 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Yes, we up here have, as of today anyway, 5 'official' parties-- Progressive Conservative Liberal New Democratic Party Bloc Quebecuois Alliance (a la Reform) And what's going to continue to happen up here in Canada is that the Liberals are (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) And I am in the unique position of agreeing wholeheartedly with Chris. There was a wee bit of a ruckus in LA a while back, and a granny watching the news footage of the looting and pillaging saw her grandson doing said mischief. She reported (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) OK, so did you just use those two as examples of the hundreds, or is that all you've got? I'm not trying to be trite about this, but I think you could find more than two civil rights abuses in a year on any given year since you've been alive. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) The Medical Students in Florida who turned out to: - not be able to be connected in any way to anything nefarious - in fact, didn't run the toll booth as originally reported The Isamic leader arrested in Portland because his luggage showed (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) see also: (URL) article is about forking and revolutionary change within the open source context, but it applies to all systems... high barriers to entry imply more likeliehood of revolution rather than gradual change... and the duopoly of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Good. Chris (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Wow, wouldn't *that* be interesting? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) But in this case the girl has no physical wounds. This suggests to me that the other woman may not have felt the girl was in any danger. It seems to me that this case goes further than just a child battery charge and giving aid to a criminal. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
Agents acting under Ashcroft, as Atty. general, are his responsibility. He's the man in charge -- he's the one that knows or is obligated to know what is going on under his command. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) statute: TITLE 42, CHAPTER 21, SUBCHAPTER I, Sec. 1983. Sec. 1983. - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
