Posted on 08/25/2006 7:47:48 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
=)
That's true.
I am *this* close to bugging out of here.
I honestly hoped better from Freepers.
So if we're discussing basketball, and I say "Now let's talk about baseball," I can expect you to object on the grounds that baseball isn't relevant to basketball?
Have you ever discussed any subject other than the common law, perchance, or do you find the changing of subjects simply too wrenching to carry off?*
* Note multiple question marks.
:-)
Yes, It is; thanks for concurring.
Except your false claim of uniformity.
The British common law for libel "presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the words are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary."
What state has that as a standard in its common law?
Except your false claim of uniformity.
The British common law for libel "presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the words are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary."
What state has that as a standard in its common law?
I don't understand; do you agree with her or not?
Ah, you were just changing the subject.
Can you say "disingenuous"?
I have no idea, and once again, it is completely irrelevant. The common law definition of burglary is the breaking and entering of a dwelling, at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein. How many states have that common law definition? Zero. The common law was derived from England, not the states. The principles of common law are uniform. The states can get rid of them, change them through statute, use them, or whatever. But the common law is the same.
Sorry. Torpedoing what should be a Republican gimme seat affects us all.
The alcalde is Spanish.
Why not? Seeing as how you never responded to the post of mine immediately prior to my question (182), wherein I laid out a much larger portion of Jefferson's letter to Cartwright, I figured that, rather than leave your awkward non-response out there to embarrass you further, I'd offer you the opportunity to move on to something else. I guess I was just raised that way, insofar as calling attention to the lack of a response might have been perceived as impolite.
You're welcome.
You continue to support her. Good for you. I just hope more than you are. It just does not appear to be. The only thing I don't understand is why Republicans are putting their foot in their mouths lately. We would DEFINITELY win every election if our candidates would keep quiet and just focus on issues.
And I always thought the people who used the word "theocrat" where exaggerating before...
Why should I support someone who spews bigotry?
I've been told that for Christians it's not sinful to make personal attacks. That's one way we differ. I find it unconscionable that you call fellow Freepers "worthless" as if you are God judging our worth. You aren't God.
The purpose of Biblical law, and all laws grounded on a Biblical faith, is to punish and restrain evil, and to protect life and property, to provide justice for all people.
Conservative Jews, Buddhists and Sikhs agree with those kinds of laws. They are based on logic and reason.
A Buddhist wouldn't want to legislate vegetarianism unless he was a socialist totalitarian nannystater. And then that would be his problem, not his religion. There are many Christian socialists as well. It's their ideology of law, not their religion that matters.
Unless you are a theocratic bigot.
" It's whats in your heart, not the name of your particular denomination."
Well stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.