Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 11, 23:59
2: Dec 11, 14:43
3: Dec 11, 11:29
4: Dec 11, 07:59
5: Dec 10, 18:15
6: Dec 10, 12:28
7: Dec 10, 09:30
8: Dec 10, 05:59
9: Dec 9, 17:07
10: Dec 9, 13:47
11: Dec 9, 10:33
12: Dec 9, 07:33
13: Dec 8, 17:50
14: Dec 8, 10:32
15: Dec 8, 06:23
16: Dec 7, 16:52
17: Dec 7, 07:17
18: Dec 6, 14:40
19: Dec 6, 10:07
20: Dec 6, 07:32
Posts: 157
In response to
"
I don't think this is "of course not" worthy. It's half of the controversial bill that was mentioned on B2. -- nm
"
by
Strongbad
I doubt that it's the controversial part though. -- nm
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Mar 23 '16, 09:52
(No message)
Responses:
That's what I'm getting at. There's 2 components. I wanted to verify that the 2nd component is the issue. -- nm
-
Strongbad
Mar 23, 09:57
1
See below, though as to why the first component is objectionable to some.
-
pmb
Mar 23, 09:58
Also of note (and why sometimes it is controversial) is that it's a law that serves no purpose. They don't have to now. It's a law to make a
-
pmb
Mar 23, 09:53
3
I think we can see, though, that it *does* serve a purpose. It makes people think there's a problem that doesn't exist. -- nm
-
mara
Mar 23, 09:55
2
*discreetly stops burning American flag* -- nm
-
con_carne
Mar 23, 09:58
Yes. It flames the fear. It's like the anti-Shariah law stuff. -- nm
-
pmb
Mar 23, 09:56
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
