 | | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I'm guessing it would have to jump the hoops again. Maybe opinions on the law changed in the meantime, and it wouldn't have passed after being made constitutional. (...) Ex Post Facto applies, preventing him from being punished according to a (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Here’s a convoluted but well-intended hypothetical (with a hugely compressed timeframe). Let’s say Guy A commits an act in January that’s against State Law X, he’s convicted, and he’s sentenced to 10 years in the big house. He appeals on the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) I did a quick search, but could find no other reference to this story. I feel that ABC should only withhold material if there is a risk that it may be misused. I know the BBC no longer releases its Hillsborough footage due to the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I'm not convinced that the enjoyment value of the .debate group is added to when you make statements such as that one, which some may perceive as unnecessarily combative. I suggest you temper your words. I'm comfortable with the extraction I (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You ripped that sentance totally out of context, and by doing so totally failed to add anything new or even contradictory to my original statement as a whole. Let's look at the key points of the original text: (...) I accidentally left a word (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) To be fair, slaves and women were seen more as property than people by many of the colonists, and they basically inherited the idea that political rights were tied to landownership from England. But if you were a white male landowner in the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) Not in the US. At least not any that I've ever heard. Once you're deemed to be "in the public eye", you lose a lot of your privacy rights while in the public view (they can't sneak into your house, but they might be able to get away with (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
(...) I wouldn't be surprised if other politically controlled news-orgs have that policy as well. It sort of stands to reason they would not want to upset the apple cart, derail the gravy train, rough up the golden-egg-laying-goose, you know what I (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Wrong. Any law that violates the constitution is invalid. The government has no right what so ever to declare gay marriage illegal. I would argue they have no right to be involved with marriage at all. (...) Wrong again. It is the judical (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Did the IR not also make the slave trade economical by inflating the price of slaves? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Agreed. Although I do go into "FF worship mode" here from time to time (no, really??), they certainly had feet of clay just like everyone else. (...) Good question in turn. Taking that a bit further, what would have happened in Britain? Would (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) That's true, of course--they were distinct individuals with distinct ideas. My intent, though, was to show that the document they brought to the table allowed the denial of rights to certain groups for the most mundane and terrestrial of (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Careful, don't fall into the trap of thinking they were of one mind on everything. I fall into this trap a lot myself. The D of I, the articles of confederation and the constitution are held by many to be compromise documents, particularly in (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I think it's more accurate to say that our founding fathers believed rights to be inherent to some people, but they had no problem in accommodating slavery and the denial of women's suffrage. These aren't trifling matters, either--the founding (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Politicians allowed to veto use of news footage?
|
|
Our largely taxpayer-funded free to air TV channel, the (URL), now (URL) says> it can't sell archival footage of politicians to 3rd party documentary makers, unless they get permission from the politician involved. They think "...the ABC could be (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Huh! I guess I've never really investigated the meaning; rather I've just gone by how people use it (which, for philosophic terms, I'm more inclined to doing anyway, and reject outright whatever a dictionary says if it tells me differently (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I don't see why a true agnostic would have any problems with answering that. It's the next question that's the problem (What do you mean you don't know?). (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) But the Declaration of Independance states that our founding fathers did. (...) Some are more mutable than others, particularly in Minnesota. (...) I don't remember ever hearing anyone else credited with a similar statement. It was a dangerous (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You are missing something. Just because a "right" is not universal does not mean it is therefore exclusive. I cannot deny that the US Constitution could have come out of another religious background, but I can deny that it actually did. You (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Firstly, I think "common man" is a bit inappropriate here, since it very inaccurately suggests that the majority of Americans are opposed to pledging "Under God" (remember that many non-church-goers still consider themselves to be religious). (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) You mean that you understand the correct and incorrect usage but are willfully contributing to the further incorrect usage? ;-) 00>Bruce<01 (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) For the sake of a disclaimer I should probably underscore that my use of "undecided" in this context was to address a popular connotation of the word agnostic, rather than a literal denotation. Dave! (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Not the way I understand what an agnostic is. An agnostic holds that the ultimate truth about God existing or not existing is not knowable. That's not undecided, though many undecided people misuse the term "agnostic" to describe themselves. (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I definitely agree-- to be agnostic is really to be undecided. And if you really simply "don't believe in God", but *would* if given sufficient reason, then I'd say agnostic matches pretty well. (...) Hmmm. Not really. I guess I see a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) I dislike that term because it's often seen as too wishy-washy, or a way to hedge one's bet. It can also carry a connotation of undecidedness, due not to a lack of evidence but a lack of conclusion. Additionally, if you say "I'm an agnostic" (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) What's wrong with "agnostic"? (...) This sounds closer to atheism-- IE you believe in not-the-Christian-god. In my experience with agnostics, they often reject one (or multiple) religions, but are 'undecided' about the rest: "I don't know what (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Only to the extent that all sane atheists are also agnostic. In other words, I don't think so. I'm comfortable with the assumption that there are no supernatural phenomena based on the (lack of) evidence. I'm just reasonable, too. Chris (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
|
(...) Does that make you an (URL)? (...) Get yourself some open toed sandals. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Chalk this part up to miscommunication, then. And for the record, I certainly don't believe that any "rights" are truly inherent and undeniable (inalienable). (...) Science may be a flawed tool, in the same way that the Constitution is a (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
|
(...) Unless I'm missing something you're assigning a causative relationship between religious background and the commonality of "rights" and other(?) socio-legal constructs. In effect, you're saying that these notions of rights are demonstrably not (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
