 | | Re: The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
(...) The "liberal" side is always sour:-D JOHN (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
(...) Well isn't it the "liberals" who are supposed to be "down" on "big bad corps"?? from the article: "The court's decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who argued the decision favors rich corporations." Hence the (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
(...) What's so strange about that? :-) You are correct; brutal decision! JOHN (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | The Supremes sing another sour note
|
|
The state can favour one (presumably well connected) private individual over another, to the point of using eminent domain to take what rightfully belongs to one person and give it to another: (URL) enough, this time it was the "liberal" side that (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Or maybe (URL) not.> Well, how about that! And right in my own backyard. Heck, I don't have any let's-kill-as-many-e...s-possible agenda; I just want the science to proceed. This is very encouraging, though of course we'll need to see more (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Well, yeah, until they've wrecked'em. JOHN FUT.pun (19 years ago, 23-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) There is no need for women to be placed on pedestals, once you realise they can create their own stools. pete.w (19 years ago, 23-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Sorry for the ambiguity--it wasn't an attept to trap you. I was referring to fetal stem cells, which scientific consensus identifies as likely the most fruitful source of therapeutic treatments. The silliness of the Right's objection is (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) I don't see why, honestly. Or, if it is a big problem, then why not have two separate gender-neutral bathrooms? (...) It sounds as though you're respecting the distinctiveness of the 2 sexes more than you are respecting a person of either of (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Every person has the right to choose one person of the opposite sex for marriage and have that union recognized by the government. The exact same right for everyone. If one choses a same-sex partner, or 3 partners, or any variety of farm (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) Many places actually have those-- they are called "family bathrooms", and are a good idea for that reason. (...) In theory that's fine, but in practical terms a nightmare. (...) Again, efficiency is WAY more important than being "PC". (my new (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: I think I'm going to puke....
|
|
(...) The Right's objection to stem cell research revolves around the use of fetal stem cells. It is their fear that unborn fetuses will become stem cell gardens for research. I know of no objections to the usage of other types of stem cells such as (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this the new europe? or the old?
|
|
Neither. It's a RC pressure group in Spain. However, as they agree with Bush's outlook, I expect you (as a yank), would define them as "New Europe". Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Coolest Brickshelf account
|
|
(...) He was proven wealthy. ;) Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mocking (was: Coolest Brickshelf account)
|
|
(...) I would be surprised if there are not - it takes all kinds. (...) Depends on the beholder, so my denial or otherwise is irrelevant. (...) Certainly. (...) I don't recall doing so, but if I have, I'm sure you'll point me to it. Have you? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 22-Jun-05, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this the new europe? or the old?
|
|
(URL) .5M people, which is a lot, relatively speaking. (19 years ago, 21-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's a scary one
|
|
(...) That's legitimate, IMO. Heck, if the sentence included some kind of "you may not withhold this information from prospective employers," then there's no problem with due process, either. It's analogous to the financial industry, many portions (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's a scary one
|
|
(...) Agree with the above, and further I don't support name-and-shame as a punishment mechanism unless it's imposed at the time of sentencing, but I do support the notion of being able to inquire "is this potential employee already convicted of (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's a scary one
|
|
(...) This is a tough conversation to have because, to some people, even suggesting that child molesters might not actually be the devil incarnate is tantamount to molesting children yourself. I've been in online forums with a decidedly left-leaning (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's a scary one
|
|
In the UK, we do not name-and-shame as it is recognised that it can force individuals underground instead of bringing them back into society. Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
