 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(URL) this the same 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals that recently ruled unconstitutional the phrase "under God" in the Congressionally-endorsed Pledge of Allegiance? Are Senators Byrd and Lott and Daschle and all the rest going to bitch about how (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) [Big-Snip] (...) The modern educational system has a hundred years of programming to produce people who, like machine parts, are relatively interchangeable. One of the worst things that a school-based authority can have to deal with is a puple (...) (22 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....
|
|
(...) (Even (...) news: (...) So a logical and 'common sense' statement is grounds for the liberal brain washers to harass you. It really bothers me to hear you say that you do not wish to present a well thought out opinion because of them. That is (...) (22 years ago, 8-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Healthy Alcohol (was: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!)
|
|
(...) I meant to get back to this before now, but here goes: (URL) that for men, up to two "drinks" per day without regard to source of alcohol is a health benefit. They say that the red wine this was once believed, but is no more, and that it's (...) (22 years ago, 6-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's one of the central points for me. I'm trying to find an analogy, like the removal of an ugly but non-harmful wart, or perhaps the erasure of an unsightly (and potentially stigmatizing) birthmark, but neither of these is quite (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
