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 / *15905 (-40)
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) You mean when I step on one at the beach? Or do you mean I'm supposed to care if junkies contract AIDS? I mean, hypothetically, I do care. But at the same time, that's a risk they are balancing as they make their decisions. It's not exactly (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) OTOH, there are many disadvantages to the use of hypodermic syringes (sp?): #1- There is a larger risk to contract diseases (AIDS, Hepatitis,...) from a needle than there is from a syringe; #2- It is possible to vent a room easily, but is is (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) lol. Do you feel that there is even a chance that the average "Joe" will think that the WOD *lowers* the price of drugs on the street? I really do doubt that. I really do. (...) Perhaps many view the military costs as a price worth paying? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) I'm probably the only one with this stance, but I'd prefer people to use their drugs intravenously. I find the exhaust -- whether from tobacco or cannabis, troublesome and difficult to avoid. If they're passed out on the stoop from their (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) It is supposed to be good, and have a relaxing effect. No surprise. But I have not tried myself though (so far; I won't say it is not in my plans to do so in due time). (...) I believe Portugal is one of those countries, at least up to a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) No, I haven't. The seeds are good for their nutritional values, but I don't know about the tea. (...) I don't know when the habit of smoking hemp started, but you are probably correct that it was not a social problem at the time. The alleged (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Next time you're thinking about flaming someone on-line
 
(URL) interesting to find out what Mr Whatley ends up doing... ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) That must be it. I mean, it is possible to grow hem in Portugal with a simple permit, if it is to be used commercially; but every once in a while, the Guard comes and burns the fields, even legalized - then they "appologize for the honest (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) Have you tried the tea? (...) I fear the results... :-D By the time the US constitution was written, the drug issue was still not a social problem: all drugs were smoked (as opposed to the current IV ones). So it is fair to think the general (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) Yup, I know that. There used to be hemp-like plantations for rope production in Portugal a long time ago. (...) :-) What really gave me thoughts were all those people who say "politicians would like to burn the constitution"... ;-) (...) My (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) I wouldn't have any knowledge of the CIA specifically, but I agree with the logic that the only way drugs could be so prevalent is with complicit law enforcement. My buddy Aaron got a degree in criminal justice because he started out wanting (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) When I visited Berlin in the mid-nineties, I bought half a kilo of hemp seeds to bring home. This was the non-THC variant. It tastes good and is very healthy. I used it in my breakfast cereals! When it comes to the American constitution, the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) If you can get your government to realise it. Here in Australia, many people have been lobbying for years to make it easier to get approval to grow hemp for these kinds of products, but they *still* have to jump through hoops. I guess the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Curious, if true
 
(...) Hemp is a great fiber. Works most places cotton or wood work (paper, clothing, and rope). (why do you think they call it "smoking a rope"???) As far as pot goes, well, to each his own...at least as far as legal in the country that they are in. (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) Maybe, maybe not. Never ascribe to malice what stupidity (or empire building) can adequately explain. Law enforcement types and their lobbyists, prison guards and their lobbyists, prison operating companies and their lobbyists... they all (...) (23 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Curious, if true
 
Hi all, Today's newspaper had an interesting article about possible uses for cannabis, besides the obvious "smoke it" one; one of the many uses mentioned was paper, and as an example they mentioned the American Declaration of Independance, along (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) Why be so generous? I think they are STILL dealing drugs, as are many members of most of our law enforcement agencies. My assertion is and essentially HAS TO BE correct -- how else could drugs flood our streets and prisons? Moreover, the only (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) The LP mailing list received an update. I could post it if there's interest. The drug czar didn't take the bait, unfortunately, so it did generate some other coverage, but not quite the controversy that was hoped for. (If the DEA or whoever (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) No harm done! I wrote "I think" and "I hope" for a reason! :-) (...) Ah, ok. My mistake then. In my place money is understood to have correspondance with central bank reserves (USD + Gold). Now it may have changed, with the new "Strong (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) Would you expect a drop? (...) What? Do you think that people do not realise that the War on Drugs raises the price of "drugs" on the street and that organised crime (in its many forms) benefit? I think they do. What, perhaps, they have not (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) I hate to be overly harsh -- but you have no idea what you are talking about. The corresponding amount of paper money to precious metals is by definition in U.S. federal law supposed to be .999 fine 1 oz. silver for a dollar (it is essentially (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) Yes, I do go to church on a regular basis. Of course some of my fellow congregants very vehemently deny they go to church. I happen to find that church is a pretty good description of what I go to on Sunday even though the beliefs of my (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) <Snipped> (...) You are assuming housing costs would not fluctuate in the 6 years in study, right? I mean, by the time they reach 100k the house cost a tad more... and in the meanwhile, they may have been experiencing other possible (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) Quite recently, I saw a graph of the net private debt/savings in the US. Since the second world war, the average debt of US households had increased from roughly 0% of the household income to around 100% today. This means that on average, US (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) Dave! Way to keep your eye on the moving targets! This was not a small topic you raised with your seemingly simple query. Of course, all of the things you describe are brought to us by the friendly passages contained in Title 12 of the Federal (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) I thought you were always off to church and such...my mistake. (...) Why not? I am trying to suggest we give those under the thumb of the world be given a clean slate. Anything they do from this moment forward can bring them whatever wealth (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) You are, of course, advocating communism: "Anyone who possesses even a single item beyond basic living requirements is equally culpable as one who possesses countless frivolous luxury items." And in fact I think there is a manifest difference (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
(...) Excellent! Do you have any way of knowing what attention the ad attracted? Has the LP web site had a burst of hits or mail? I hope that this does raise awareness of the reality of things. Chris (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) It's a nifty visual, I agree. I'm still not sold on the film for a number of other reasons, but who wouldn't love the idea of someone swooping in to negate our debts for us? Ignoring for a moment the problem of destruction of private property (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) Careful about making such assertions, or you'll be labelled a classist! In any case, you're correct (by a long shot, I believe). Dave! (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)
 
[OK...I'm going to keep my cool here, and not attack Scott, despite my sensabilities crying out for lots of sarcasm, exclamation points and capital letters. I'm just going to point out a couple of facts and leave it at that. I suggest that anyone (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) Please show me where I have EVER stated that I pay much heed at all to the Bible. I really would hardly consider myself a Christian either, true, I do consider Jesus to be a "great man" (possibly even supernaturally great, but definitely NOT (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) These *were* usually public projects. The present trend is to make everything dependant on private initiative, with State subsidies according to the strategic interest. At least it is happening in my country: the state wants to establish a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: how to lie with statistics
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Sophie writes: <snip> I stand behind what I said, (in the middle of a very involved thread) three months ago, including my analysis of what transpired when you spammed many groups. But even though I could mount a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
 
| The big irony here is that drug production in Afghanistan has increased | since the Taliban were removed. No doubt that will reduce the price on the | street a little (but not by 16999/17000) - which appears to be an LP goal? | ;) Lastly - it (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
No way. I spent all my adult life avoiding debt (other than my mortgage - and the rate I pay on that is *less* than I get on my savings). I don't see why I should pay for others getting bank loans to play the stock market. (...) I'm sure I read (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: The Care and Feedng of Your Trademark (Was: Community Policing...)
 
(...) Why keep reducing this to personalities? This is about issues - not personalities. Stick to the issues. Forget your relationship with Larry for now. I shall ask again: This is what I don't get. Larry offends people. Larry acts childishly. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Feb-02, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: how to lie with statistics
 
RRRRrrrrrr.... (...) Big Whoop, and, gee thanks for Dragging my name into this for no good reason. I warn you, please do not use my name at all for any reason in this forum for purposes that advance your own pleasures. I build for the sake of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) Eh? These are usually public projects, how is it that there is not enough money collected from taxes to accomplish these things? Don't even get me started on how Californians have already paid for their power plants. Anyway, it's the interest (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: A hypothetical economics question...
 
(...) I believe he's referring to railroads and such. Roads are funded a bit differently, but may use loans. Phone lines, gas pipes, electric plants and transport lines... they are all usually funded with loans - it is unfrequent one or ones have (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more | 40 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

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