 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
|
(...) I hope whoever is responsible for that, in that company, gets tried for breaking the law. Breaking the law is never a excessive liberty, the exception being the Clinton administration, of course. Scott S. (24 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Two things: First, I think that there is a miscommunication here. You are saying that companies have little power compared to the government if they don't break the laws. Others are saying that by breaking the laws, companies have the power to (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) I find this an exceedingly callous statement, on the surface. Explain further. (...) The disposable income of the US government isn't that high. (...) You are. The law just happens to be unconstitutional. Jasper (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Law (was: Art) Debate (Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
|
(...) Oh, I didn't mean it like that, I meant it like this: Where are we going from there? As a member (sort of) of the side (sort of) opposite (sort of) yours, I'm willing to accept that corporations have the power to hurt people inappropriately. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
