 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Yeah, really. It's hard to imagine how they could possibly know that the sister knows anything useful. I mean, do they have video footage of her seeing her sister do things? Not likely... Also, I believe in the right to remain silent -- to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) I didn't get from the article what the specific and direct role played by Ashcroft was. Is he only guilty for setting a cavalier tone within the federal law enforcement machine, or was it something more clear cut? Chris (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
I found this interesting: (URL) see how far it gets. I expect he'll be removed from the suit, after all, can't have our government officials held personally liable for what they do, now can we? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Really? Do you generally think that aiding criminals should have no penalty? There may be issues surrounding this that I haven't thought through, but on first blush, it doesn't seem like a bad general policy to me. I would certainly intervene (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Like what? Am I missing a bigger trend? (...) Um...what could be more damning than video footage? What on Earth _would_ you consider reasonable evidence? I haven't heard anything inappropriate about the handling of this case from the article (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'm not going to look back through all the notes you've written in response a note that I've written to find it, but I'm pretty sure that you responded that you would seek to change the law from within "the system" rather than breaking it, if (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) to choose to make your point. I followed the link and found this paragraph: "Police have been searching for Gorman Toogood since September 13, when a surveillance camera in a department store parking lot videotaped her apparently slapping and (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) It would probablly benefit the Iraqi people a great deal. Personally I would have expected the United Nations to get rid of Sadam 2 years ago when he had about 12,000 Kurds (an ethnic miniority in Iraq) murdered in gas chambers. (...) Oh sure (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
