 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) How do you feel about TJ speaking about a Creator in the DoI? -John (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) That's almost as silly as saying strip clubs can't be within 1000 feet of each other or of other stores or businesses of any kind... oh wait, that's a fairly common law in the US. (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
[snip] (...) I absolutely agree with this. [snip] (...) Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is a fundamental right. Without said right all other fundamental rights are unenforceable. Let me put it this way (again); A (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Tribute to Sept 11, 2001
|
|
Check out our special tribute to the heroes and their families of September 11, 2001. (URL) bless America! ACPin & Sons (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) "Reverse Discrimination": A politically correct term for the right wing meant to really say, "We done stole it fair and square, so no trying to redress the crime." ;-) Actually, I don't see how "reverse discrimination" applies here whatever (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I never suggested otherwise. They acknowledged the existence of God without necessarily endorsing a particular brand of religion's understanding of Him. -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And some would call that 'reverse discrimination' Just because a group of students has a student run group and they want to discuss their belief in God, and they can't get school support on par with students who want to have a Camera club, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The Founding Fathers were deists, not theists. They believed in a Creator, not the xian god. --Bill. (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they want. However, when the State, through the public school system, offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that crosses the line. The Bible Club should be (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Hooray--we agree! That's been my intended point all along, in both this exchange and in the previous debate a month or so ago! I absolutely, totally, completely, and unequivocally support your right to religious freedom and freedom of speech! (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) I would think that if the parents were doing their job, it would be quite the opposite. By doing their job, I mean being responsible. If you have a gun in your home, it is your responsibility as a parent to educate your children in its proper (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
(...) "Want it to be" or "Make it be", I think this may be semantics. Either way, my point is that this is an established (yet evolving) community that currently accepts among its members both people who may dislike certain content and those who may (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) who (...) Interesting - and scary. (...) It was my contention that the reported shooting sprees (that I recall) were by teenagers who had access to guns at home (and some experience with them). Not sure of the causal connection, if any, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Guns! (was: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....))
|
|
(...) Well, I never went on a shooting spree, but as a teen I did behave irresponsibly with guns (by the standards that most people express). And they weren't the .22 rifle that my dad had in his closet. They were used and probably stolen guns that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) There are two issues that I see, that can be phrased as two questions: Under what circumstances does a parent/guardian have the right to subject their children to surgery (even if minor outpatient)? Is it a good idea to participate in a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thoughts on Community & Censorship (Was: Re: Brickshelf censorship policy rules.....)
|
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes: [snip] (...) I disagree strongly here. It is what it is. The is no collective decision making about how we 'want to be' - it will be what individuals make it. (...) The community may be a seperate entity, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's bad. But how about an angry frog rifling through your puter looking for clone DATs? I bet that's worse. Probably deletes files as he goes. =) -- Hop-Frog (I am not now, nor have I ever been, a gremlin.) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
(...) Actually, the umbrella effect in terms of the ESA is when you protect an endangered species that covers a large bit of habitat in its home range and you end up sheltering the smaller species as well. Sorry for the mistake. Similar concepts (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Cyber Kids 2002
|
|
(URL) what do you think? I see the utility of such a move, though on some level I'm a little uncomfortable with it (but I don't know if I'm being rational or simply reactive). On a related note, famed level-head and open-minded orator Mike Gallagher (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) As far as I'm aware, businesses in the US are charged for local calls, and in any case many telemarketing firms operate nationwide. But you've hit on the solution to my problem--I just have to move to Holland. Dave! (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mass Extinctions
|
|
Curt wrote: > That's frightening. > I have a question to any biologists out there. Is it possible to store the > DNA of males and females of each species, so that if the species goes > extinct, it can be revived? Of course, there is the question of (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:H1GEL7.CMw@lugnet.com... (...) Just change 'the electrically-civilized world' bit to 'America' please. I've lived in Ireland for a few years, and in Holland the rest of my life (30+ years) and (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) Agreed on all points, but I'll take whatever I can get to begin with. I can only hope that political and non-profit phone solicitations will be brought under the same restrictions at a (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Loss of that person's company; the loss of the relationship with that person. (...) Well, I'm not sure that a child does either -- certainly not all of it. But there could be other claimants, like a spouse. I think earlier in the thread we (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Setting aside the loss of income issue (because I'm still not sure and don't have anything insightful to say), what does "loss of society" mean? (...) Let's imagine that a kid is part of a rich family until he's ten (way old enough to have (...) (22 years ago, 3-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) Well, that's a fault of the kind of torts we currently allow. At the same time the destruction of what exists at the time of the loss is what is being protected. It's not that big a leap to assert that someone that has been earning "X" dollars (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Criminal Justice
|
|
(...) lens... I've been thinking about this for quite a while and I think that either I misunderstand your meaning, or you're wrong. The notion of equality under law, I think, is somewhat slippery. Further, it seems some times (this included) that (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Peace" can be dangerous (was: Re: Peruvian Indians [Re: ..)
|
|
(...) lol. I thought you'd say that. I think it is relevant. (...) I thought you'd say that too. But the truth is Mr Edelman probably knows more ablout the subject than either you or I. This is what I read about him a few days ago in the Guardian: (...) (22 years ago, 2-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Supertramp (was supertramp... careful... whatever...)
|
|
(...) OMGoodnesss!!!...!!! Started off with 'School'... Ended off (in the encore) with 'Crime of the Century'.... Rick Davies played 'Downstream' with just him and a piano for the entire song... 7 member band right now, including Siebenburg's son (I (...) (22 years ago, 30-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Durned Telemarketers!
|
|
(...) We get between zero and four per night. Most commonly, one. And we often get one or more during the day. Chris (22 years ago, 28-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
