nabraxas

what suspicious behaviour allows them to search your bag ---heh heh heh it's an old customs/cop trick. first off they ask you "do you mind showing me the contents ov your bag, please Sir?" if you refuse, then that refusal, all by itself, is sufficient cause for them to demand a search. [ 02. October 2005, 23:17: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

is abit vague i thought wandjina meant the voices in her head. i never give them much time myself. try an experiment, like asking them who'll win the melbourne cup. i hear a voice saying Makybe Diva

nabraxas - i know all of that. just settle down people, okay? don't make such a big deal. believe it or not, but my comment on civility was not aimed at you. it IS a big deal. in a society where people are willing to offer their seat on a train to an elderly person w/out being asked, there is a chance that some kind ov social revolution will be effective, however in a society where everyone is encouraged to be selfish competative individuals, i don't see much civility or much hope for any kind ov social revolution.

excellent stuff Heywood. i have nothing really to add, i have only vaguely studdied UK politics, so i know nothing about the Australian experience. it's not so much Gen i like as the actual Ov power

cyjack- he's an american called Peter Hodges here's his website

heywood--i'm arguing from a poor position here as i personally consider the rule ov law or a bill ov rights to be worthless, in terms ov personal freedom. however, i still stick w/my argument. a bill ov rights sets out all the things a citizen can & can not do. ok, i accept i phrased that incorrectly, what i meant was if something is not there as a right you can be stopped from doing it--ie: if free speech isn't in the bill ov rights, you don't have the right to make political speeches. whereas, w/the rule ov law, unless there is a law against making political speeches you can make them w/impunity. quote: To be "ruled by laws, not by men," is the old expression. Now, a jury nullifying a law or a protester practicing civil disobedience is not engaged in ruling. Instead, they are doing the precise opposite: negating the instructions and actions of government. The principle of the rule of law does the same kind of thing, for it means that the authority and power of government and of individuals in office is limited to those spheres, those issues, and those actions that are specified by the law. The rule of law denies to government unlimited or discretionary power and authority. The rule of law is thus part of a system of checks and balances to prevent dictatorship and despotism. Because of that, it is curiously the case that you do not need to have laws to have the rule of law: for the whole system of Common Law developed through the practice of the courts in considering claims that someone had committed a wrong. The original purpose of trial by jury in the Magna Carta was similar. The threat, indeed, addressed by the Magna Carta was of the laws and judges of King John. If Magna Carta juries could not nullify the laws of King John, or ignore the instructions and rulings of his judges, trial by jury would have been a useless protection. But the Barons, in obtaining King John's pledge, as Lysander Spooner wrote in 1852, "were engaged in no such senseless work as that." The jury is the last line of defense, the last check and balance, against tyrannical government, if, that is, it is charged with determining the justice of a case and not just with blindly applying the law as given by a judge. It was become a very interesting perversion of the sytem of checks and balances when, as we are told, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means but that we are then expected to obey without resistance. Since the Supreme Court has in general, since the New Deal, interpreted the Constitution to mean exactly the opposite of its original purpose, which had been to establish a federal government of limited and enumerated powers, but which now seems to have gotten us a national government of unlimited and plenary powers, which can legislate or regulate in any matter whatsoever, what we have seen is the destruction of the rule of law, through the arbitrary authority of an irresponsible court, rather than its preservation. When the citizen demands that the government obey the Constitution, and the government replies that it is obeying its interpretation of the Constitution, which gives it authority and discretion far beyond that overthrown in the American Revolution, then the whole idea of the "rule of law" has been turned around to justify the very kind of arbitrary, discretionary, and unaccountable authority that it was supposed to prevent. Jury Nullification

why are so many doing it, repeatedly ? Homer Simpson makes a bad role model.

an anarchist knows that civility is an important standard to keep society running smoothly --maybe not just important, but essential; maybe the reason the whole "revolution ov thought" seems further away than ever. [ 29. September 2005, 20:31: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

The most turned on I've ever been is when I have my partner moaning in ecstasy, because I am satisfying their every need. THAT is when you are a real human, when you cast all your own needs aside, for someone else. THAT maybe the 'most truthful' statement i've seen/heard in a long time. kudos Benz

quote: At present, no one is at risk of contracting naturally occurring smallpox in Australia. Any new cases of smallpox are likely to result from an act of bioterrorism, but the risk of this occurring is extremely low. quote: For a number of reasons, vaccination is not recommended for the general public: it does not give life long immunity, smallpox is very unlikely ever to be seen in Australia again, and vaccination can cause rare but serious side effects. Should smallpox reappear in the community, the vaccine can be given up to three days after exposure to the virus to protect against or reduce the severity of the illness web page forgive my ignorance Rev, but why are you concerned enough about smallpox to wanna try contracting cowpox?

sucks that they made a special provision for roquefort, but not for stilton--which when made w/unpastuerised milk is a completely different animal to anything you can buy here lkabelled as stilton bet the cost ov roquefort will be an arm & a leg--don't buy any unless it's sweating a little liquor

a "bill of rights" can actually be a very dodgy thing. a bill ov rights sets out all the things a citizen can & can not do. the rule ov law (which is what we have instead ov a bill ov rights) sets out all the things a citizen can not do. there is a greater degree ov freedom there because it presumes that anything not outlawed is legal.

Wandjina---ok, i took some poetic licence here. everything i posted was true, but i didn't actually goto the pub, i just hung outside listening to her scream for 5 minutes or so, then headed back inside to relieve her. Do you guys really think this is how people, women particularly, deserve to be treated? it was meant to be an amusing story about a practical joke i pulled once, i was abit drunk & appologise for posting it & causing offence. I like touching my feminine side --on another note, anyone been watching "Drawn Together" on SBS monday night, after South Park? this weeks show included the unforgetable line "This vagina could do w/a womans touch"---how we laffed---guess you'd have had to have seen it to get the humor---well worth a viewing.

that's for me to know & you to guess

thanks for looking Apoth. quote: extra pyramidal symptoms --i really love that phrase, no idea what it exactly means though