| |
You are wasting my time Larry. Go back and reply to my full text - do not
conveniently delete text to suite _your_ point. This discussion is about a
point I raised - do me the decency of answering it, rather than raising
issues of your own - or deliberately misenterpreting me. I have no problem
putting you straight on your views below – but I refuse to do so when you
continually delete my points.
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > "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.
>
> 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 rehashing long
> discussions from the very beginning. But when you "refuse to do homework"
> for me, it's usually you dodging a yes or no, or a simple factual, answer.
> Like in the doctorate case.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> But it's mine. It's the point I made, and the point that you disagreed with,
> and the point which you're unable to refute. Keep flailing around, though,
> it's amusing to watch.
>
> > 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.
>
> As of when? The EU is a relatively recent development. What did you have
> before that? Nothing.
>
> <snip irrelevant example of freedoms granted by fiat and just as easily
> taken away...>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, it was a thing of beauty, wasn't it. No tanks in the streets, just a
> relatively orderly transition of power in an election that was so close that
> it was too close to call within the margin of error of our voting
> technology. (said technology is seriously in need of revision, but of course
> we vote on more things than you or the Canadians do).
>
> So yes, the constitution worked well, worked as designed, and I'm glad you
> are willing to admire it. Appreciate the compliment.
>
> > In the
> > UK, I doubt that could ever happen. Gore's equivelent would simply have
> > taken his case to the EU.
>
> This I gotta see. I wasn't aware that Gore had an equivalent in your system
> of government... your PM is chosen by a closed circle.
>
> > And therefore, my uncritical friend, theoretically the UK has
> > stronger protection of basic rights.
> >
> > Refute that, or shut up.
>
> I already did. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?
>
> Unless you're going to claim that you've just NOW gotten stronger rights
> because of the EU, a relatively recent development, my point stands, you
> have (or at least had) no basic protections. And in any case I seriously
> doubt that you've ceded your sovereignty to the EU to the extent that they
> would come in and enforce rights of citizens using force if that is what it
> came to.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) To have this charge come from you, the premier time waster of the entire .debate group, as everyone knows, is so laughable as to be beneath any further response. (...) We've had this discussion before, I am not going to reply to every snipe (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
