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven
by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that
JDG wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit? Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
orientation?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jdiebremse
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:49 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
JDG wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jdiebremse
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:48 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Those who can't, teach
Resign, since it is undemocratic to be appointed or made president by
magic,
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates that
sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad ideas.
Yes, I misread the post, sorry. Of course I couldn't disagree more.
What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court
that
On 11/6/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, what would you do if elected president does seem a reasonable way
to ask what do you think should be done by the President? I think that
thinking of what you would do as President is a reasonable way to think
about which presidential
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jdiebremse
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:48 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Those who can't, teach
If changing the way you think means taking the easy way out, and leaving
tens of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of pencimen
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:44 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Gay marriage in the closet
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
Dan wrote:
But, as that likelihood of that scenario playing out continues to
decrease, then we need, IMHO, to consider the first rules of
holes: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is
stop digging. I think we've reached a point where we cannot stop
a civil war from
- Original Message -
From: jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Heroes Spoilers as of 11/5
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
WARNING***SPOILERS
Dan Minette wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jdiebremse
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 6:48 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Those who can't, teach
Resign, since it is undemocratic to be appointed or made president by
On 07/11/2006, at 2:49 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for
Okay, show of hands -- how many people, reading the subject of this email,
had the same thoughts I did when I saw this on a truck this afternoon?
I'll bet they do other sizes, too.
And...
Wow, some people are LAZY.
And...
That truck must hold a LOT of them. (Okay, so the message subject
At 07:53 PM Monday 11/6/2006, Nick Arnett wrote:
Okay, show of hands -- how many people, reading the subject of this email,
had the same thoughts I did when I saw this on a truck this afternoon?
I'll bet they do other sizes, too.
And...
Wow, some people are LAZY.
And...
That truck must hold
An oddly on-topic article..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Okay, show of hands -- how many people, reading the subject of this
email,
had the same thoughts I did when I saw this on a truck this afternoon?
My hand is down, although, after reading your message, I thought,
Man, talk about specialization
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit?
No.
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
Nick Arnett wrote:
Okay, show of hands -- how many people, reading the subject of this email,
had the same thoughts I did when I saw this on a truck this afternoon?
I'll bet they do other sizes, too.
And...
Wow, some people are LAZY.
And...
That truck must hold a LOT of them. (Okay, so the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan wrote:
I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
that
sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad
ideas.
Yes, I misread the post, sorry.
First, thank you to Dan for explaining my
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are a few initial questions that I have. First, are you arguing
for
original intent, or do you accept judicial history as law? For
example, do
you think the Supreme Court is legally obliged to overturn 140 or so
years
of
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be
driven
by whether
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, Nick, in your mind is it democratic to get elected after
counting
ballots in predominantly Democratic areas one way and counting
ballots
in predominantly Republican areas another way?
Moreover, Nick, do you consider the
JDG wrote:
So, in other words, you judge QB's in part by factors that are
completely outside their control?
In part, of course. If a QB with fantastic potential is badly injured
early in their career, never to reach his potential, will he ever be
considered great? If a QB with potential ends
On 11/6/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am jabbering about the fact that you are repeating a lie - that the
President was appointed rather than elected in 2000 - so often as to
actually start to believe that it is true.
You didn't ask what George Bush would do if he were
JDG wrote:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word free is
somewhat misplaced.
In any case, it's heartening to see that, despite the best effort of
On 07/11/2006, at 4:15 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
orientation?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
They're not
On 07/11/2006, at 5:08 PM, pencimen wrote:
JDG wrote:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word free is
somewhat misplaced.
In any case, it's
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely to ask why we discourage loving relationships.
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely to
33 matches
Mail list logo
