Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: [RLC-Action] Re: Bill of Rights

Expand Messages
  • David Johnson
    ... I m sorry for you take such great offense at differences of opinion.
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 19 3:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > It just hit me that I don't want any part of any group that would have
      > this, whatever he is, as a member. Good luck to you all, but I am done
      > with the RLCFL and the RLC.

      I'm sorry for you take such great offense at differences of opinion.
    • Chris Edes
      I think what Bill is saying is not that pro-freedom discussions aren t good things, but that discussions belong on the RLC-Discuss list, hence the name, not on
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 19 3:28 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I think what Bill is saying is not that pro-freedom discussions aren't good things, but that discussions belong on the RLC-Discuss list, hence the name, not on the RLC-Action list, which is for action items.  "End the deception" is not an action item, it's a long term goal.

        Chris

        It just hit me that I don't want any part of any group that would have this, whatever he is, as a member.  Good luck to you all, but I am done with the RLCFL and the RLC.

        John Conway.
        ----- Forwarded Message ----
        From: "westmiller@..." <westmiller@...>
        To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:09:36 PM
        Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Bill of Rights

        Posted by: "John Conway"
        > The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
        > Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution! !!
         
            I don't get the point (every proposed amendment has a preamble, which is not the text to be added or amended), but this kind of commentary doesn't belong on RLC-Action in any case.
         
        Bill
      • Sarah Lovett
        John, I am sure Bill meant no offense. I guess I could see where this information leads to an arguement for originalism or justice and governance as meant by
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 19 9:18 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          John, 

          I am sure Bill meant no offense. I guess I could see where this information leads to an arguement for "originalism" or justice and governance as meant by those that had escaped tyranny. I know we have very few judges that rule based on this philosophy. I think many get confused and think the constitution written by men would be imperfect and are complicated, complex lives need more governance. But usually it is not.  Let's not get hasty, we need ideas and input from everyone, and for convience we have set up different forums. So what can the RLC poosibly do to help 
          Not only preserve the constitution but ensure originalism Is restored the standard not the exception!   If u are going to quit, might as well come to Jax at the Convention, at 
          Sarah 
          Sent from my iPhone

          On Mar 19, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Chris Edes <chrisedes@...> wrote:

          I think what Bill is saying is not that pro-freedom discussions aren't good things, but that discussions belong on the RLC-Discuss list, hence the name, not on the RLC-Action list, which is for action items.  "End the deception" is not an action item, it's a long term goal.

          Chris

          It just hit me that I don't want any part of any group that would have this, whatever he is, as a member.  Good luck to you all, but I am done with the RLCFL and the RLC.

          John Conway.
          ----- Forwarded Message ----
          From: "westmiller@ aol.com" <westmiller@aol. com>
          To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
          Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 2:09:36 PM
          Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Bill of Rights

          Posted by: "John Conway"
          > The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
          > Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution! !!
           
              I don't get the point (every proposed amendment has a preamble, which is not the text to be added or amended), but this kind of commentary doesn't belong on RLC-Action in any case.
           
          Bill

        • DGHarrison
          The simplest explanation for Bill s post was that RLC-Action is not for discussing political philosophy but -- TA DAAAA! -- for discussing action items. There
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 20 10:25 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            The simplest explanation for Bill's post was that RLC-Action is not for
            discussing political philosophy but -- TA DAAAA! -- for discussing
            action items. There is a forum (which I left some time ago because of
            the "angels and pinheads" discussions) called RLC-Discuss (or some
            such). That's where the Bill of Rights discussion should be taken.
            RLC-Action is not for discussing pinheads.

            Doug Harrison
            Minnesota


            --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
          • Dave Nalle
            Did I read this right? He s quitting because Bill told him he d posted his endless screed to the wrong list? I thought Conway was made of sterner stuff than
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 20 10:35 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Did I read this right? He's quitting because Bill told him he'd
              posted his endless screed to the wrong list? I thought Conway was
              made of sterner stuff than that.

              Dave
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.