Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (181579)	2/11/2006 6:21:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) of 281500

"Check with the legal eagles around here. There certainly are plenty." Still speculation not fact. Are you, someone who claims to be a Dane, claiming to know more of American law than I do? But why don't you do as I said, coward? "Over here it has been changing to make it increasingly difficult for gov't to stifle the press. The gov't attempted to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers. It was told by the courts that the press could publich, THEN the gov't could bring whatever cases it thought appropriate. In fact it brought none. The contents were embarrassing for the gov't but they could not reasonably justify classification of the information." Patriot act? This simply shows the stupidity and ignorance I was referring to. The Patriot Act was not even a twinkle in anyone's eye at the time this happened. And the Patriot Act couldn't override it in any case because it was finally decided by the Supreme Court and it would take a constitutional amendment to override that. The Patriot Act is merely an act of Congress and cannot override provisions of the Constitution. Why don't you stick to Danish law? There's a slight possibility you might actually know something about that. "Truth is an absolute defense in almost all cases." Well according to your logic: Mohammed never went around with a bomb in his turban or any other place. Bombs weren't invented then. Cartoon is therefore not true. Therefore there is no defense for the turban-bomb cartoon. If you tried that in a courtroom, you'd be lucky if the judge didn't order the bailiff to throw you out on your can. It is quite well understood that cartoons are not required to depict reality. Or do you really believe there actually is a Superman who can fly? www2.truman.edu (3rd cartoon): Do you believe the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church are both actually reptiles? BTW, Thomas Nast did not go to jail for that. "Now did I just violate Danish law by saying that? Tell your gov't it is free to try to extradit me. Mine will answer that it sees no crime." Silly You choose to call silly what you choose. Reality has no effect on you "reasoning". "a showing of de facto segregation is often sufficient and bolsters your case in any event." We are talking about laws that de facto make access to abortion very difficult in that the the clinics are forced to have higher standards than other clinics and hospitals. Cites? Come on, fella, you made the claim, put up your evidence. You just claimed that abortion clinics have to meet higher standards than hospital operating rooms. Got anything to say about this or does your gov't encourage neoNazism? Message 22155404 (Got some badnews for you: That statement is legal inder American law.) I hope I don't violate Dansh law again, but you're so full it your eyes are brown.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next