|
|
"Rob" <montepickles_LessSpam_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:montepickles_LessSpam_-2EA21B.09113702062004@news.cg.shawcable.net...
> Apparently, the mother falsely accused the father of sexually molesting
> the children. I hope she thinks about tha
|
|
|
"Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:m2rqb01iblsekbmg3gkklk28c23tt4hs4u@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:09:44 +0100, "Sarah Anne"
> <lying_happy_eyes@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Let's just leave it at: HB, you win. You're obviously
|
|
|
"Clough" <inuit@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:plqqb0p846im39o4t81ffpr9un4vpgc5t5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:25:06 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I've never met a feminist, face to face, that agrees with positive
>
|
|
|
Thomas Anantharaman wrote:
>
> However the US Supreme court did rule, that everyone has a right to
> appeal their status to a civil (normal) court and until the court rules
> that the person is a US or foreign or illegal combatant....
Illega
|
|
|
Assuming for the sake of argument that this falls under the rubric of
military law, then the Geneva Convention applies, which the Bushie
neo-conservatives refuse to apply either. An additional danger is that
a future foreign power uses the precedent we
|
|
|
In article <zEsuc.8466$vw6.3723@fe07.usenetserver.com>,
spammy <spammy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Feminist myth: that only the extremists hold certain views. I hate to
>break it to you, but those views are the feminist mainstream.
Who entitled you t
|
|
|
In article <ie6sb0pmmefp3j0khlk6hcpa0fnqllsmbl@4ax.com>,
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote:
>As I understand the arguments of the Bush Administration before the
>Supreme Court, the President has taken the position that he has the
>authority to
|
|
|
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40be2668.65268591@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:44:55 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
>
> >We all agree that drunks should be off the road.
>
> Yes, we do agree on that.
>
|
|
|
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40be25ad.65081702@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:37:43 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
>
> >I can tell you are one of those anti-cop, anti-authority types,
>
> You are wrong
|
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:44:55 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
>We all agree that drunks should be off the road.
Yes, we do agree on that.
Now what about criminal cops? Should they be allowed to victimize
law-abiding citizens to fill their q
|
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:37:43 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
>I can tell you are one of those anti-cop, anti-authority types,
You are wrong.
I am anti-criminal, and that includes criminal-cops and
criminal-authorities.
For example, I ab
|
|
|
"The Inquirer" <iq@wonder.com> wrote
>.....We have also had or have wars on
> communism, drugs and corporate crime. I don't remember the opposing
> warriors being denied due process in those wars.
Oh hell yes; corporate crime being an exception- a
|
|
|
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40bdf00f.51355335@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:04:01 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
>
> >> Don't be a fool, cops are *not* your friend.
>
> >You're quite correct, as hars
|
|
|
"Keith" <kilo_watt_radio2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12asufw6e8bgl$.dlg@linuxserv.kilowattradio.org...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:04:01 GMT, jaybird wrote:
>
> > You're quite correct, as harsh as that may sound. Cops do help people,
but
> > t
|
|
|
On 2 Jun 2004 10:12:19 -0700, jakehavlick@yahoo.com (Jake Havlick)
wrote:
>> > Don't be a fool, cops are *not* your friend.
>> I'll remember that the next time one assists me when my car breaks down.
Individuals can be friendly. Cops aren't ind
|
|
|
"Chas" <chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SYSdndwyqcgDlSPdRVn-hg@comcast.com...
> "Alun" <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote
> ...this situation is military law,
> and the international provisions allow
> enemy combatants to be detained u
|
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 08:00:58 -0400, The Inquirer <IQ@wonder.com>
wrote:
>What limits the executive branch of any government from declaring
>anybody they don't like as an "Enemy Combatant" and locking him up
>indefinitely without due process?
Th
|
|
|
"michael" <copsR@yourdoor.com> wrote in message
news:40bc4641_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> "Paul Nutteing" <nutteing@quickfindit.com> wonders:
>
> > Is it blind faith, arrogant indifference or conspiracy of
> > silence over uninvestigated unrelated m
|
|
|
Manny Davis <nothanks@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94FBC9C5352A2nothanksnowherecom@68.1.17.6>...
> Bob wrote:
> > Why? You can state that you do not believe the defendant is guilty of
> > a crime, even if he broke the law.
>
> Which isn't
|
|
|
ore lies by StinkyOtee the lowlife addicted scum ...
Kyoteee wrote:
> -----ALT.SMOKERS FAQ v.3.0 (8/13/00)[by Kyoteee]-----
>
> TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
> .. FAQ and alt.smokers described
> .. Brief history of smoking and Antismoking
|
|
|
In article <40bb7833.77648522@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>You can disagree to obey a law and then ask a jury to nullify your
>actions.
ITYM "nullify the law".
But generally, you can't: the judge won't let you.
Se
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well
please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take
the consequences." -- P.J. O'Rourke
j.
international mens organisation wrote:
> The lawyers, the j
|
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:04:01 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
>> Don't be a fool, cops are *not* your friend.
>You're quite correct, as harsh as that may sound. Cops do help people, but
>the point of their job is enforcement of the law,
Th
|
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 04:16:14 -0600, "Paul Tiger"
<paul.tiger@paultiger.com> wrote:
>I get tons of arguements from fellow libertarians who think that drunk
>driving is a matter of personal choice, or that different people have
>different thresholds. I
|
|
|
Apparently, the mother falsely accused the father of sexually molesting
the children. I hope she thinks about that fact today...
In article <fb8d65d.0405281415.480f86ca@posting.google.com>,
talciere@yahoo.co.uk (Tim Alciere) wrote:
> She lost
|
|
|
Stephen M. Adams <adamst@no.spam> wrote in
news:c9kl3r0209p@news1.newsguy.com:
> The Inquirer <IQ@wonder.com> writes:
>
>>I read this news conference with much puzzlement.
>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/comey.padilla.transcript/index.html
|
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:04:28 -0600, "Chas"
<chasclementsSPOOF@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Alun" <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Of course what they are doing is unconstitutional, but they can do it
>until
>> they are stopped by the courts. This case, and th
|
|
|
The Inquirer <IQ@wonder.com> writes:
>I read this news conference with much puzzlement.
>http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/comey.padilla.transcript/index.html
>What limits the executive branch of any government from declaring
>anybody they don't li
|
|
|
"Alun" <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote
> Of course what they are doing is unconstitutional, but they can do it
until
> they are stopped by the courts. This case, and the Guantanamo Bay
> detentions, violate Habeus Corpus as well as due process. The latter
|
|
|
international mens organisation wrote:
>
> The lawyers, the judges, the law which rules America today is still
> tied to the English Crown.
This is still BS, even though there's a web site presented.
|
|
|
Buy some AAA road side assistant services you cheap @$#*wit! Sheesh!
King Samuel <stars@bars.usa> wrote in message news:<Nsidne7I67DmyiDdRVn2gw@giganews.com>...
> Bob wrote:
>
>
> > Don't be a fool, cops are *not* your friend.
>
> I'll rememb
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read this news conference with much puzzlement.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/comey.padilla.transcript/index.html
What limits the executive branch of any government from declaring
anybody they don't like as an "Enemy Combatant" and locking him u
|
|
|
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40bd4f96.10273853@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:30:58 -0600, "Paul Tiger"
> <paul.tiger@paultiger.com> wrote:
>
> >For my money (taxes) if you are on the road and drunk, jail is wh
|
|
|
"Bob" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:40bd2efe.1930606@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:31:55 +0000 (UTC), bob@buzzbeer.com wrote:
>
> >No, they don't take you to jail, they take you to a hospital. What makes
you
> >thi
|
|
|
<bob@buzzbeer.com> wrote in message
news:1086114715.373451@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
> In co.general Paul Tiger <paul.tiger@paultiger.com> wrote:
> : Taking roadside tests are dangerous because the results are completely
> : subjective. If you haven
|
|
|
Advocating equal rights for coloured people = anti-racism = NOT favouring
coloured people.
Advocating equal rights for women = feminism = NOT favouring women.
I've never met a feminist, face to face, that agrees with positive
discrimination, for exa
|
|
|
--
Sarah Anne.
-- SarahAnne.co.uk --
Articles and opinions from one of Britain's most opinionated students...
"Harry Ballsac." <Harry
Ballsac.@the_national_socilaist_news_service.NDPP.gob> wrote in message
news:Of3vc.29$jl6.8@edtnps89.
|
|
|
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 06:09:44 +0100, "Sarah Anne"
<lying_happy_eyes@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Let's just leave it at: HB, you win. You're obviously a master at debate and
>I kowt-tow to your awsom powers of reasoning and logic. Instead of trying to
>resona
|
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:25:06 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I've never met a feminist, face to face, that agrees with positive
>> discrimination,
>LIE. You have never met a feminist face to face or elsewhere who
>doesn't support p
|
|
|
his one a keeper for the website, LOL's
"Sarah Anne" <lying_happy_eyes@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uidvc.6834$B63.5750@doctor.cableinet.net...
>
>
> --
>
> Sarah Anne.
>
> -- SarahAnne.co.uk --
> Articles and opinions from one of Bri
|
|
|
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40BD64B2.8070804@hotmail.com...
> Sarah Anne wrote:
> > Advocating equal rights for coloured people = anti-racism = NOT
favouring
> > coloured people.
>
> True so far.
>
>
> > Advocating equa
|
|
|
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:04:01 GMT, jaybird wrote:
> You're quite correct, as harsh as that may sound. Cops do help people, but
> the point of their job is enforcement of the law, not friend making. If a
> guy wanted everyone to like him at work, the
|
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:31:55 +0000 (UTC), bob@buzzbeer.com wrote:
> No, they don't take you to jail, they take you to a hospital. What makes you
> think they give blood tests at a jail?
>
> I got a DUI once, the officer lied through his teeth on th
|
|
|
King Samuel wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
>
>> Don't be a fool, cops are *not* your friend.
>
>
> I'll remember that the next time one assists me when my car breaks down.
I've never seen a cop act out of anything but the need for revenue
enhance
|
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:30:58 -0600, "Paul Tiger"
<paul.tiger@paultiger.com> wrote:
>For my money (taxes) if you are on the road and drunk, jail is where you
>belong.
I want it made clear thay I agree with you. People DUI should not be
allowed to d
|
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 21:30:58 -0600, "Paul Tiger"
<paul.tiger@paultiger.com> wrote:
>In Boulder they take your blood at the jail. It is done
>by a phlebotomist. They have one there. I worked there and I know.
What if you refuse to give the blood sam
|
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:46:53 GMT, Manny Davis <nothanks@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>You claim the current government exists to protect my rights.
Please do not put words into my mouth.
The current govt is illegitimate.
Texas did not sign the surrend
|
|
|
On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 23:46:53 GMT, Manny Davis <nothanks@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>>>> His major premise is flawed. The purpose of civil govt is to protect
>>>> the essential rights of individuals.
>>>Since when?
>> Since the origin of mankind.
|
|
|
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:31:55 +0000 (UTC), bob@buzzbeer.com wrote:
>No, they don't take you to jail, they take you to a hospital. What makes you
>think they give blood tests at a jail?
>I got a DUI once, the officer lied through his |
