| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:G5pyGI.Dss@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > I'm not going to do your homework for you again. If you are interested in • my
> > point - go find it.
>
> You have never done it for me in the past, so "again" is an incorrect
usage.
Well, there was that time you were curious about my doctortate.
>
> The US has a constitution, which trumps individual laws. Laws have to
> theoretically be voted on separately, not just put in place by ministers
> subject to votes of confidence.
>
> The UK has no constitution, and laws can be put in place by ministerial • fiat
> subject only to losing a vote of confidence. (some are passed explicitly,
> yes, but some are not)
Not my point Larry. However, you are still wrong. Much of my rights are now
enshrined within EU legislation. Therefore, they can not be changed without
renegotiating the treaty with the rest of the EU - this would most probably
require a referendum. Basically, if the state infringes my rights,
ultimately they have to answer to the EU.
The point I was making about rights concerned political freedoms. For
example - here in the UK one could always choose to be, say, a communist.
Can you say the same of the US? Or did you not have rather unsavoury "witch
hunts"? I even here that in some parts of the US, widely accepted theories
such as evolution are not taught to your younger generations - they are not
given the freedom to choose? While we are talking about education, when did
the US get rid of segregation in the education system? Despite that, I'm
pretty sure you'd say parents should be able to dictate what is taught in a
school, or even select the colour of little Johnnie's class mates?
>
> And therefore... therefore, my uncritical friend, theoretically the US has
> stronger protection of basic rights.
Indeed, I have seen the power of your constitution only this week. In the
UK, I doubt that could ever happen. Gore's equivelent would simply have
taken his case to the EU.
And therefore, my uncritical friend, theoretically the UK has
stronger protection of basic rights.
Refute that, or shut up.
Scott A
(posting via nttp as lugnet.com is very very slow or dead)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Which you never did answer, really. A one line answer was all that was required, but after about 5 tries, I finally dragged out of you that you're some kind of Civil, but not what kind. See, when I refuse to do homework for you, it's avoiding (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Theory vs. practice (was Re: Polyamory
|
| All of what I say below is plowed ground, stuff I and others have said before, so those that pay attention are invited to skip this entire post. They already know this stuff. Scott, though, might want to pay attention, for once. I won't hold my (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) You have never done it for me in the past, so "again" is an incorrect usage. The US has a constitution, which trumps individual laws. Laws have to theoretically be voted on separately, not just put in place by ministers subject to votes of (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
