 | | Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | (...) It all depends on who you live with I suppose. (...) What! She randomly stopped you and demanded a kiss! How unconstitutional. The supreme court must pass a judgement on this! (The fact the we have neither a constitution or a supreme court (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Let's just say it was mutually voluntary transaction and leave it at that, without going into whether I had an obligation not to take advantage of her state of mind given that she voluntarily put herself into that state and initiated the (...) (24 years ago, 29-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) Oh my. Well, heavens. Quite a time! Um, and Scott, being a Briton, I do hope you realise that your country doesn't *have* a constitution. Well, I mean, they do have *stamina*, but no actual Constitution per se. So I suppose the point is moot (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One for the road sir? (Re: US supreme court strikes down...) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Yes - (URL) are moves in the UK to form one. But even if it were to reach the agenda, and you imagine the haggling? And what would the benefit be, I'm already as free as a bird.. tweet tweet. I gruffly compared my freedoms to those you enjoy (...) (24 years ago, 30-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
