 | | Re: What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
(...) Holey moley, did you just hit a hot-button for me! I'm not fluid-o-phobic, but in most circumstances don't care to have other people's DNA deposited on me or my food or my purchases without my express permission (I even mention this as an "I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What's the point of wearing rubber gloves...
|
|
...when you've touched them all over on the outside? I'm watching NYPD 24/7 right now, and they just showed a homicide detective testing a smear on a wall to see if it's blood. Before doing this, he puts on his rubber gloves. Okay, that sounds (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | If I can't, do it ... maybe you can... (torture that prisoner for me, I mean)
|
|
A suit has been brought against my dear friend John Ashcroft, et. al. to force the goverment to stop asking their dear friends the Saudis to keep a US citizen in custody without bail, charges, or trial. (URL) Jonah Goldberg, who really ought to know (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) A great example of this is currently in the offing, much to the (URL) disgust> of Justice O'Connor. The ruling may undo thousands of sentences because the methods by which those sentences were imposed has been identified as unconstitutional. (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) ianal, but I have had a passing association with both the TPA and torts, and this sounds like drivel, and not even very entertaining drivel. (...) Mmmmm. Sounds like the ABC is only a step or two away from starting Winston's (URL) work> in the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless the state declares something illegal that it is unconstitutional to so declare. For example, if a particular state prevented the right of free assembly or free association, that would be unconstitutional. The supremes might not rule on (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Whoops, I did misread what you wrote. Anyways, the bit about the Bush v. Gore Florida ruling still shows that they have no problem turning you away on a mere technicality, but then deny your claim later. And you know what? I'm perfectly okay (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Mike, I generally agree with you. In this case I agree with your logic, but I think one of your foundational premises is questionable and really, this whole issue revolves around it. Is marriage merely a contractual relationship? I think it (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Actually, I think you need to reread what I wrote. I think the common man's stance is that the POA is fine as is. That's what the court could have asserted. (...) And this "difference between belief and fact" is what you're claiming underpins (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong, yourself. The Federal government has no right to make a law declaring same-sex marriage illegal. They can always make a constitutional amendment. Also, state governments don't need to be given specific permission to do something as long (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
