 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Or suppress it either. Allowing a club to meet isn't support, but preventing one from meeting is suppression. Unless the school has a policy forbidding all clubs from meeting on school grounds it cannot prevent some clubs (which are otherwise (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: (snipped) (...) ! You have to pay a tax TO VOTE???!!! :-O Or did I misinterpret? (...) Pedro (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) No, we currently do not. That's the UK I think(1). I was talking about under an idealised constitution if I got to write it. 1 - or at least I recall that there was some talk of introducing same. Note that a "poll tax" was used as a repressive (...) (22 years ago, 13-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Poll tax! (was: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) The real UK Poll tax was a very long time ago - perhaps 100's of years ago(?). In the 80's Thatcher introduced a tax for which she intended to use the electoral role to set up the database of payees - this became known as the “poll tax” as (...) (22 years ago, 16-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
