--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Much of the world simply isn't able to provide soldiers as most
1st world countries have been cutting back to basically a defence
force, and there have been enough friendly fire incidents in
joint task forces in the past to
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JDG asked:
The survey, of 2,011 international travelers in 16 countries, was
conducted by RT Strategies, a Virginia-based polling firm, for the
Discover America Partnership, a group launched in September with
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The single most effective thing we can do to reduce the threat of
terrorism is to leave
Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. We can't change our energy
requirements overnight,
but the energy policy of the Bush administration has led us
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to
support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum
Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have
covered this ground earlier, before the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, either your
proposing tripling the price of oil in this country, or you are
proposing a policy with about as much near-term relevance for energy
independence as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I remember
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's no question that we are walking
right up to the line, and a decently strong case that we are
crossing
that line, but I'm not sure that any previous generation has
hestitated
to walk right up to the line and
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but I'd be curious
to see the methodology first. It probably was just an ill-designed
survey
Well, I'll give you what information I have and you can see if you can
hunt down the methodology. This is what the articles say:
The
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and
gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's
failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me
responsible for Saddam's crimes, or
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The world was with you on Afghanistan. You should have finished the
job properly.
Sorry, Charlie, but the world was *not* with us on Afghanistan.Oh
sure, they were there in word - but the world was painfully short of the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the
deaths currently occuring in Iraq.
Cite, please.
I don't recall anybody making any such argument.
Nick
Ok
11/22 at 12:37am according to Yahoo!
---
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This strikes me as classic generational arrogance - the old
saw that *our generation* dealt with threats much more
sensibly than the young'uns out there.
Only if you are viewing it from a purely American perspective and are
under
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if I understand you correctly, your favored strategy in dealing
with Al Qaeda would be to:
-Withdraw immediately from Iraq
I'd give it six months, withdrawing gradually.
And would you still blame us for the number of
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When it becomes plain that the whole idea of terror is to scare
someone, then a look at our *rhetorical* reactions shows that we
are
not stiffening our spines and holding our jaws up sufficiently.
And what happens when the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And nobody knows how many Iraqis have been killed by the non-American,
non-Iraqi actors either. But what I do know is that the distinction
made
by you is not being made by the majority of the world. If Iraqis are
killing Iraqis at a
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but does anyone remember the red scare, McCarthyism, the
missile gap, air raid drills in schools, backyard nuclear shelters,
the Sputnik gap, We Will Bury You, the domino theory, managed
decline, etc.?
Yet
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
And so there are some f*ckers out there who have been responsible
for
acts of terror causing the deaths of a few hundred people worldwide
on top of the WTC attacks.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And compared to just about any other cause of death
you can think of, terrorism is way way down the list.
This reminds me of an article I read this morning - international
travellers were polled and it turns out that most consider US
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This strikes me as classic generational arrogance - the old saw
that
*our generation* dealt with threats much more sensibly than the
young'uns out there.
I like to delude myself that I'm in the same generation as you, so
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Actually the series works like this:
The season is sectioned into 3 pods.
The first pod, Episodes 1 through 11 are one story. Episodes 12
through 18 tell another section of the story. Finally Episodes 19
through 23 will be
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia. etc.
And how does that 13+ years of attacks compare to just the last month
in Iraq?
I dunno, how many Iraqis did the US kill last month? And how many
Iraqis did Iraqis kill?
JDG
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whereas some of us see that as a subset of the threat posed by
militant Islamic extremists in general. And while AQ staged the
most successful attack on US soil in Sep 2001, the threat is
worldwide.
And still others of us see
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm all for bombing the crap out of bad guys and killers, and
showing
fools just exactly what they are.
It is kinda hard to do that when you cower in fear and/or harbor
illusions about what it is you fear.
But that is the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
When it becomes plain that the whole idea of terror is to scare
someone, then a look at our *rhetorical* reactions shows that we are
not stiffening our spines and holding our jaws up sufficiently.
And what happens when the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And why do reports about Iran's nuclear program [any of them, from
those
which claim disaster looms a few months ahead to those which claim
that
nuclear capability is nearly a decade away]cause such a lot of alarm?
Our intelligence said
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it is likely you missed a few.
But even including a lot extra just for overkill, how many does that
add up to?
Compared to 300,000,000 Americans and 6,000,000,000 people worldwide.
Looking at the numbers it *is*
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Last April, I created an email address to use for my mom at H R
Block. I
only used that address for that one specific reason. I never posted it
or
used it for ANYTHING else. Since April, that email address has
received
just under
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Folks,
Offered without much study, because it is 4AM and I'm only awake
because something at work is going rather badly, but while waiting
for something to deploy, I found this:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I and others were saying in late 2001/early 2002.
The panic from the world's most powerful people was baffling. It was
like watching a giant weightlifter get bitten by a tiny ant and
acting as if a shark had
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you ask a question that has a LITERAL meaning that you didn't
intend,
someone here WILL take it literally and call you on it, one way or
another.
If only I believed that were true. Based on Nick's reaction, its my
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare,
but they do exist in the West, and in other parts of the world
they're more common.
We do have quite a few of them in this country, and unfortunately, all
too
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett narnett@ wrote:
You didn't ask what George Bush would do if he were president,
which
would
be silly, since he is. You asked what *I* would do. I haven't
been
elected, so I'd
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think the kind of political discussions such as the
ones we have here are also a healthy sign.
You mean like the discussion that produced this exchange?
O.k., Nick - you've been made President of the United States.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted,
fostered or biological), what
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Many of the new democrats elected are significantly more conservative
than the democrats of old and it seems clear to me that people like
Is this really true? One of the biggest upsets of Tuesday night was in
New
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You didn't ask what George Bush would do if he were president,
which
would
be silly, since he is. You asked what *I* would do. I haven't been
elected, so I'd resign.
Do you really not understand that I simply don't want
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
Provided
people make provision for the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You mean you think Dibold is going to allow the Dems to win control of
the Congress?
In a word: Yes.
I'm no fan of electronic voting, but my personal prediction as that even
with the Kerry October Surprise that the Republicans get
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/2/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O.k., Nick - you've been made President of the United States.
What's your Iraq policy? To stop teaching the Iraqi police and
military? Anything else?
Resign, since
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So... yesterday the administration admitted that we'll have to stay
longer
in Iraq so that we have more time to train more Iraqi police and
military to
take over what our troops are doing.
Let's see... we have failed to make
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's look at that. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the
Constitution.
Article V of the US Constitution gives two means of amending the
Constitution. One of these, the constitutional convention, has yet
to be
used
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://www.slate.com/id/2152252?GT1=8702
7. The bubble must pop.
Skeptics note that we've been through swoons like this
before-including for McCain in 2000. Obama could turn out to be just
another liberal fad, like
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ
Legislature to
either:
1) Create gay marriages
2) Create gay civil unions that are identical to marriages in
every
way, save for the word marriage.
--- 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
--- 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?
--- 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,
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
what you want to be a good-sized win.
Yeah ... why, it's almost as outrageous as gerrymandering, isn't it?
The people of New Jersey never voted for
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further proof that you can make Congressional voting records say
*anything*.
Nothing like a well-reasoned refutation. Before you totally dismissed
this,
did you try Googling something like republicans support veterans to
see
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan mistergibson@ wrote:
I can't agree with you. Let me count the ways... no, I don't have
that
kind of time.
I started listing the grand follies I could foresee even watching
the
2000 campaign
--- 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).
Does that mean that he's not the same person as Mr. Linderman?
___
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or call the legal arrangement a civil partnership or suchlike *for
every couple*, and the marriage the associated ceremony which would
have no legal standing in and of itself. That way we can all get the
legal protections we need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like the NJ SC is not willing to push the Full Faith and
Credit
issue. But I imagine it's a good-sized win for gay rights
activists.
If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
what you want
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hiro is definately my favorite character of the series, followed by
the Indian professors son.
Last week I was arguing that the guy from the future might not be
Hiro, but this week it is plain that he is indeed Hiro. The
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/10/2006, at 2:16 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
How about:
E) Global warming, caused by greedy oil company executives in
cahoots with a Republican President.
Hmmm.
While Bush has an appalling environmental
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America analyzed Senate voting
records to
see who really supports veterans -- 155 votes since 9/11. The results
might
surprise you if you imagined that the party that took us into these
wars is
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From
http://www.blogs.nj.com/newsupdates/slnewsupdates/default.asp?item=24630\
6
(the Newark Star-Ledger reporting) An excerpt:
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today that the state Constitution
entitles same-sex couples to
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are you arguing here?
and then.
So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
play one online?
and then..
I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
few key
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the
United
States misled the entire country this morning.
He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently.
Unless, of course, those weapons
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Are you guys watching this show?
So far it has been great!
I tuned in for the marathon on Sunday for the first time, and have
last night's episode on tape.
I definitely enjoyed the three episodes on Sunday night - but
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't agree with you. Let me count the ways... no, I don't have that
kind of time.
I started listing the grand follies I could foresee even watching the
2000 campaign from Amsterdam, but the actual blooded tragedy list
out-does
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 22, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 01:27 AM Sunday 10/22/2006, pencimen wrote:
For those few of us who saw the disaster that is Bush coming,
While some voted for Bush primarily because they thought
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Presuming that you would describe the fear of your grandmother being
forced to live in a cardboard box on the street and eat dogfood for
lunch if Republicans are elected to be principle rather than
personal
safety.
The
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not at all. The Assumption is interesting because it is a two-
fer. If you disagree with this dogma, then by definition, you also
have to disagree with the dogma of papal infallability.
Would you claim that any person
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My digest-subscribed address has not received anything since July 29,
if
that data point helps anyone
For those interested in the digest, I've been reading the List via the
Yahoo! Groups digest for some time now.
JDG
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
See? Part of the problem is that there is not even agreement on what
the problem is. Only that there is a problem.
And I might even be so bold as to disagree that there is even a problem.
After all if there are N issues,
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But how does this work for N(blue) = 4?
The key point is that the natives are omniintelligent and
know that all other natives are also omniintelligent.
The initial state is that each native has two cases:
1) There
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/10/06, maru dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the stranger appears to be absolutely useless, but
nevertheless,
removed from the picture the whole thing breaks down in the case
where
N = 2. What is the use of the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really think that I think the Democrats are any better?
Hypocrites and liars on both sides.
You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm
just used to that being the default position of brin-l
JDG
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/4/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, that would mean voting against the people who are campaigning on
the
fear that their opponents will take away a woman's right to choose,
end
Social Security and Medicare
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to kick out the people who have thrived on a policy of fear
then, and choose some representatives who value freedom and liberty
more than they value power through fear.
So, that would mean voting against the people who are
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious about this wink. Are you not fully on-board with the
doctrine of the assumption? It's not terribly important to me either
way, though I am inclined to think that it is a Churchly creation
intended to exalt Mary, rather
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mauro Diotallevi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My grandmother used to say two things about this depending on her
mood;
either Catholic heirarchy created this reverence of Mary because
she's the
most submissive role model those guys in Rome could find
Which isn't exactly
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Bodacious???
Bodacious???
My God man!
She gave birth to GOD!
She must have been stretch marks from the neck down!
xponent
Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru
rob
Actually, there is a tradition of
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We agree substantially here. The point of my post is to answer the
question
of what is the assumption. JDG, of course, can correct me if I'm
wrong.
The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her
earthly
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mauro Diotallevi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Several years ago I had the pleasure of attending a presentation in
Kansas
City made by an archeologist who had been doing research in Chaco
Canyon.
His theory was that there were major religious festivals between one
and
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the eve of the 2004 election, a liberal Christian pastor in
Pasadena
preached (what is reportedly) a highly political anti-war and
anti-poverty sermon with the result that the IRS is threatening to
take
away the church's
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
JDG
Here's a similarly interesting
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Klaus Stock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, wait. Little evidence of city life and was clearly at the heart
of an
extensive trading network appear contradictory to me. Well, at least
when I
consider other historical examples of how trading opportunity and/or
activity
I'm not sure if this went through the first time, so let me try
again
O.k., I promised to take the lead on this Chapter, so here goes.
This will admittedly be interesting, as I am sure that it is
becoming clear by now that I am somewhat of a skeptic of this book.
Anyhow, by now the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than continuing to trade rhetorical points, perhaps you could
start by specifying those things that are broadly-accepted factual
inaccuracies - and not just partisan factual inaccuracies
... So that you can just
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South -
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an
abortion is just as good as any other choice.
Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and
boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of
food,
clothing, and boots?
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John D. Giorgis wrote:
NY Giants at Philadelphia - Pick: EAGLES
How about them Giants?? I can't believe they turned that around, as
they were being soundly whupped for the first 40 minutes of the game.
Though I have to wonder
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/17/06, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But for this type of
conspiracy to have occurred - one in which the towers
were destroyed by explosives inside the building, and
then the evidence of this suppressed
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies
making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives.
Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an
all-volunteer army, lest
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks,
Nick.
I may use that in the future
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:34 AM, J.D. Giorgis wrote:
A thought-provoking article about the implications of
differing fertility rates based on political ideology
in the US:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That you can phrase the question as should a defense company be making
sub-standard profits - whatever that means in this realm - is amazing
to read. If you have any direct experience I'd like to hear about it.
They've always
1 - 100 of 198 matches
Mail list logo
