 | | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) Well, right now we *nominally* live under the laws of America--if the Spawn of Satan is re-appointed in November, then we'll see what happens to those laws. Anyway, I completely agree with the meat of your post. The guy's welcome to believe (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Help me with the math
|
|
(...) More (URL) mass graves> that shouldn't be confused with justification for Dubya's deliberately illegal and voluntary oil war. Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Lap-dogs (was: It didn't have to be this way....)
|
|
(...) Hmmmmm. Maybe. (...) Hmmmm not sure. I thought most of the leader-types were from Adelaide but I may be mistaken. And even though they say they will argue each bill on it's merits, one has to wonder, given their election deal with Johnny. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lap-dogs (was: It didn't have to be this way....)
|
|
(...) Don't know about that. I have had the same experience in places where one ought to have found a large number of supporters. One is drawn towards the conclusion that many folks made the choice to vote liberal but are not prepared to fess up in (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
(...) Seems like a no-brainer to me. That guy should lose his license. What's next: doctors refusing to provide medication because it violates some principle of faith healing? Newsflash: In this country we live under the Laws of the United States of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lap-dogs (was: It didn't have to be this way....)
|
|
(...) LOL it doesn't really depress me, but it does surprise me. I mean, everyone I've spoken to since the election has said "so who the heck voted Liberal??". But I guess that's probably just a case of me associating with people that share similar (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
|
Here's an interesting one: (URL) pharmacist refused to fill a contraceptive prescription for religious reasons. That might be ok, except, he also refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. Now he's claiming he shouldn't be punished. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) There is a technically accurate term for describing a male heterosexual who has kids--a term that isn't used in 'polite company' (though appears in many rap songs and movies that love to use profanity...)--I don't think Lee would like people (...) (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
|
(...) Sure it is. And so is "bastard" and "moron" - but these terms have been deemed offensive, and so using them, even if accurate to do so, is considered offensive and rude. I should also point that 'sodomite' is not actually accurate, because it (...) (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: It didn't have to be this way....
|
|
(...) Mmmmm. I think I have remarked upon same here before, and can only agree completely. But as to it not having to be this way, I am not so sure. There would seem to be few examples of freedom delivered from without that were any more successful. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
