To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *14866 (-20)
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) While the manner in which wars are executed is influenced by these institutions, I don't think they're responsible for the wars themselves, which is what I hoped to say. The fact that they're the current flavor of the month for influencing war (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Actually, it is my understanding that the 16th Amendment has no REAL force in law -- the Supreme Court itself stated this in the case of STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916): "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Yes, but aren't they in fact responsible, not for war as a concept, but for certain kinds of war, and certain ways of carrying out war? Arguably focus groups and the media had convinced successive administrations that the american populace (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Larry - Scott - Please call it a day
 
"Lawrence Wilkes" <lawrence@thewilkesf...rve.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gn9rt2.Fo2@lugnet.com... (...) And dont EITHER of you reply to this post! (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Larry - Scott - Please call it a day
 
Why must every thread here turn into the Larry and Scott show? Come on guys. It's like you are both itching for the other to make a post, so you can post something anti in return. Regardless of the topic, you just HAVE to take the opposite view to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Unsubscribe from the LP newsletter
 
I wonder if Todd &/or Suz intend that members should use the e-mail addresses of posters in this way? I expect not. Is it even within the TofU? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
 
  No thank you!
 
(...) Well I was, but I'm not any more. I've got to stop actually taking you at your word, I really should know better. I've apologised and I'll do it again if it will help. I apologise for taking you at your word that you did not want to be on that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:Gn9n82.12G@lugnet.com... (...) listen to the BBC radio program I mentioned in earlier post for discussions on US governments role in creating the drug problem (URL) 15 minutes in till the end (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
 
(...) What is the "You're welcome" for? Are you expecting thanks? You really are an arrogant sod. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Me too. We just disagree about how to get from here to there. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) It would indeed be nice if a war-less system had *ever* existed. Obviously a world without war is preferable to a world in which war is common, but wars were fought for stupid reasons long before focus groups and media polls existed; there's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Apology.
 
I apologise. It was forward of me to try to assist you and I regret any inconvenience it may have caused you, because your words did not match your desires, and I made the mistake of taking you at your word, something I promise I will be more (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Well, Scotland. And let's take care of Luxembourg while we're at it... All right, though--I see your point. Perhaps what I'm envisioning requires greater individual responsibility and participation in the Government than is currently the case, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) I want a system where countries do not want to "nuke" others and where wars are not fought via focus groups and media driven opinion polls. Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) I'll buy that, at least about certain issues. It seems to me that some states would immediately erode civil rights if given the chance and not prevented by the Fed from doing so. Yes, we always have privacy and search-and-seizure issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Oh ya. We're not arguing about that!!! I think maybe you can even argue that you get the results FASTER with many smaller organisms competing (in the market of bad ideas fostered by the very existence of big government and the system it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  infringement of my privacy
 
(...) What gives you the right to delete that? Did I even imply I wanted you to? Is this the kind of thing you normally do? I see this as a gross infringement of my privacy. I demand an apology. (...) I think I have 3 id's on Lugnet. One I can no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Scott's too lazy to unsubscribe
 
(...) That WAS me... (URL) welcome. (...) Oh please do, as that will forever put to bed any lingering question as to whether you can call it junk or not. You couldn't before I unsubbed you of course... but now you definitely cannot. (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Smaller states == smaller tyrannies. More states == more of a marketplace of ideas. Do you want a system in which the current population of China and India can vote to nuke Scotland??? (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Medical Marijuana
 
(...) Yeah, but... Doesn't the Constitution also expressly empower the judicial system to interpret the law as it applies case-by-case? That seems a fairly clear indication that the founding fathers "intended" to have the justices making the exact (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR