--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their
sexual
orientation?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and
is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual
On 6 Nov 2006 at 23:48, John D. Giorgis wrote:
An oddly on-topic article..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are
covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human
rights act, and a right to privacy.
On 07/11/2006, at 11:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're
being treated differently.
But that's only for a definition of marriage as a partnership between
any two people, that's not true for a definition of marriage as a
partnership
On 07/11/2006, at 11:46 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 at 23:48, John D. Giorgis wrote:
An oddly on-topic article..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are
covered with cameras. Private areas are not.
Dan Minette wrote:
I think we've reached a
point where we cannot stop a civil war from happening. We
can, as long as we stay, stretch out the first phases of that
war, but I think the most likely outcome of staying the
course will be to increase the potential suffering, instead
of
jdiebremse wrote:
There is certainly a bit of a judgment call when dealing with bad
precedent as to how best to overturn it. For instance, the same
people who love stare decisis when it comes to Roe v. Wade, wouldn't
dream of deferring to precedent in Pessy v. Ferguson or in Korematsu...
Nick Arnett wrote:
All you 'merican citizens out there in Brin-L land, please vote tomorrow.
Can't. Voted Friday. :)
One of my friends voted Thursday because she's working the election, at
a precinct rather far from her house, and wouldn't be able to vote at
her precinct today. That's a
Andrew Crystall wrote:
And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are
covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human
rights act, and a right to privacy.
I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying
home surveillance as equivalent to
On 7 Nov 2006 at 13:27, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are
covered with cameras. Private areas are not. There is the Human
rights act, and a right to privacy.
I was in London last week. British
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying
home surveillance as equivalent to that of Russia and China.
Which is absolute and total rubbish.
What is rubbish? My report is as acurate as an eyewitness can
be :-P
As He wrote, the best quality of
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
I was in London last week. British newspapers were classifying
home surveillance as equivalent to that of Russia and China.
Which is absolute and total rubbish.
What is rubbish? My report is as acurate as an eyewitness can
be :-P
As He wrote,
Julia Thompson wrote:
I know what He says. I also know what He says about 1984.
But I am discussing the scare of 1984, not the 1984-zation
of Airstrip One.
I'm lost, Alberto. Words of 7 syllables or less and/or linky
goodness to help me out here?
Ok. He with a capital _H_ means His
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in
countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay
marriage. Round and round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more
I love The Onion :-)
Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
WASHINGTON, DC-Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on
Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of aggressive,
premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns over the past six-to-18 months. We
have
14 matches
Mail list logo
