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
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 hav
> 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
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 no
> 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
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
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
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 prev
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.
>
>> Suffice to say, I have very real worries that
>> Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens,
>> Souter, and O'Conn
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,
- 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,
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 other
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 con
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
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
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! ;
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
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
>>respectab
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
> 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
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 cause me to want to make their s
> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. :)
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
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 t
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 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 disagre
- 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 Seeberge
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* o
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
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 gues
"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
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 k
> 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
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 d
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 supp
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.
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 pe
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 w
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 ...S
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> in
- 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]>
> 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. Carha
- 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
> >
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
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
>
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 amend
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
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
- 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: "Jo
> 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
> >
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
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
re
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
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
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and now New Paltz
Huh?
- jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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 t
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
proces
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
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 08:09 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 court
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 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
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
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
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 h
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
--- 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
--- 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
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:
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 defensi
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 s
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
--- 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
> suppo
--- 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 f
"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 anyth
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 obvious that
> the Equal Protection Clause
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
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> 2. What other culture allows same sex marriage? I'm
> genuinely curious, not making a rhetorical point.
> Western civilization is, so far as I can tell, almost
> uniquely tolerant of homosexuality (as with most other things).
>
I read somewhere that some br native culture
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 the
Vice President for two perio
- 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 hone
- 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
> -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 mu
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 D
--- [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 w
>
> 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
> 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 cr
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 "dittohea
On 25 Feb 2004, at 12:48 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 is meant to include gay
marriage.
Not to
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 is meant to include gay
marriage. It might be fair to interpret that way, but
i
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 ofte
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
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
> 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-hearte
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 t
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 belie
- 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 some
"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
technic
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
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
100 matches
Mail list logo
