Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Bill of Rights
- 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, atSarah
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.
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.
- 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.
--- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
- 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.