Search results

Ah, but I would be in EXCELLENT company. :)

In the US, it really got going with Lieberman back around 2005-2007; but has expanded to license plate and sidewalk cameras. http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S778-2015 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/10/surveillance-society-cameras-public-locations/2409893/...

Sometimes he recognizes that my posts are actually meant to help him, and he takes me off ignore. However, as mentioned: I've caught him in at least two, possibly three integrity issues lately. I expect to be placed on ignore, and never to be taken off.

Mr. Orwell tried his best; but it's fallen on deaf ears, and the UK has turned into the very thing he warned against. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2985202/Scotland-Yard-chief-Hogan-Howe-calls-DIY-surveillance-help-police.html

Yep, that's the proper conclusion. Take some members from one fraternity, from a college that accepts students from all 50 states and from all over the world, and ask the question: Has this one state gone nuts? Yeesh.

Actually, Boren's actions don't go far enough. Membership in a fraternity has been revoked? Cry me a river. So you don't get to hang out at those particular frat parties. Want to make this meaningful? Suspend all of them for at least a semester. THEN you'll have something with teeth to it.

This is the best example of your emotional immaturity. You don't like what one poster has to say to/about you, so you're trying to tell other posters what they can/cannot do in regards to her. Seriously, dude; you've graduated college, or at least are beyond college age. Why are you acting...

Of course. But there have been those who looked at "defense of the unborn" as their justification to stop, by whatever means necessary, abortionists. If such a law is passed, it must be broken. Our biblical guidance on such is clear; Paul went to jail for it. I continue to work where I can to...

Killing abortionists? What's your answer? Because your question, as posed, leads to a very slippery slope that others have used in the past to justify murdering abortionists and other acts.

Makes at least the second, possibly third thing I've caught him on in the last few weeks. He has an integrity problem.

How did you know who I was referring to? I left it gender-neutral; but you responded with "her." So you know who I'm talking about. Doesn't lend a whole lot of credence to "avoiding all her posts".... As I said: you either willfully ignored their work on your behalf....You've confirmed you did...

Were you telling anyone abortion was wrong? If so, you were protesting abortion. You're attempting to make a distinction that doesn't exist. If you were at the far end of the parking lot, and only placing tracts on the cars farthest from the building, then maybe. Otherwise, the parking lot...

Please. Be honest with yourself, if not with us. You were asked to move outside the gate; that alone indicates you were within 100 feet. If that's not enough, then consider: average lane width on a street is 9-12 feet. Giving benefit of the doubt and going with the maximum of 12 feet, a...

Not exactly true. You were in the parking lot, which is within 100 feet. Question: when you asked the person behind the counter, and he told you you could be in the parking lot, did he know you were there to protest abortion? Or did you just ask if you could put out some materials, without...

This is weird. When this thread first started, it was 10 million people will be affected if the SC votes a certain way. When I posted a response to CTB the other day, the number was reported in news sources as 8 million. Reading about it today, it's now 7.5 million. ???

The legal principle in the ACA that says states are currently in violation of the ACA. How so? Then why are you so upset that people who have an opposite opinion from yours are supporting the SC uphold the ACA as its written? You supported the ACA; you were okay with "we have to pass it to...

It's not a matter of whether I like it. If it currently violates legal principle, the SC should vote as such. If they vote simply because 8 million people will lose insurance coverage, then they haven't voted based on legal principle. Yes, once they vote, it becomes law. The question is, will...

You know exactly what is being asked; and your refusal to answer says you prefer to vote in favor of the ACA, even if such a vote technically violates the law.

So should the SC vote by the rule of law, or should they vote for the ACA no matter what?

It's absolutely on topic. The premise throughout this thread has been "here's the harm if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA." So ultimately the question is exactly as was presented: Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the law, or in favor of the ACA?