Search results

Dr: >One thing in ACLU's brief I have a problem with is their >argument that had there been sex in the stall "...it would >not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the >public washroom.". >That's quite an assumption. In including this point I think >the ACLU weakens...

SWC: >But what would you do if you had one of your children >in the restroom helping them go. And two pervs started >fucking in the stall next to you? >How would you feel about sex in a public bathroom at that >point? Would you feel they had the right to it or not? The "right" or...

Very nice TN. JB

I do not conclude the above from the opening post of this thread and I believe that you are misinterpreting the position of the ACLU. The ACLU's legal position would be the same whether it was sex, drugs, currency counterfitting, or murder. -- the expectation of privacy is there *no matter...

Dr: >The specifics of Craig's situation is a side >issue. The more important issue is the ALCU >argument that sex - not just sexual solicitation - >is OK in a public washroom stall. That is NOT what the ACLU is arguing. They are not arguing the legality of the activity itself...

Is that what happened in the Craig case? -- if not, no break given. JB

There's not many of us saying that ... most who side with the ACLU on this issue (including myself) are simply saying that an "expectation of privacy", means just that -- you don't get to intentionally peek through the cracks to determine *what* we are doing. JB

Rat, to say I'm not in your fan club would be an understatement, but trefoils comments show complete ignorance regarding the positions you take on this board. You don't deserve that. JB

No you don't, you want to live in your little world of paranoia and fear. JB

Isn't there a step in there somewhere that you're missing? JB

Rcan: >as obviously being an alias does the same for you. I love this whole "alias" think Rcan keeps falling back on when he's got nothing else. Like "rcanfield" is actually his/her legal name rather than an "alias" of some sort. I mean I use my actually initials (JB) to sign off, but...

Hapa: >Public bathrooms are to shit, piss, and, occasionally, throw-up. >Rutting in a stall in a public restroom should have no >expectation of privacy Ahh ... I see. It *depends* on what one is doing whether there is an "expectation of privacy". ROFLAO!! Hapa's privacy rule ...

Rcan: > ... he shied away from a basic test I requested ( >I am still waiting. What are the 3 words I wrote >on the paper on my wall?) >Nuff said. Of course Rcan conveniently fails to note that he just as vigorously shied away from the *two* word test I requested. Nuff said...

CL: >Too bad these radicals don't realize the harm >they are causing to his campaign. It's a shame. JB

That's easy to refute -- stop throwing softballs. I will use only the material presented by you and demonstrate that it in no way supports your specific argument (Abortion is taking a human life). OK, please highlight where in your medical dictionary definition it states that a fetus or...

AT: >I am arguing that abortion is taking a human >life. You STILL have not refuted that fact. The above is opinion, not fact. >Your contention is that it's legal. And so it is. But that >does not negate the fact that abortion takes a >human life. Please stop confusing your...

Uh, huh! And how about your lack of "reason". I suppose that was on purpose as well. JB

Rat: > ... the main thing now is to expose all the voting fraud. And your doing a great job of getting your 'proof by assertion' messsage out there to the masses. Excellent work Rat, we're all grateful. Keep it up. JB

>Pro-lifers appeal to reason ... Pro-lifers have no more a lock on 'reason' than the pro-choicers (see following) >... (pointing to when a fertilized egg becomes a >human, and applying ‘normal’ laws to that human), There is no "reason" given in the above statement ... only...