|
|
As I understand it, on 16 Mar 2007 21:28:02 -0700, obbzerver@yahoo.com
wrote:
>If someone openly makes statements on Usenet/Google Groups indicating
>they're an advocate of sexual relations between underage children and
>their parents or other adult
|
|
|
this is murder.
read thelinks
I can ask for studies that would matter of factly prove this very much
higher then risk of respiratory illness and where gov is not protecting me
but why do more studies to prove more damage when leaders and media don't
|
|
|
read thelinks
I can ask for studies that would matter of factly prove this very much
higher then risk of respiratory illness and where gov is not protecting me
but why do more studies to prove more damage when leaders and media don't
care?
good d
|
|
|
if the links to studies don't prove pollution ( moderate or worse
particulate pollution cause cancers and more heart disease enough , and
respiratory disease) other studies could. What the US don't want you to know
is akin to murder in reality not m
|
|
|
obbz,
I think that this person has a right (in the US) to freely express an
opinion. But you are entitled to believe that this is "more" than an
opinion. Take your facts the appropriate DA. He'll decide whether this is
worth pursuing.
Good
|
|
|
Robert Fisk: The truth should be proclaimed loudly
When has any publisher ever tried to avoid publicity for his book?
The Independent
Published: 17 March 2007
Stand by for a quotation to take your breath away. It's from a letter
from my Istanbul
|
|
|
There are several Web sites openly advocating adult-child sex, and not
just the NAMBLA site. You can attract attention to yourself by posting
such advocacy; I suspect that most of those doing so realize that
their IP can perhaps be traced unless they u
|
|
|
Responsabilit=E9 civile d'un m=E9decin ayant pratiqu=E9 une circoncision sur
un enfant dont le gland s'est n=E9cros=E9 =E0 la suite de complications
Arr=EAt rendu par Cour d'appel de Paris
1re ch. A
12 f=E9vrier 1992
Sommaire :
Un m=E9decin stom
|
|
|
In our last episode, <1174127630.793547.278500@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented obbzerver@yahoo.com broadcast on alt.true-crime:
> On Mar 17, 1:19 am, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Only the actions are illegal. Mere
|
|
|
In article <1174127630.793547.278500@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
obbzerver@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:19 am, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Only the actions are illegal. Merely having an unpopular opinion is not.
> > We haven
|
|
|
On 17 Mar, 13:14, kuacou...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Also, it is well established that a treaty may be implicitly abrogated
> by a later treaty or by later legislation. There was litigation over
> the AMT and what it meant under tax treaties; the taxpayers
|
|
|
On Mar 16, 5:00 am, David Marcus <DMar...@coppercanyon.org> wrote:
> I've been told that treaties constitute the highest level of American law.
> Is this true?
>
> Assuming it to be true, suppose that a US president were to enter into a
> treaty with
|
|
|
On Mar 16, 2:00 am, David Marcus <DMar...@coppercanyon.org> wrote:
> I've been told that treaties constitute the highest level of American law.
> Is this true?
>
> Assuming it to be true, suppose that a US president were to enter into a
> treaty with
|
|
|
On 16 Mar 2007, David Marcus <DMarcus@coppercanyon.org> wrote:
> I've been told that treaties constitute the highest
> level of American law. Is this true?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the
United States . . . and all Treaties
|
|
|
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 06:00:12 -0400, David Marcus <DMarcus@coppercanyon.org>
wrote:
>Would the US electorate have any recourse against such a treaty? Would such
>a treaty require ratification of Congress?
Treaties are ratified by the Senate.
|
|
|
On Mar 16, 6:00 am, David Marcus <DMar...@coppercanyon.org> wrote:
> I've been told that treaties constitute the highest level of American law.
> Is this true?
I have no idea is there's any court decision on this, but I don't see
anything in the Con
|
|
|
David,
> I've been told that treaties constitute the highest level of American law.
> Is this true?
I'm not sure what "highest level" means here. The US is not famous for
honoring it's treaty agreements, so probably not. Pres. Jackson's
ad
|
|
|
David Marcus <DMarcus@coppercanyon.org> wrote:
> I've been told that treaties constitute the highest level
> of American law. Is this true?
It depends. Many parts of treaties are subject to multiple
interpretations and, as always, everything
|
|
|
<obbzerver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174127630.793547.278500@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 17, 1:19 am, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Only the actions are illegal. Merely having an unpopular opinion is not.
>> We ha
|
|
|
<obbzerver@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174105682.848340.95210@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> If someone openly makes statements on Usenet/Google Groups indicating
> they're an advocate of sexual relations between underage children and
> th
|
|
|
There is a lot more to the issue (and definition) of "supreme law of
the land" in respect of the constituitonal law of treaties. The
Wikipedia entry on the Supremacy Clause addresses the issue in part:
that the treaty making power may in fact confer up
|
|
|
he Wall Street Journal
March 17, 2007
PAGE ONE
SHORTING OUT
Fast-Money Crowd Embraces ETFs, Adding Risk for Individual Investors
By TOM LAURICELLA and DIYA GULLAPALLI
March 17, 2007; Page A1
Exchange-traded funds are a simple way for small in
|
|
|
>If someone openly makes statements on Usenet/Google Groups indicating
>they're an advocate of sexual relations between underage children and
>their parents or other adults, is there any type of language which
>would provide adequate grounds for a pros
|
|
|
obbzerver@yahoo.com wrote in news:1174105682.848340.95210
@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> If someone openly makes statements on Usenet/Google Groups indicating
> they're an advocate of sexual relations between underage children and
> their parents
|
|
|
RIAA fails in Chan case
p2p news / p2pnet: Michigan's Candy Chan is another of the victims in
the specious civil actions the Big Four Organized Music cartel is
bringing against disenchanted customers in a bid to force them to
become fully compliant
|
|
|
On Mar 17, 1:19 am, BTR1701 <btr1...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Only the actions are illegal. Merely having an unpopular opinion is not.
> We haven't reached the point in this country (yet) where we're
> imprisoning people for their thoughts.
What
|
|
|
On Mar 16, 11:58 pm, gordonb.92...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >If someone openly makes statements on Usenet/Google Groups indicating
> >they're an advocate of sexual relations between underage children and
> >their parents or other adults, i
|
|
|
but Karen I still like ya
"Karen Y Byrd" <kybyrd@pobox.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnevl8uc.7j0.kybyrd@pobox.upenn.edu...
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:32:39 GMT, mcs <mcs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>why do I watch tv.. to see which stories they tell th
|
|
|
In article <1174105682.848340.95210@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
obbzerver@yahoo.com wrote:
> If someone openly makes statements on Usenet/Google Groups indicating
> they're an advocate of sexual relations between underage children and
> their pa
|
|
