From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:55:28 -0500
Out of curiosity, where did they get married? And is this marriage
recognized by the State or the Federal
At 10:08 PM 3/19/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote:
Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that
prevents
homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other.
Apparently there is, otherwise the whole discussion about gay marriage
wouldn't have happened.
One of
John D. Giorgis spouting Pope Brand(tm) right-wing extremism:
Deborah, the campaign against partial-birth abortion has lasted, I
think,
nearly a decade. Because we live in a republic, political change
requires
the changing of the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans. For
better or
for
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:47:21 -0500
At 04:28 PM 3/18/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote:
Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind answering that other
question I
asked you in that same message? I'd like to hear your views on this.
(Maybe
you already shared those views earlier, but I only subscribed
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:40:54 -0500
Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents
homosexual couples from publicly
Folks,
The question, however, is whether our civilization will be undermined by:
...
3) permitting homosexual couples to adopt or to artificially create
children.
Thus the need for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual
couples from playing The Sims.
Dave
At 04:28 PM 3/18/2004 +0100 John Doe wrote:
Again, there is nothing in current law in the United States that prevents
homosexual couples from publicly committing themselves to each other.
Apparently there is, otherwise the whole discussion about gay marriage
wouldn't have happened.
One of my
At 04:41 PM 3/1/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
This is also the same court that just a few years
ago struck down
Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg
vs. Carhart.
sniplet
Suffice to say, I have very real worries that
Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens,
Souter, and O'Connor will
William T. Goodall wrote:
I can see no reason to contact someone off-list about a post unless
they are someone one has
1) an existing off-list relationship with (personally, by email, chat
or whatever)
2) or a strong feeling of liking and or respect from just the list
*AND*
One feels
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:01:42AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
If you see that someone you know has their fly unzipped, do you loudly
proclaim, Hey Dude, your fly is open! or do you go up and whisper it
in their ear?
Not a good comparison. I've never known anyone to WANT to walk around
with
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:01:42 -0600
William T. Goodall wrote:
I can see no reason to contact someone off-list about a post unless
At 12:46 PM 3/12/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
Ah, if only that were the case for all offlist correspondance.
Unfortunately certain people think private attacks are acceptable if they
merely take offense to something you say. The most prominent offender is no
longer here but there are others.
- Original Message -
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Tyranny
Isn't it more polite, when one sees someone making a fool of
themself, to
quietly go up to them and tell them
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: List Etiquette Re: Tyranny
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:30:03 -0500
At 12:46 PM 3/12/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
Ah, if only that were the case for all
The Fool wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know, when I witness the joy that the San
Fransisco initiative has brought to those that
have hertofore been unable to make their love for
each other official (however temporal it's
legitimacy),it makes me wonder how on earth
On 9 Mar 2004, at 3:33 pm, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
The Fool wrote:
Simple. Religion = Hate.
When I first read this post, I thought that
William Goodall had posted it...
That could have been written by anyone whose mind was unclouded by the
obnoxious poison of religion.
Maybe he has a convert!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John wrote-
Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L
is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the
Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have
respectability
John wrote-
Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L
is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the
Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have
respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm
generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to
shut up or unsubscribe to the list.
I haven't seen any posts that stated that intention. Have you?
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 12:33:22AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm
generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to
shut up or unsubscribe to the list.
I haven't seen any posts that
Perhaps it is a biased standard, but I see it a bit differently. First
let me clarify that
I'm not arguing that JDG's (or anyone else's) arguments should not be
criticized or
addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm
generally against rude
or insulting posts intended to
John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipped most
I will repeat again. I would not have signed the
Bush vs. Gore majority
opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court. I do
not consider the Bush
vs. Gore ruling to be one that inspires confidence
for me.
Reasonable. And agreed.
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:31 PM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
* Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably
certain
extreme views
on certain topics that would
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:38:47AM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue
the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah.
That's unfair and untrue, Rob. Don't misunderestimate JDG. He would
certainly not support the
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals
by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this
list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree with this and
would prefer the
Judging by comments from John and Gautam recently, they do feel
excluded sometimes, and surrounded at others. Being the social animals
we are it is difficult to carry on when pressured like this.
I'm not making comparisons to other situations where even more
intestinal fortitude would be required.
At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
* Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain
extreme views
on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel
*very*
unwelcome here.
Can I take a guess as to what these might be?
Perhaps supporters
At 11:34 PM 2/28/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
You still haven't specified which incentives we are discussing here. What
specifics, in your opinion, should differentiate marriage and civil
union?
I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided by
The Fool, but I did
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As an aside, I think that the demonization of the opposing party isn't
something
restricted to just conservatives. I've known many liberals for whom
conservative and
republican re the c-word and r-word; people who, if you told them
you
were
At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament
when I
am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being
insufficiently
original in thought and also for being too original in thought.
This paragraph is the key to a
John D. Giorgis wrote:
...
I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact
cheer.
He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not
attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of
people attacking each other to be able to
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
* Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain
extreme views
on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters
feel
*very*
unwelcome here.
Can I take a guess as to
John wrote:
I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided
by
The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be:
1) Reservation of the name marriage for heterosexual unions
2) Marriages having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected
adoptions of children.
Yes, probably, depending upon what exactly was being said by them.
It'd be nice
to be able to advocate totally free speech of any kind on the list,
but I fear that
would ultimately reduce the list to chaos. The ACLU might give me an
F, I suppose,
but I think any discussion *on this list*
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:40 AM
Subject: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
My preference is that people
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals
by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this
list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree
At 04:47 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
Actually, speaking purely for myself, I find I'm MUCH more defensive when
challenged offlist. I _always_ ask why said conversation couldn't take place
onlist.
I think that you are in the minority in preferring to be criticized in
public, rather
At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the
appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to
be insulting,
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the
appearance of being a run with the
At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the
Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state
constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said
leave it to the
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally,
the
Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their
state
constitution that can counter the courts ruling.
At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after
it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate.
Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national
level: 7 years. Methinks you have your
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after
it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate.
Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a
At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly
than that.
Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years.
Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That
process can
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly
than that.
Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2
years.
Kevin Tarr posted the relevant
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and now New Paltz
Huh?
- jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 09:49 AM 2/28/04, Michael Harney wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally,
the
Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their
state
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and now New Paltz
Huh?
That made two of us . . .
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and now New Paltz
Huh?
That made two of us . . .
It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has
recently
At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and now New Paltz
Huh?
That made two of us . . .
It is a city in New York that has been in
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and now New Paltz
Huh?
That
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Tyranny
At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with you here
I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on
Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact.
We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the
stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It doesn't
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and now New Paltz
Huh?
That made two of us . . .
It is a city in New York that has been in the news.
At 04:50 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
If other
states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own
constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution.
I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any
State law or amendment to
At 11:13 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs.
Pennsylvania?
No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey
v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on
the
At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their
lack of
repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my
arguments and
opinions are not credible.
On the other hand, if I
- Original Message -
From: Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Tyranny
I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on
Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyhow, Casey vs. Pennsylvania was heard before essentially our current
Court, and basically upheld Roe vs. Wade.
This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down
Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart.
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: Tyranny
At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In other words, when
John wrote:
Au contraire, I very much have a live and let live attitude about this.
I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying
homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after.
I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions
by
From: Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robert Seeberger
I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L
and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that
*our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are
common to
David Hobby wrote:
They are. One of the justifications for the brazilian coup
d'etat in 1964 was that the then President had been the
Vice President for two periods, and since reelection of
the President was not allowed, he didn't have a legitimate
claim to Presidency. Also, when he fled the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back to my original comment. When I said that the Constitution
was meant to be interpreted, I mean that those who wrote it
obviously intended it to be interpreted. If they had really
wanted to pin the meanings down exactly,
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what civilization is he talking about? It must
be Western civilization,
because other civilizations, even today support, and
make it legally
possible to participate in other forms of
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection
of the laws.
And rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges.
So? (Note that I did not claim that the Equal Protection Clause
supported gay
Chad Cooper wrote:
2. What other culture allows same sex marriage? I'm
genuinely curious, not making a rhetorical point.
As far as I can track down so far, there are no third world
countries that
support gay marriage except for Argentina. Asia has a long
way to go...
This is not a
On 26 Feb 2004, at 9:00 pm, iaamoac wrote:
Then again, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - if
you genuinely want to positively change someone's behavior, you
contact them off-list. Otherwise you call them out in public, and
end up far more likely just putting them on the
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never said that, did I?
(What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials
was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back.
You kept using strawmen and ad hominem attacks.
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never said that, did I?
(What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials
was how you argued with me about terrorism
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:00:32 -
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED
iaamoac wrote:
...
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never said that, did I?
(What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials
was how you argued with me about terrorism a few months back.
You kept using strawmen and ad hominem
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Coffey wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never said that, did I?
(What gave me more reason to doubt your intellectual credentials
was how you argued with me about terrorism
At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the
appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to
be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately.
I am flabbergasted.
I am the only
At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote:
John D. Giorgis wrote:
For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the
oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to
frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition.
Tyrants are often not that
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I snipped the atribution of the statement below by
accident - I think it was Jon, though
Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be
interpreted.
Exactly.
Doug
Well, I mean look, it's not intuitively obvious that
the Equal Protection Clause
On 25 Feb 2004, at 12:48 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I snipped the atribution of the statement below by
accident - I think it was Jon, though
Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be
interpreted.
Exactly.
Doug
Well, I mean look, it's not
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the
appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to
be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading
From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For me, this is the most frivolous waste of time and tax money I
can
recall.
Have you forgotten the Flag Burning Amendment debate from a few
years ago already? This is exactly the same thing. A self-serving
political litmus test/trap created
Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment?
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property,
without due process of law;
Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San Francisco
performing gay marriages? I don't see how this applies.
I agree. It
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what civilization is he talking about? It must
be Western civilization,
because other civilizations, even today support, and
make it legally
possible to participate in other forms of marriage -
same sex, Polygamy,
etc.
Nerd From Hell
1. What is wrong
In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:49:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not prepared to
say that the city of San Francisco is right (although it is not a judge
who STARTED this process - that was the mayor of the city, a mayor
elected by the population), but I'm
-Original Message-
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:22 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Tyranny
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what civilization is he talking about? It must
be Western civilization,
because
- Original Message -
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: Tyranny
From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For me, this is the most frivolous waste of time and tax money I
can
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: Tyranny
At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using
technicalities is one of the oldest tools of politicians, instead.
They are. One of the justifications for the brazilian coup
d'etat in 1964 was that the then President had been
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I snipped the atribution of the statement below by
accident - I think it was Jon, though
Who believes that the Constitution is MEANT to be
interpreted.
It was mine, originally.
Well, I mean look, it's not intuitively
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 10:56 PM 2/24/2004 -0500 David Hobby wrote:
...
Are you talking about this part of the 14th Amendment?
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law;
Exactly WHO is being deprived of anything by San
For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the
oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to
frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition.
In the words of economsit Christopher Lingle:
some Asian regimes ran over unarmed students with
If anyone is wondering why conservatives are now rallying behind an
amendment to the federal constitution, it is because the courts can
clearly not be relied upon to uphold the rule of law.
Since when do two wrongs make a right? Since when does one iniquity (if
it is one, since it was and is
John D. Giorgis wrote:
For whatever it is worth, I would just like to point out that one of the
oldest tools of tyrants on the books is to rely upon technicalities to
frustrate and thwart their democratic opposition.
Tyrants are often not that subtle. I would hazard that using
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:17 PM
Subject: Tyranny
Moreover, I am shocked that on this List, of all places, where I
have
endured countless abuse as someone who has voted for a police
state
David wrote:
Oh. I thought it was to change the law, just in case it was decided
that the next clause:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
meant that gays had a right to marry too.
Damn, beat me by four minutes and fourty-seven seconds...
Who
Doug Pensinger wrote:
You know, when I witness the joy that the San Fransisco
initiative has brought to those that have hertofore been
unable to make their love for each other official (however
temporal it's legitimacy),it makes me wonder how on earth
good-hearted people can be against this
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You know, when I witness the joy that the San Fransisco initiative has
brought to those that have hertofore been unable to make their love for
each other official (however temporal it's legitimacy),it makes me
wonder
how on earth good-hearted
I thought the same sort of thing about the medical marijuana
issue, but plenty of people still found a way to oppose it.
Especially John Ashcroft, who believes in states' rights except when
the states want to do things he doesn't agree with.
Tom Beck
I always knew I'd see the first man on
97 matches
Mail list logo
