Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 15:34, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/25/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So...why DO you think Iraq did not still have a chemical weapons program? Which part of when we invaded do you not understand??? They didn't have a program and they didn't have stockpiles -- when we invaded. Thus, as our dear leader said this morning, we never found any. The chemical weapons found are still dangerous NOW, let alone years ago at the invasion. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
Nick Arnett wrote: I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's exactly what he said: Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters. This would be the same speech in which he also said that 'we are winning', right? Ritu GSV Enemies of English ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 26/10/2006, at 1:30 PM, jdiebremse 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 to be a good-sized win. The people of New Jersey never voted for this law, nor did they ever vote for representatives in favor of this law, but they have this law anyways. The plaintiffs appealed to the courts that they were being denied rights already guaranteed them under the New Jersey constitution. Articles 1 and 5 of that document would cover it... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 25 Oct 2006 at 23:02, pencimen wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: Indeed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html One shell constitutes an active program??? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1163896/posts Looks like a right wing loony site. Can you find the same story from a reputable source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm (Yes, that particular stash had decayed...but only becuas the storage conditions hadn't been controlled...) Like this one: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3Chap2.pdf N - There is no evidence of any active Iraqi nuclear program. B-U.S. search teams have not uncovered any biological weapons or weaponized agents. C-No chemical weapons or programs found. They're lying. Period. Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
--- 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 this law, nor did they ever vote for representatives in favor of this law, but they have this law anyways. Huh? What law do you think you're referring to? The NJ courts ruled only that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state constitution, to the same benefits as other-gender couples. Which, of course, is just how the people of New Jersey drew it up, right? Furthermore the court held that same-gender couples cannot be called married -- yet I don't imagine you're outraged about that. I will say that slightly changes my opinion of this ruling - it was not clear to me from the initial reports I saw. But I guess I can understand how upset you must be to have to consider the possibility that gays and lesbians are *almost* as good as you. Yeah, that must be it.Thanks for the absolutely gratuitous personal insult.. Its just want I wanted in the morning If you're against gay marriage, don't have one. What doesn't the same logic apply?If you don't want a *marriage* in New Jersey, don't have one? But keep the hell off of others' rights, Which rights are those?As opposed to privileges? If the NJ Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples in New Jersey are entitled to the same benefits as marriage in New Jersey, but may not marry, then why isn't this ruling a question of privileges and not rights? Why doesn't the logic of this ruling also imply that a progressive income tax is similiarly unconstitutional? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
JDG wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: The NJ courts ruled only that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state constitution, to the same benefits as other-gender couples. Which, of course, is just how the people of New Jersey drew it up, right? Well, to be fair, homosexuality was not exactly a household term 200 years ago. And NJ is a pretty liberal state, so there's not been much more than a shrug here from most people so far. I'll try and keep my ear to the ground and keep everyone posted on what people have to say as the story unfolds, if you're interested. Furthermore the court held that same-gender couples cannot be called married -- yet I don't imagine you're outraged about that. I will say that slightly changes my opinion of this ruling - it was not clear to me from the initial reports I saw. My understanding is that the NJ SC kicked the matter of what to call same-gender couples back to the state legislature to decide. My gut feeling is that they will create some kind of civil union, but we'll have to wait and see. From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not a fan of calling it marriage, but that's my cross to bear, not others'. And I do believe that if you are going to decide that gay couples should have the kinds of spousal protections married couples have, then there *must* be some kind of legal binding document required to extend them, particularly if straight couples living together but not married will not be eligible for such rights. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're lying. Period. Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). Enlighten me. Why would they lie? And you're not really contradicting anything I said. You obviously know that there was no program and no stockpiles of useful weapons. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
Jim Sharkey wrote: ... From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not a fan of calling it marriage, but that's my cross to bear, not others'. Jim-- 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. ---David A rose by any other name, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 26/10/2006, at 11:59 PM, David Hobby wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: ... From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not a fan of calling it marriage, but that's my cross to bear, not others'. Jim-- 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. 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 to protect families and partners, and people who wish a traditional wedding (whatever that is) can arrange it with their place of worship or wherever they wish it, assuming that they subscribe to a belief system that doesn't discriminate against those who happen to be in a loving relationship with someone of the same gender. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]
On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Did you catch the long ponytail? Just how far in the future is he from? Considering how well he spoke English, he would have to be from pretty far in the future, I'd think. Actually, I don't think a adult native Japanese speaker would EVER be able to speak English that well without an accent but that's just being nitpicky and I'm willing to over look 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 unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On Behalf Of Andrew Crystall Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). I'm not sure I really want to get involved in this but... Is that really the most reliable of information sources? You heard it from a friend of a friend? That's how urban legends get started and passed around. We've got a lot of troops in Iraq. I'm sure there are a lot of rumors being passed around. That's the nature of warfare. Besides, if there are NBC being found, only a very small percentage of them would be involved. The rest would be getting it second/third/fourth-hand. I'm sure those soldiers who are telling these stories believe it but that doesn't mean it is true. I'd think that the Bush administration would be trumpeting these finds for all they are worth if they really were there... - 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 unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
IMHO I'm of the opinion that the government should get out of the marriage business PERIOD. As far as the government is concerned, they are ALL civil unions, straight or gay. This way you can call it whatever the heck you want... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:59:55 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ Jim Sharkey wrote: ... From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay couples similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not a fan of calling it marriage, but that's my cross to bear, not others'. Jim-- 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. ---David A rose by any other name, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay Unions in NJ
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jdiebremse Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:31 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ 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 to be a good-sized win. It has been in the past. Constitutional rights exist as a restraint on the majority. It doesn't always work properly, because of bad faith (for example the Supreme Court approval of the internment of Japanese citizens in WWII), but constitutional rights are intended to be a restraint on the majority. I can understand why people are upset with court interpretations that go against their understanding of what is right and proper. My memory of this goes back to Impeach Earl Warren. Fortunately, for the US, this didn't happen. If Frankfurter had taken a stand against internment, I have a hunch he would have been at least as unpopularand the possibility of impeachment would, IMHO, have been larger than the risk Warren faced. But, this doesn't make the Supreme Court right in every case, of course. I tend to agree that the right to abortion up until birth is not in the Constitution. I don't want to restart that debate here, but just to indicate that I don't think you are totally wrong. Also, as an aside, your view sounds very much like the view of a Log Cabin Republican friend of mine. I know he isn't homophobic :-), and my guess is that you are not either. I don't see it in your poststhe implied caveat in my statement is a reflection of not actually being around you in RL. Many people have attributed the entrenchment of anti-abortion activism in this country to the fact that abortion was not legalized through democratic processes in the United States, as it was in most other democracies. As my arguments elsewhere indicate, the US is somewhat different in how it system works I can't help but wonder if the same thing isn't happening here I'm an experimentalist. To answer this question, I looked for polls that go back before the Mass. Supreme Court ruling, and looked for the trends after that. I looked at two questions: civil unions and marriage. On Gay Marriage being legal, we have from Pew Research: For Against 7/06 35 56 6/06 33 55 3/06 39 51 7/05 36 53 12/04 32 61 8/04 29 60 6/04 32 56 3/04 32 59 2/04 30 63 11/03 30 62 10/03 30 58 On Civil Unions, we have: For Against 7/06 54 42 7/05 53 40 8/04 48 45 7/04 49 43 3/04 49 44 10/03 45 47 It seems clear to me that there is a slight trend towards accepting gay marriages (averaging the three earliest and three latest polls we 30 +/-1.4% vs. 35.7 +/- 1.4%...almost a 3-signma signal (assuming errors are statistical). There is also a clear trend in accepting civil unions. As far as SD goes, it's not as clear because there aren't as many independent polls, but a 9 point shift is significant with a 2.5% statistical error. Looking down, I found a poll which does not indicate quite as serious a shift, and another that shows a similar shift. I found none that show opinion swinging in the other direction. IIRC, there is a strong demographic component to this, with people over 55 being the most likely to oppose gay civil unions and marriages. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay Unions in NJ
I gotta tell you, being from NJ originally, this subject line has me thinking: the Mafia is really changed a lot since I've been gone from Jersey. - 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 unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jonathan
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:16 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
Almost missed this to respond to...
On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:59 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- 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 anything I conjured - especially the Katrina fiasco.
Oh, that's because the Katrina fiasco was the fault of:
A) A Republican President
B) A Democratic Governor of Louisiana
C) A Democratic Mayor of New Orleans
D) All of the Above
Good Grief!
JDG
The answer is D obviously, but it's in the mix that truth cuts the
wet mud from dried blood.
The storm hit was an event. The pre-loading {and lack} of plans and
preps were seriously hampered by the policies of this administration
from abstract thinking to executive codecs. These process and players
compounded the problems once the storm hit and remained unable to
perform the jobs they were ostensibly given. How the job gets done
is the Executive prerogative and now we have seen several whoppers from
this laugh-machine. This is where GwB Co finally killed the hope
Americans still held out for their leadership and marks the domestic
downfall. This was a clear trust broken and obfuscations like the list
above have not changed public opinion on this topic, has it?
But, is that really obfuscation? I think Bush et. al. has shown the
arrogance of incompetence in their planning for and their response to the
disaster. I think that Louisiana and New Orleans' governmental responses
were consistent with my understanding of how they would do: badly. The
corruption in New Orleans and in La is a long standing, bi-partisan
tradition. They must also bear responsibility for the problem.
Now, I cannot do much if New Orleans wants to reelect the Mayor who had a
half assed plan to evacuate the poor for a disaster he knew was coming...and
hoped it wasn't on his watch.
I think it is fair to say a pox on all your houses with respect to the
leadership at the city, state, and local level. Comparing the response of
the local level to 9-11 in NYC, to Katrina, criticism of the La response
seems very justified.
What I think cannot be done is make a generalization towards what other
Republican administrations might do. I think that, if we elect Giuliani or
McCain as president, we would see a much better run FEMA than we have now.
I'm not going to base my vote in the next Presidential election on GWB's
incompetenceI think that blind arrogant incompetence should not be
expected from these GOP front runners. So, Bush is fair game for strong
criticism..he blew it. But, I don't think that it should be a broad brush,
tarring all Republicans. Heck, the older President Bush would have done much
betterhe did do a much better job with FEMA than his son.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
Am I the only one who, when I saw the original message in this thread, thought it referred to labor organizations for homosexuals? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 7:02, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're lying. Period. Iraq had Saran, at the VERY least. They're *STILL* finding dangerous Saran shells (and I wish like heck that some of the so-called news reporters wouls say something about it..I talk to friends of American soliders out there for the real news, tbh). Enlighten me. Why would they lie? And you're not really contradicting anything I said. You obviously know that there was no program and no stockpiles of useful weapons. You are speaking in my name. Don't. There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Yes, 2 1/2 years down the line the seals used in the style of binary shells the Iraquis used, absent controlled storage, will have decayded and then they rapidly become useless. And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. And that's just what what has been FOUND. A hole in the desert is secure and cheap. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. Have you notified the White House? I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that they don't know what's going on in Iraq with regard to chemical weapons. There might be a reward! Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 13:14, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. Have you notified the White House? I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that they don't know what's going on in Iraq with regard to chemical weapons. There might be a reward! How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point! .. Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them. Have fun with your crackpot conspiracy theories, with Jonathon over there. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
Dave Land wrote: Am I the only one who, when I saw the original message in this thread, thought it referred to labor organizations for homosexuals? 1) Apparently not, someone else commented. 2) But I knew what it was talking about because I'd seen something about it from a friend who is extremely interested in that. If I hadn't been aware already, I might have thought that. Or not. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
Don't know how that could be since IIRC the domestic steel industry has been non-operational for years... Damon and his pop references... Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:45:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ Am I the only one who, when I saw the original message in this thread, thought it referred to labor organizations for homosexuals? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point! Read it? I've posted it. And my satire of Bush's idea that it was not encouraging that we didn't find any WMDs (or NBCs, if you wish) is not some politician's spin. It's mine, dammit, mine! I wrote it all by myself! Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them. I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that Iraq had either an active chemical weapons program or stockpiles of usable chemical weapons when we invaded. And they certainly haven't built any since then. A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. official has interpreted these discoveries as evidence that there was a chemical weapons program or stockpiles when we invaded, now have they? Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those people are wrong, especially when there are so many who would find it encouraging to find such evidence. You have quite an uphill battle there -- at least it seems that way to this idiot. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
Damon wrote: Don't know how that could be since IIRC the domestic steel industry has been non-operational for years... I'm embarrassed that I didn't think of this first. Jim D'Oh! Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 14:09, Nick Arnett wrote: I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, Lies. PLAIN LIES. You ARE denying it, and leftover warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right. especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. No. You don't GET duds with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. No, they are almost certainly are NOT. That is pure political spin at odds with rational analysis of the evidence. Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. And by the way, there seems to be a lack of response to list commands on the website. In about an hour I'll just go ahead and blacklist it anyway. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
If the rounds are NOT duds, it would be easy to verify if there were no rifling marks around the driver band...can y'all provide evidence of that? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:09:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging! On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How you bothered to actually read the evidence rather than taking the politicans spin? There might be some actual material proving my point! Read it? I've posted it. And my satire of Bush's idea that it was not encouraging that we didn't find any WMDs (or NBCs, if you wish) is not some politician's spin. It's mine, dammit, mine! I wrote it all by myself! Stuff this, I don't need this list where idiots like YOU are going to deny that sarin shells have been found in Iraq despite EVERY piece of evidence and multiple declassified documents from the US Government refering to them. I haven't denied that. I've just refused to leap to the conclusion that Iraq had either an active chemical weapons program or stockpiles of usable chemical weapons when we invaded. And they certainly haven't built any since then. A couple of leftover warheads with sarin hardly constitutes a stockpile, especially since Iraq launched lots of them against the Kurds, many of which undoubtedly were duds and are sitting around in the desert until somebody finds them and (a) disposes of them or (b) tries to use them against their enemies. Leftover duds, as I'm sure you know if you've read the documents about this, are almost certainly the source of the ones that have been found. No U.S. official has interpreted these discoveries as evidence that there was a chemical weapons program or stockpiles when we invaded, now have they? Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those people are wrong, especially when there are so many who would find it encouraging to find such evidence. You have quite an uphill battle there -- at least it seems that way to this idiot. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27/10/2006, at 5:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. Yes, 2 1/2 years down the line the seals used in the style of binary shells the Iraquis used, absent controlled storage, will have decayded and then they rapidly become useless. And there are no outright lies. I never said there were. They're lying. Period What I actually said was that the fact over 700-800 shells with chemical weapon traces, more than the number which were believed he held (400- 500) is somehow NOT considered very newsworthy. It's not newsworthy if noone can verify it. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Andrew, calm down. Equating doubt about your unconventional claims about the level of Saddam's weapons stockpile with holocaust denial is just disgraceful. It's not on at all. There aren't any denialists here, just people who doubt evidence that you keep claiming but haven't provided clear evidence for. You keep saying it's there, you desperately want to believe it, but you haven't shown the evidence that'll convince many of the critical thinkers here. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You ARE denying it, and leftover warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old non-working warheads as a stockpile. Must be in this pile of old and degraded documents on my desk somewhere. Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent, said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives. ... A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions 'in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for.' Let's see... the invasion took place in 2003. Those weapons were build before 1991. Close enough! Obviously they had an active chemical weapons program and stockpiles of chemical weapons. What's a decade or so difference when we're at war against terror? And who cares if they DON'T WORK, the point is... what's the point? Oh, wait a second. Which invasion were YOU talking about? I meant the most recent one. No. You don't GET duds with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent. Cite, please. Those rounds were not built in 2004, they were from the '80s. Mixed? As far as I can see, all the rounds we have found are binary -- the precursors don't get mixed until the weapon is detonated. And since, as the Pentagon said, these warheads were non-functional, how would they have gotten mixed? Where are you getting these allegations? Or did you zip off to Iraq and have a look yourself? From the Christian Science Monitor, after one of the shells was used in an IED two years ago (which was the most recent time anything like this showed up as any sort of weapon): What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED) last week in Baghdad. If the 155-mm shell was a dud fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq. ... The key to whether the sarin artillery round came from an arms cache or was a derelict dud rests in the physical characteristics of the shell. The artillery shells in question were fitted with two aluminum cannisters separated by a rupture disk. The two precursor chemicals for the kind of sarin associated with this shell were stored separately in these containers. The thrust of the shell being fired was designed to cause the liquid in the forward cannister to press back and break the rupture disk, whereupon the rotation of the shell as it headed downrange would mix the two precursors together, creating sarin. Upon impact with the ground - or in the air, if a timed fuse was used - a burster charge would break the shell, releasing the sarin gas. Many things go wrong when firing an artillery round: the propellent charge can be faulty, resulting in a round that doesn't reach its target; the fuse can malfunction, preventing the burster charge from going off, leaving the round intact; the rupture disk can fail to burst, keeping precursor chemicals from combining. The fuse could break off on impact, leaving the fuse cavity empty. To the untrained eye, the artillery shell, if found in this state, would look weathered, but unfired. Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Oh, look, we just DID get there. Please close that door yourself, since you opened it. I'll take it as the traditional Internet signal of rhetorical desperation. You, you, you -- Nazi! I win!!! Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. No, no, no. That was a Saran shell, filled with plastic wrap that explosively unrolls and smothers people. I got it all mixed up with Sarin, which is not actually a kind of plastic wrap, but is a cholinesterase inhibitor, if I remember my biochemistry. Not too surprising to confuse the two, since you'll find both under many kitchen sinks. Really. A lot of insecticides are cholinesterase inhibitors. That's why (seriously) we had a false alarm about chemical weapons in what turned out to be a mobile agricultural vehicle. Sarin is sort of super-duper Parathion in gas form. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27 Oct 2006 at 8:52, Charlie Bell wrote: On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all those Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Andrew, calm down. Equating doubt about your unconventional claims Charlie, piss off. about the level of Saddam's weapons stockpile with holocaust denial is just disgraceful. It's not on at all. No, it's RIGHT up there. Denial of rational facts because of a belief bias which prevents you from listening to the evidence. Same goat, same goat. (If you want a *real* flamestorm, I recently stated on a MMO forum that there was no difference between the rights of the RIAA to restrict digital music distribution and the rights of MMO makers to restrict real-money trade of their in-game currency and goods). There aren't any denialists here, just people who doubt evidence that you keep claiming but haven't provided clear evidence for. You keep Again, read the links. People talking rubbish about the rounds, when the rounds were BINARY, and rounds from the same era had seals which were, verifyably from the roadside incidents, still intact as late as early 2004. saying it's there, you desperately want to believe it, but you haven't shown the evidence that'll convince many of the critical thinkers here. Critical? You're mush-heads who can't believe simply FACTS when they're put before you, trying desperately to YOUR belief that Saddam had no NBC weapons and no willingness to use them. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 15:56, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You ARE denying it, and leftover warheads, right. Over FIVE HUNDRED leftover warheads, right. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed the memo that said we get to count degraded old non-working warheads as a stockpile. Must be in this pile of old and degraded documents on my desk somewhere. B-I-N-A-R-Y. Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons Yes. And several hundred more since then. That's NOT an insignificant number, as you keep on claiming. Let's see... the invasion took place in 2003. Those weapons were build before 1991. Close enough! Obviously they had an active chemical weapons program and stockpiles of chemical weapons. What's a decade or so difference when we're at war against terror? And who cares if they DON'T WORK, the point is... what's the point? Who cares if you can't be bothered to read that shells from the SAME era were active as late as early 2004, and used in roadside bombs. As soon as the chemicals mix, the Sarin itself will degrade inside a month - more realistically, given the likely purity of the Sarin, three weeks. No. You don't GET duds with binary Sarin rounds. The two used for roadside bombs in 2004 were still un-mixed, and very dangerous. Other rounds from the same era, in 2004, would of been the same. Yes, more recently they've found hundreds of similar rounds, mixed and since degraded. Given Iraq's sarin would have a life of no more than three weeks after mixing and the fact the seals between the portions had degraded...that degredation looks relatively (post-invasion) recent. -- the precursors don't get mixed until the weapon is detonated. And since, as the Pentagon said, these warheads were non-functional, how would they have gotten mixed? Where are you getting these allegations? Or did you zip off to Iraq and have a look yourself? They are non-functional BECAUSE the seals degraded and the chemicals mixed (or the shells cracked..which frankly is unbelieveable for that many rounds). The precursors are stable chemicals which have a shelf life of decades, however the canisters used to seal the chemical chambers away from each other, again, degrade. What makes this relevant now is the ongoing speculation about the source of the sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an ONE shell. Not 500. The origion of most of the shells is clear, and they were not duds. Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Oh, look, we just DID get there. Please close that door yourself, since you opened it. I'll take it as the traditional Internet signal of rhetorical desperation. You, you, you -- Nazi! I win!!! Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up there with Won't someone think of the children.) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:03, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*, Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes. Once, as far as I can find. No, no, no. That was a Saran shell, filled with plastic wrap that I'm dyslexic. The words let and gost come to mind. (No, really!). AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up there with Won't someone think of the children.) Hmmm. You'd have me believe that you've been immunized against satire detection? See, I was making fun of your mention of the Holocaust, which has Nazi associations (many references widely available). It was satire -- like irony, but with the knob twisted toward the fluff setting. I'll just say that in the context of Bush's remarks yesterday, I don't find the discovery of some corroded, decaying, non-working chemical weapons from the 1980s, which failed to seriously injure anyonw when used in an IED two years ago, to be the least bit encouraging. They just don't compare to the 122mm rocket that blew Wes to smithereens in Fallujah. Now that's encouraging. (Hint -- satire again.) Enough. Nick (thinking of children even now) -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who REALLY supports the troops
--- 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 what you get? Talked to any veterans or veterans organizations lately? Visited a VA hospital to hear the staff and patients say how incredibly pissed off they are at Congress lately? Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. So much for well-reasoned Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA benefits. During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is that spin? Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/ http://www.iavaaction.org/ Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a problem by how much you spend on it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Katrina Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
--- 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 from Amsterdam, but the actual blooded tragedy list
out-does anything I conjured - especially the Katrina fiasco.
Oh, that's because the Katrina fiasco was the fault of:
A) A Republican President
B) A Democratic Governor of Louisiana
C) A Democratic Mayor of New Orleans
D) All of the Above
Good Grief!
JDG
The answer is D obviously, but it's in the mix that truth cuts the
wet mud from dried blood.
The storm hit was an event. The pre-loading {and lack} of plans and
preps were seriously hampered by the policies of this administration
from abstract thinking to executive codecs.
So, do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to
develop evacuation and disaster response plans for every city and every
State in the Union? What level of responsibility do you think that the
individual cities and States have?
The current mayor is actually a Democrat in name only. He switched
from a lifetime Republican registration {he has been a broadcast
executive} to D in order to harness the local political machinery.
That's an urban legend. Mayor Nagin claims to be a lifelong Democrat.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 26 Oct 2006 at 16:40, Nick Arnett wrote: On 10/26/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well done, you trumped yourself. I never said it, you did. People REALLY need to think before invoking Godwin's law. It also proves my point - Godwin's law is itself a paranoid conspiracy meme. (Right up there with Won't someone think of the children.) Hmmm. You'd have me believe that you've been immunized against satire detection? About the 1001th time you see Godwins Law gets invoked, it's no longer funny, it's a tired old conspiracy meme, misused as badly as rhe moral majority's won't someone think of the children / for the children meme. See, I was making fun of your mention of the Holocaust, which has Nazi associations (many references widely available). It was satire -- like irony, but with the knob twisted toward the fluff setting. I probbaly get irony about toxins better when the house's contract holder's not going to try to poison me with an unknown insecticide. Litterally. I'll just say that in the context of Bush's remarks yesterday, I don't find the discovery of some corroded, decaying, non-working chemical weapons from Which were still functional as of 2004...the precursors can survive a LONG time. My real post-war fear, tbh, was that a bunch of coalition troops would discover an old active Sarin shell the hard way... Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who REALLY supports the troops
On 10/26/06, jdiebremse [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? Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA benefits. During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is that spin? Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/ http://www.iavaaction.org/ Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a problem by how much you spend on it. Oh. My. Goodness. I'd like to see how long you'd survive with the family of a soldier who has a traumatic brain injury when you defend the GOP senators' votes against funding research into those types of injuries. Oh, it's not that we don't care that thousands and thousands of you have received traumatic brain injuries in Iraq. It's just that we're opposed to paying for research into how to treat you best. Because, you know, how much we spend on that research doesn't show how much we care. We care so much that we're willing to spend a great deal on yellow ribbons for our cars... and remember, we've set aside $20 million for a victory party in Washington when we win in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's how much we in the GOP care about you, the brain-injured veteran. Unbelievable. Start a war and cut the veterans' benefits, vote against research into the new kind of injuries that have become most common, raise the fees and copayments to make the vets shoulder even more of the costs... and justify it by arguing that how much we spend on veterans is friggin' IRRELEVANT? Better look over your shoulder when you make that argument... there are some well-trained, combat-experienced people who will take deep offense. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm Excerpt: I find it basically unpardonable that Congress is not going to provide funds to take care of our soldiers and sailors who put their lives on the line for their country, says Martin Foil, a member of the center's board of directors. It blows my imagination. The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding war-related brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war — from $6.5 million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a tight budget this year. Honestly, they would have loved to have funded it, but there were just so many priorities, says Jenny Manley, spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee. They didn't have any flexibility in such a tight fiscal year. George Zitnay, co-founder of the center, testified before a Senate subcommittee in May that body armor saves troops caught in blasts but leaves many with brain damage. Traumatic brain injury is the signature injury of the war on terrorism, he testified. Zitnay asked for $19 million, and 34 Democratic and six Republican members of Congress signed a letter endorsing the budget request. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]
--- 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? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
--- 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 to protect families and partners, and people who wish a traditional wedding (whatever that is) can arrange it with their place of worship or wherever they wish it, assuming that they subscribe to a belief system that doesn't discriminate against those who happen to be in a loving relationship with someone of the same gender. and --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO I'm of the opinion that the government should get out of the marriage business PERIOD. As far as the government is concerned, they are ALL civil unions, straight or gay. This way you can call it whatever the heck you want... An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal marriage isn't going to be a wildly popular idea JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
--- 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 to be a good-sized win. It has been in the past. Constitutional rights exist as a restraint on the majority. It doesn't always work properly, because of bad faith (for example the Supreme Court approval of the internment of Japanese citizens in WWII), but constitutional rights are intended to be a restraint on the majority. Yes, but what is the origin of constitutional rights? Constituional rights do not come straight out of the ether. After all, what constitutes a constitutional right in the United States is far different from what constitutes a constitutional right in the UK, or in the EU, or in Canada or Australia. Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process, by the majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority. So, the question is, do constitutional rights drafted in a democratic process actually *mean anything* - or are they wholly subject to the whims of interpretation?If elites can simply decide that a constitution says whatever it wants it to say, do we really have a rule of law? Or do we simply have a modified oligarchy? Also, as an aside, your view sounds very much like the view of a Log Cabin Republican friend of mine. I know he isn't homophobic :-), and my guess is that you are not either. I don't see it in your poststhe implied caveat in my statement is a reflection of not actually being around you in RL. Thank you for not subjecting me to the all-too-typical homophobia charge that I am usually subjected to. The ironic thing is that if I were a member of the New Jersey State Legislature, I would probably vote for a bill that rather closely resembles this decision. I am aghast, however, at the way this decision was handed down Looking down, I found a poll which does not indicate quite as serious a shift, and another that shows a similar shift. I found none that show opinion swinging in the other direction. My point was not about creating majority opposition to gay marriage it was about creating an inspired, activist, core minority. JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last questions ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:36 AM Subject: RE: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23] Considering how well he spoke English, he would have to be from pretty far in the future, I'd think. Actually, I don't think a adult native Japanese speaker would EVER be able to speak English that well without an accent but that's just being nitpicky and I'm willing to over look that. Looks to be appx. 18 to 24 months of hair growth. But *when* he quite getting it cut is key. I agree about the lack of accent. Seems to be a bit of a fluke. xponent Clues Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
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. Regarding rights vs. privileges, I'm not sure I understand the difference, especially since one of dictionary.com's definitions of privilege is: any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government If you could expand upon what you meant by why isn't this ruling a question of privileges and not rights? maybe I'd take you up on it, though I can't promise anything. I'm not quite as into politics as most of our compatriots. 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 the question, but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 10/25/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get what you want to be a good-sized win. The people of New Jersey never voted for this law, nor did they ever vote for representatives in favor of this law, but they have this law anyways. Yeah! Courts -- undemocratic as hell. Whaddya say we start a movement to get rid of them? What the heck were they thinking when they created a branch of government that isn't democratic? That's just obviously wrong, isn't it? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that there is no place in a democracy for judges. I hear that in the emerging democracy Iraq, they just shoot them. I'm not sure if they take a vote first, but I'll bet they do. Oh, for the good old days, when a group of decent citizens could assemble themselves and hold a nice democratic vote to punish evil-doers. Whole towns used to do it. And it was quick, too. No money wasted on court bureaucracies and delays. Just somebody's rope and a tree. Or some tar and feathers, which usually were donated, the way I read about it. Imagine how quickly we could have been done with that Enron business. Who's with me? Nick (If I don't make fun of it, I don't know what I'd do.) -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
At 08:41 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, 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 the question, but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant. Jim Finite amount of time in the day, perhaps? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Finite amount of time in the day, perhaps? What, you don't have your own TARDIS? :-p Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Katrina Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
- Original Message -
From: jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: Katrina Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
--- 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 from Amsterdam, but the actual blooded tragedy list
out-does anything I conjured - especially the Katrina fiasco.
Oh, that's because the Katrina fiasco was the fault of:
A) A Republican President
B) A Democratic Governor of Louisiana
C) A Democratic Mayor of New Orleans
D) All of the Above
Good Grief!
JDG
The answer is D obviously, but it's in the mix that truth cuts the
wet mud from dried blood.
The storm hit was an event. The pre-loading {and lack} of plans and
preps were seriously hampered by the policies of this administration
from abstract thinking to executive codecs.
So, do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to
develop evacuation and disaster response plans for every city and
every
State in the Union? What level of responsibility do you think that
the
individual cities and States have?
The current mayor is actually a Democrat in name only. He switched
from a lifetime Republican registration {he has been a broadcast
executive} to D in order to harness the local political machinery.
That's an urban legend. Mayor Nagin claims to be a lifelong
Democrat.
JDG
***
True!
From Wikipedia:
Nagin (pronounced NAY-ghin) was born in New Orleans, Louisiana to a
Creole family. He spent his early years in the Seventh Ward, until his
family moved to the New Aurora section of Algiers in the early 1970s.
He graduated from O. Perry Walker High School [citation needed] and
received a BS in Accounting from Tuskegee University in Tuskegee,
Alabama in 1978 and an MBA from Tulane University in 1994. He and his
wife, Seletha Smith Nagin, have three children; Jeremy, Jarin, and
Tianna.
Before his election in 2002, Nagin had never held public office; he
was a vice president and general manager at Cox Communications, a
cable company and subsidiary of Cox Enterprises. Several news sources,
including BBC News and numerous blogs and editorials[1][2][3] have
stated that Nagin was a registered Republican for most of his adult
life, switching to the Democratic Party shortly before seeking office
[1][2]. In a January 13, 2006 interview on the Tavis Smiley show,
Nagin himself denied these rumors, stating that he never was a
Republican and that he has been a life-long Democrat,[4] and
several of the news sources reporting that he was a Republican have
since issued retractions. [5] He did give contributions periodically
to candidates of both parties, including Republican President George
W. Bush [6] and Representative Billy Tauzin in 1999 and 2000, as well
as Democratic Senators John Breaux and J. Bennett Johnston, Jr.
earlier in the decade.
**
xponent
Research Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
At 09:30 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Finite amount of time in the day, perhaps? What, you don't have your own TARDIS? :-p Jim I thought I did, but it turns out that the crescent moon symbol on the door meant something else . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:37 PM Subject: Re: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23] - Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:36 AM Subject: RE: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23] Considering how well he spoke English, he would have to be from pretty far in the future, I'd think. Actually, I don't think a adult native Japanese speaker would EVER be able to speak English that well without an accent but that's just being nitpicky and I'm willing to over look that. Looks to be appx. 18 to 24 months of hair growth. But *when* he quite getting it cut is key. I agree about the lack of accent. Seems to be a bit of a fluke. I noticed something else while rewatching mondays episode tonight. Hiro holds his left arm across his stomach with his fist clenched loosely during the entire scene, never moving it at all, as if it were broken or somehow injured. Perhaps a hint of events to come? xponent Details Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 10/26/2006 10:12:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 09:30 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Finite amount of time in the day, perhaps? What, you don't have your own TARDIS? :-p Jim I thought I did, but it turns out that the crescent moon symbol on the door meant something else . . . That is a TURDIS. They sell 'em at Wal-Mart xponent Obvious Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 27 Oct 2006, at 2:41AM, 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 the question, but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant. I ignore many that are just too silly to waste time over. Other things to do Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I speak better English than this villain Bush - Mohammed Saeed al- Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
At 10:30 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: On 10/26/2006 10:12:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: At 09:30 PM Thursday 10/26/2006, Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Finite amount of time in the day, perhaps? What, you don't have your own TARDIS? :-p Jim I thought I did, but it turns out that the crescent moon symbol on the door meant something else . . . That is a TURDIS. They sell 'em at Wal-Mart I just got back from Wal-Mart and I didn't see any. (Though I did see some black roses for Hallowe'en.) xponent Obvious Maru rob So obvious I decided not to mention it. (At least not again.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 27/10/2006, at 11:01 AM, jdiebremse 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. Make the legal agreement that allows for joint ownership, automatic powers-of-attorney, visiting rights, protection of children just that - a legal contract. You can sign it at the end of a church wedding, or in a hall, or in a lawyer's office. Just a contract. Civil unions for any two people who wish to organise their affairs that way. If you want a wedding you can have it, but it won't automatically confer the legal rights. That way, any religious ceremony or none at all can be held, which has meaning to the couple. Churches can protect their marriage in the eyes of the Lord by offering weddings to heterosexual couples and not anyone else if they choose. Marriage will mean exactly what it always has, which is exactly what the two married people think it means to them and no more. Australia has gone part of the way - marriage no longer automatically confers a name change for a female partner. Not far enough though. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
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 which prevailed were those of the majority, especially those on separations of religious establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the time... JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last questions 'cause I'm abortioned out. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay Unions in NJ
On 27/10/2006, at 11:41 AM, 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 the question, but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant. Lack of interest in pursuing that line, unwillingness to split the thread, lack of time to answer all details of a thread, meaning to reply to it later but the discussion moves on, or just forgetfulness. I never take it as a snub. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
On 27/10/2006, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression, from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as paranoia progresses. Seen it all before, in formerly rational people. Andrew, calm down. Equating doubt about your unconventional claims Charlie, piss off. No. about the level of Saddam's weapons stockpile with holocaust denial is just disgraceful. It's not on at all. No, it's RIGHT up there. Denial of rational facts because of a belief bias which prevents you from listening to the evidence. Same goat, same goat. Uh huh. Who's being rational? Disagreement is not denial. (If you want a *real* flamestorm, I recently stated on a MMO forum that there was no difference between the rights of the RIAA to restrict digital music distribution and the rights of MMO makers to restrict real-money trade of their in-game currency and goods). That's arguable. But why are you determined to start a flame storm? You can *talk* on this forum. You might think we're being stupid or whatever, but you can convince most people with the right evidence. I just haven't been convinced so far that the evidence you've provided justifies your viewpoint to me. There aren't any denialists here, just people who doubt evidence that you keep claiming but haven't provided clear evidence for. You keep Again, read the links. People talking rubbish about the rounds, when the rounds were BINARY, and rounds from the same era had seals which were, verifyably from the roadside incidents, still intact as late as early 2004. That doesn't actually take the discussion further. That they had seals intact in 2004 says nothing about where they were made or stored, or when, or indeed if they were retooled misfires that were found. We still find unexploded and dangerous WW2 ordinance in the East End now and again. Proof that Germany has an active war against the Allies, indeed... saying it's there, you desperately want to believe it, but you haven't shown the evidence that'll convince many of the critical thinkers here. Critical? You're mush-heads who can't believe simply FACTS when they're put before you, trying desperately to YOUR belief that Saddam had no NBC weapons and no willingness to use them. Not what I've said at all. I'm just disagreeing with your interpretation and reasoning. I don't think there were no weapons at all, I just think the scope and threat was greatly exaggerated by the US Administration, and that Saddam could've been kept as he was until the job in Afghanistan was done. He was so tied up with the increasing weapons inspections he couldn't do much. As it is, we now have two complete clusterfucks, one on each side of an already theocratic fundamentalist state, and much bolder extremists all over the area as Hizbollah's escalation showed. Frankly, I'm glad to be out of the region. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
