caroljane

Even while Republicans are condemning Akin, the GOP Platform Committee has again included a draft anti-abortion amendment in the official party policy. Conservatives don't care what Akin said. A lot of them agree with him. They are just trying to guarantee a Senate majority, so they can enact their policies. Akin still stands a good chance of winning if he gets to run.

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. . It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction. You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom? You wouldn't. So I am correct, then, in assuming that this court case is invalid? It seems so to me. But I am not a lawyer.

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. . It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction. You hold I have to be forced in order to have grounds to sue as opposed to having laws which absolutely threaten force (which is enforced to be carried out as a law). Then you say that it would be impractical for an Objectivist (sorry I didn't mention that part) advisor to advise breaking the saw so I would be forced so to have grounds to sue. If their legal threat of force is not a crime unless they initiate it and if it's improper to break the unconstitutional laws forcing me not to be an architect, how on earth do you hold I would end up in a courtroom? You wouldn't.

I was told by two lawyers that I had to file in in a District Court. I was told by one shortly after I was beginning my case that I must file it in the court of appeals. I was told by the two lawyers that one has to lose in the district court in order to file at the Court of Appeals. I've called the courts but no one will offer legal advise about where to file which is incredibly impractical. . It would hardly be practical of them to advise you to go out and break the law so you can appeal your conviction.

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights. Their existence doesn't violate my rights. Its they who creates the laws which initiates force against me if I call myself an architect in public or accept a commission without involuntarily serving them. They forbid me to be an architect for my own sake without giving or asking for help. If I don't serve them, they'll have me arrested because they claim the right to force a man who has forced no one because that man didn't but might force others. Do I make sense? But they haven't had you arrested or forced you to anything. Nor did they force you to join the architecture program.

Yes-- it is the regulatory laws, which he hasn't broken, which aim to prevent Ben from practising as an architect. The architectural groups he names, have never done anything to him, They just exist. He seems to be saying, their existence violates his rights.

It is pretty easy to be happy when you never think about other people at all. Roark thought he was a great architect, but he wasnt.. It made him happy to think so, which was the point of the novel.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, and, as I remember you're not an Objectivist so you might not agree with me. When I say sensory evidence I mean I've used, as a guide, the legislation regulating architecture from the villains websites. My other evidence is not sensory its one single brilliant axiom: a thing is itself, and it's corollary axioms: contradictions cannot exist, either-or. The laws of logic are what I directly base rights off of and the laws of logic are absolutes, they apply to every single piece of sensory evidence that ever existed. The laws of logic are the most self-evident facts I could ever bring to court and I am. I can't wait! I need no supporting witnesses. I have proved by the laws of logic that my rights have been violated and the AAC legislation further proves it. My case consists of proving each law to be based on the false and the wrong and thereby is evil and I prove how and why each law violates my rights. I respectfully disagree, I think you do need supporting witnesses, expert witnesses. The other side will have plenty.

Will you have supporting witnesses for your arguments when you go to court?

O Philip! "Sensory evidence", from one witness only, almost never proves anything to a jury much less than a judge, who always gives evidential instruction to juries. I would really like to agree with you but I cannot. t

Totally gender free, you're welcome.

Ninth, There is still the so called Dr Dennis Hardman to deal with. I'm just saying. His association with a certain lizard has never been disproved,

I also loved the Tracey Ullman sketch, where she got the grumpy bus queue cheered up,all singing together and picked their pockets as they boarded the bus.

Stan Rogers was the writer.

Philip, I do not know why i a am moved to quote these lines to you. "And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow, with smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go, Take heart and put forth all your heart and arm and brain..." I think you are doing it, as best you can.

Just perfect Adam. Have I ever mentioned I am a totalFrankie Vallie fan? zWalk like a man, sing like a girl ....screw 'em all. Farinellie would be proud.

Since foundationally stupid can be politically lethal, of course they should. Steelman looks like a pretty good repl;acement.

1! Who knew? Time Lords have birthdays just like mortals! And another Leo too. Keep roarinig in the village, our peaceful village...and I won't fear tonight. All the best Carol

Another note of civility in the campaign. I like how both sides are keeping their young children out of it, the carefully selected leaks are chosen first with an eye to their protection, which is as it should be. They all seem to have lovely families. The most high profile of course is Malia Obama, newly 14 and stunningly beautiful. Something tells me that the Secret Service officers on her detail are carefully chosen, ugly old happily married men.

This is an interesting subject, given the worldwide availability or nonavailability of food, and the vital importance of enough being produced. Our corn prices are going up, I know that, because of drought in the US. I read somewhere that Brazil alone produces enough food to feed the whole world into the next decade..forget where I read it...maybe MSK keeps up with the economic scene there?

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why? That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why? That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case. Do you know why? Because most cases like this are decided by a judge or panel of judges, not a jury. Judges must go by the book, by the interpretation of the law as it exists, and usually have heard passionate speeches on every side, their job being to weigh the passion and the letter and spirit of the law.,I know there are plenty of judges who have agendae and will love a passionate speech when it ties in with their own passions. But even on judges there are checks and balances.

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court. Why do you hold that passionate arguments are inappropriate for court? iI don't hold it.They are often appropriate. But the court does not confuse them with valid supports for a legal case.

As it is something of a tradition in Objectivist scholarship, I feel no shame in quoting my previously published writings. Carol and I are civilized enough to have a respectful disagreement during philosophical conversation. I'm merely here to have my premises checked. I have absolutely no intention to fight anyone, only to have polite, civilized and respectful philosophical conversation. That's all. I can't fathom how a civilized, respectful polite approach to philosophical discussion can result in being "punched out". Please correct me if I'm wrong. I never did understand what you meant by punching myself out of the first round if not by being vulgar, disrespectful and rudely fighting others. PDS is not vulgar, disrespectful or rude. He's just a lawyer, I believe a litigator in fact. They have an idiosyncratic way of debating and the ability to enjoy the debates of others.

That is a polemic, not an argument for a court.

Writing is the only trade I can think of,except maybe salesmanship, where the practitioner can practise and earn reputation (sometimes even money) purely by demonstrating their skills, no licensing needed That is not because it not an important or honourable trade. It is because the law deems, except in such areas as hate speech and so forth, that bad or unskilled writing does not have much potential to inflict harm on its readers. Though a good case could be made to the contrary.