Re: Medical Marijuana, Bush & Co.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 2:50:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

They deserve it! Their greed has ruined our children's future! Liberties lost now may never be regained! If the moneys used to slaughter innocents abroad had been used constructively for food, medicines, and education we might have had hope for a peaceful world. Now all those dreams seem lost forever. We are all far worse off than before Bush/Cheney stole the election for their own profit.

Just what liberties have been lost? Perhaps you have confused licence with freedom.

Let's look at the Constitution.

(from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

None of these have been repealed or infringed by Bush and Co. In fact, the First and Second Amendments are most under attack by the left, not the right. It is the left that is fighting against religion in the US, using the first part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", while ignoring the second, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It is the left that is jeopardizing free speech by stretching it beyond its political dimension to include pornography, including child pornography, offensive art (like the Piss Christ and feces covered Virgin ), vile music, PC approved hate speech, and the general lack of decorum and respect as seen by the new fad of disrupting veteran's funerals with protests. The press is still free, which is evident in its very anti-Bush stance. People still have the right to assemble, even though many abuse this right as mentioned above. People can still petition the government for problems, though the Supreme Court has affected that some lately with the Kelso and other rulings, but most of those appointees were not from Bush.

The Second Amendment is also under threat from the left, not Bush and Co. Major left wing cities have banned possession of weapons and even have wages lawsuits against gun makers, all of which have been thrown out by the courts. Notice also that those same places have the highest crime rates in the country: criminals love unarmed victims. If the Federal government really did turn against this Amendment it would be time to worry. That is how Stalin, Hitler and countless others got their start. Once the populace was disarmed, the horrors really began.

So far as I know, no soldiers are being quartered in civilian homes.

We are still secure in our homes thanks to the 4th. It has taken some hits lately, but these have all come from local governments, not the fed. In fact, many of these pushes have come from those crime infested locations mentioned above and so are liberal domains.

The 5th is still fully intact, perhaps the only good thing the defense lawyers have done.

The 6th is likewise intact. There are some complaints that the war on terror prisoners have been denied this, but they are prisoners of war, not civil criminals, so are under an entirely different system.

7 and 8 are also in effect without problem.

9 is still in effect.

10 has taken some hits but this mostly happened under liberal administration who set up national programs for what had been the province of the states, things like welfare and education, social security and medicare, then promptly made a mess of them. The courts have also had a hand in this, moreso recently than in the past because much of the liberal agenda can't pass electoral muster, so they try to force it through via the courts.

Other amendments guaranteeing the right to vote have not been infringed, except in regard to felons which is as it should be. They chose to violate the laws of the state, often repeatedly, so therefore they have no expectation to have a say in the governance of the state.

These are the rights the constitution protects. Period. End of story. Things not protected, in spite of tortured rulings to the contrary in some cases are: abortion, gay marriage, driving, owning pets, how one can dress (or rather how little one can wear), pornography, fomenting riots, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, growing or using pot, etc. These are not rights under the Constitution. These would be left to the province of the states unless otherwise prohibited by federal law which supercedes state law.

Therefore, if a state wanted gay marriage, it could vote it so. Likewise other states could vote to ban it. If, however, the Congress passed a law banning it, it would be banned throughout the land. The same goes for drug use or any of the other things.

Many things people claim are rights are not rights. They are merely things that they like to do and think they should be rights, but they aren't. Limits have to exist in society or society will cease to function and it will collapse.

Again though I think certain states should be allowed to have a certain set of laws that apply only to them. So California could have pro pot laws, gay marriage, easy abortion and lax sexual consent laws, but that would only apply to that state and the laws would be null and void across the border. In this way people who wanted to live under those laws could move to those locations and those who didn't could move out. I think that only a few states would actually take that route: like California and Massachusetts and the rest of the nation would take the opposing stand. This would be fine with me and an equitable solution to many of the problems we face today. It would also allow those states to act as a laboratory to see how those stances actually work in the real world in the long term. Give them a generation or two and we'd have the results, provided we could count on honest statistical reporting from those states.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 2:50:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

They deserve it! Their greed has ruined our children's future! Liberties lost now may never be regained! If the moneys used to slaughter innocents abroad had been used constructively for food, medicines, and education we might have had hope for a peaceful world. Now all those dreams seem lost forever. We are all far worse off than before Bush/Cheney stole the election for their own profit.

Just what liberties have been lost? Perhaps you have confused licence with freedom.

Let's look at the Constitution.

(from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

None of these have been repealed or infringed by Bush and Co. In fact, the First and Second Amendments are most under attack by the left, not the right. It is the left that is fighting against religion in the US, using the first part "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", while ignoring the second, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". It is the left that is jeopardizing free speech by stretching it beyond its political dimension to include pornography, including child pornography, offensive art (like the Piss Christ and feces covered Virgin ), vile music, PC approved hate speech, and the general lack of decorum and respect as seen by the new fad of disrupting veteran's funerals with protests. The press is still free, which is evident in its very anti-Bush stance. People still have the right to assemble, even though many abuse this right as mentioned above. People can still petition the government for problems, though the Supreme Court has affected that some lately with the Kelso and other rulings, but most of those appointees were not from Bush.

The Second Amendment is also under threat from the left, not Bush and Co. Major left wing cities have banned possession of weapons and even have wages lawsuits against gun makers, all of which have been thrown out by the courts. Notice also that those same places have the highest crime rates in the country: criminals love unarmed victims. If the Federal government really did turn against this Amendment it would be time to worry. That is how Stalin, Hitler and countless others got their start. Once the populace was disarmed, the horrors really began.

So far as I know, no soldiers are being quartered in civilian homes.

We are still secure in our homes thanks to the 4th. It has taken some hits lately, but these have all come from local governments, not the fed. In fact, many of these pushes have come from those crime infested locations mentioned above and so are liberal domains.

The 5th is still fully intact, perhaps the only good thing the defense lawyers have done.

The 6th is likewise intact. There are some complaints that the war on terror prisoners have been denied this, but they are prisoners of war, not civil criminals, so are under an entirely different system.

7 and 8 are also in effect without problem.

9 is still in effect.

10 has taken some hits but this mostly happened under liberal administration who set up national programs for what had been the province of the states, things like welfare and education, social security and medicare, then promptly made a mess of them. The courts have also had a hand in this, moreso recently than in the past because much of the liberal agenda can't pass electoral muster, so they try to force it through via the courts.

Other amendments guaranteeing the right to vote have not been infringed, except in regard to felons which is as it should be. They chose to violate the laws of the state, often repeatedly, so therefore they have no expectation to have a say in the governance of the state.

These are the rights the constitution protects. Period. End of story. Things not protected, in spite of tortured rulings to the contrary in some cases are: abortion, gay marriage, driving, owning pets, how one can dress (or rather how little one can wear), pornography, fomenting riots, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, growing or using pot, etc. These are not rights under the Constitution. These would be left to the province of the states unless otherwise prohibited by federal law which supercedes state law.

Therefore, if a state wanted gay marriage, it could vote it so. Likewise other states could vote to ban it. If, however, the Congress passed a law banning it, it would be banned throughout the land. The same goes for drug use or any of the other things.

Many things people claim are rights are not rights. They are merely things that they like to do and think they should be rights, but they aren't. Limits have to exist in society or society will cease to function and it will collapse.

Again though I think certain states should be allowed to have a certain set of laws that apply only to them. So California could have pro pot laws, gay marriage, easy abortion and lax sexual consent laws, but that would only apply to that state and the laws would be null and void across the border. In this way people who wanted to live under those laws could move to those locations and those who didn't could move out. I think that only a few states would actually take that route: like California and Massachusetts and the rest of the nation would take the opposing stand. This would be fine with me and an equitable solution to many of the problems we face today. It would also allow those states to act as a laboratory to see how those stances actually work in the real world in the long term. Give them a generation or two and we'd have the results, provided we could count on honest statistical reporting from those states.

[Guest guest]

" These are all my opinions. Thank you, Tom, for letting me have my

say. "

You're welcome.

[Guest guest]

" These are all my opinions. Thank you, Tom, for letting me have my

say. "

You're welcome.

[Guest guest]

Rainbow

> Their greed has ruined our children's future! Liberties lost now may never be regained! If the moneys used to slaughter innocents abroad had been used constructively for food, medicines, and education we might have had hope for a peaceful world. Now all those dreams seem lost forever. We are all far worse off than before Bush/Cheney stole the election for their own profit.

well put Rainbow.

I hope the pendulum of politics swings back towards sensible laws, other wise life is not going to be worth living.

Your view point and opinions are rubbing off on to me.

see ! :-)

[Guest guest]

Rainbow

> Their greed has ruined our children's future! Liberties lost now may never be regained! If the moneys used to slaughter innocents abroad had been used constructively for food, medicines, and education we might have had hope for a peaceful world. Now all those dreams seem lost forever. We are all far worse off than before Bush/Cheney stole the election for their own profit.

well put Rainbow.

I hope the pendulum of politics swings back towards sensible laws, other wise life is not going to be worth living.

Your view point and opinions are rubbing off on to me.

see ! :-)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 5:38:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

There are 1,390,000 English pages for lost liberties under G W Bush

Probably that many lunatics. Besides, have you tried looking at them? Probably the same handful of things over and over again. Had that many liberties truly been taken away, we'd all being wearing prison orange and be under house arrest, no internet, phones, books anything. There is no way anything close to that could have been done and the press not going berserk about it.

In other words, a bunch of articles on google don't mean anything. Let's check the authors and more importantly their sources. Beyond that, let's actually check, what they claim and see just how much of it is true and if true, just how far reaching those "lost liberties" go.

I'm willing to bet there isn't anything to them. Sure we had the Patriot Act which was supposed to be a domestic spying thing and the NSA and CIA where looking at domestic groups and people. All you have to do though is read those traitorous articles published by the New York Times and others that laid bare the plans. What you don't hear in the media is that within days of those articles being published, Several groups of men of arab descent were caught around the country buying hundreds of untraceable, disposable cell phones at a time. They would go in and literally clean out a store of all those cell phones they had.

As for the rest, it was nothing they couldn't do anyway, just that the warrants were waved in certain cases. This was done only to speed up intelligence gathering. However, the Patriot Act and others were timid compared to the acts put in place during WWII or even WWI.

I'm really far more concerned about the information corporations have on me and what they will do with it than what the government might do with whatever it has on me. After all, you can demand your files from the government if you want. You can't do that from the ad agencies.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 5:38:29 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

There are 1,390,000 English pages for lost liberties under G W Bush

Probably that many lunatics. Besides, have you tried looking at them? Probably the same handful of things over and over again. Had that many liberties truly been taken away, we'd all being wearing prison orange and be under house arrest, no internet, phones, books anything. There is no way anything close to that could have been done and the press not going berserk about it.

In other words, a bunch of articles on google don't mean anything. Let's check the authors and more importantly their sources. Beyond that, let's actually check, what they claim and see just how much of it is true and if true, just how far reaching those "lost liberties" go.

I'm willing to bet there isn't anything to them. Sure we had the Patriot Act which was supposed to be a domestic spying thing and the NSA and CIA where looking at domestic groups and people. All you have to do though is read those traitorous articles published by the New York Times and others that laid bare the plans. What you don't hear in the media is that within days of those articles being published, Several groups of men of arab descent were caught around the country buying hundreds of untraceable, disposable cell phones at a time. They would go in and literally clean out a store of all those cell phones they had.

As for the rest, it was nothing they couldn't do anyway, just that the warrants were waved in certain cases. This was done only to speed up intelligence gathering. However, the Patriot Act and others were timid compared to the acts put in place during WWII or even WWI.

I'm really far more concerned about the information corporations have on me and what they will do with it than what the government might do with whatever it has on me. After all, you can demand your files from the government if you want. You can't do that from the ad agencies.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 5:47:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I did NOT doubt the validity of the vote talley under the electoral college system, but clearly the electoral college system was not representative of what the public wanted. A one person one vote system where results were based on the number of votes tallied per candidate would be ideal.

The electoral college is out of whack. It gives too much weight to the most populace states and the big cities.

There were many irregularities and such in the voting, a few in Republican districts, but far more in Democratic ones.

The whole vote counting and hanging chad thing was a farce. They should have simply redone the Florida elections altogether. At least the press straightened out their act. It was widely believed that when the press called Florida for Gore (when only 2% of the vote had been counted), that voters in the Western states were put off from voting because Florida had so many Electoral College votes. Because had not yet closed, west of the Eastern Time Zone, this likely had an effect on the election well beyond Florida.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 5:47:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

I did NOT doubt the validity of the vote talley under the electoral college system, but clearly the electoral college system was not representative of what the public wanted. A one person one vote system where results were based on the number of votes tallied per candidate would be ideal.

The electoral college is out of whack. It gives too much weight to the most populace states and the big cities.

There were many irregularities and such in the voting, a few in Republican districts, but far more in Democratic ones.

The whole vote counting and hanging chad thing was a farce. They should have simply redone the Florida elections altogether. At least the press straightened out their act. It was widely believed that when the press called Florida for Gore (when only 2% of the vote had been counted), that voters in the Western states were put off from voting because Florida had so many Electoral College votes. Because had not yet closed, west of the Eastern Time Zone, this likely had an effect on the election well beyond Florida.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 6:39:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

> : "well put Rainbow. I hope the pendulum of politics swings back towards sensible laws, other wise life is not going to be worth living. Your view point and opinions are rubbing off on to me."

This would mean that since the 1960's, laws have been predominantly liberal, that if the pendulum were to swing, it would be back toward the conservative.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/3/2006 6:39:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

> : "well put Rainbow. I hope the pendulum of politics swings back towards sensible laws, other wise life is not going to be worth living. Your view point and opinions are rubbing off on to me."

This would mean that since the 1960's, laws have been predominantly liberal, that if the pendulum were to swing, it would be back toward the conservative.

[Guest guest]

> : "Just what liberties have been lost?"You just gotta be kidding!Try Googling. There are 1,390,000 English pages for lost liberties under G W BushI know you're not that thick!Or are 1,390,000 authors full of it?> : "Again though I think certain states should be allowed to have a certain set of laws that apply only to them."I agree!> : "Give them a generation or two and we'd have the results, provided we could count on honest statistical reporting from those states."Yeah, like we got in Ohio in the last election, and in Florida in the one before that?Tom would say we're all too strung out to count anything.LOL!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Rainbow,

Would you believe that I agree with you in regards to how the first

GW Bush election turned out?

And I voted for Bush in the first election.

I did NOT doubt the validity of the vote talley under the electoral

college system, but clearly the electoral college system was not

representative of what the public wanted. A one person one vote

system where results were based on the number of votes tallied per

candidate would be ideal.

However, such an ideal does not come without potential problems

which need to be overcome. Ballot box stuffing would be one such

problem. Corrupt judges miscounting votes would be another. there

are probably many more that I have not thought of.

Tom

Administrator

: " Give them a generation or two and we'd have the results,

provided we could count on honest statistical reporting from those

states. "

Rainbow: Yeah, like we got in Ohio in the last election, and in

Florida in the one before that?

Tom would say we're all too strung out to count anything.

LOL!

Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Rainbow,

Would you believe that I agree with you in regards to how the first

GW Bush election turned out?

And I voted for Bush in the first election.

I did NOT doubt the validity of the vote talley under the electoral

college system, but clearly the electoral college system was not

representative of what the public wanted. A one person one vote

system where results were based on the number of votes tallied per

candidate would be ideal.

However, such an ideal does not come without potential problems

which need to be overcome. Ballot box stuffing would be one such

problem. Corrupt judges miscounting votes would be another. there

are probably many more that I have not thought of.

Tom

Administrator

: " Give them a generation or two and we'd have the results,

provided we could count on honest statistical reporting from those

states. "

Rainbow: Yeah, like we got in Ohio in the last election, and in

Florida in the one before that?

Tom would say we're all too strung out to count anything.

LOL!

Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> Tom: "I did NOT doubt the validity of the vote talley under the electoral college system, but clearly the electoral college system was not representative of what the public wanted. A one person one vote system where results were based on the number of votes tallied per candidate would be ideal."> "However, such an ideal does not come without potential problems which need to be overcome. Ballot box stuffing would be one suchproblem. Corrupt judges miscounting votes would be another. there are probably many more that I have not thought of."I agree! Let's work toward those very important and necessary changes. The time is right! Thank God we get smarter!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : "well put Rainbow. I hope the pendulum of politics swings back towards sensible laws, other wise life is not going to be worth living.Your view point and opinions are rubbing off on to me." see !    :-)Cute!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : "well put Rainbow. I hope the pendulum of politics swings back towards sensible laws, other wise life is not going to be worth living.Your view point and opinions are rubbing off on to me." see !    :-)Cute!  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote:

> If people don't like the law, they ought to change it PROPERLY and make it valid. If they don't like the constitution the way it is, add an [amendment].

I agree with this. But the problem is that those who wish to fight for such an amendment may then be giving their identities and end up in jail if they happen to be users themselves.

> The Supreme Court has ruled that the state laws that allow marijuana cultivation for recreational and personal medical usage undermine the federal government economically and are therefore not only illegal under the constituion, but treasonous for that reason.

"Treasonous"? HOW can it underminne the federal government economically? If the police could re-divert their resources into catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-pushers and other REAL criminals instead of on filling prisons with ordinary, non-criminal people for simple possession, that's a HUGE saving right there. They could even put a tax on it, just like tobacco, and MAKE money from it.

Please note that I'm still not propagating for or against anything, just asking a question and trying to grasp how marijuana use can undermine the federal government. Perhaps the "federal government" = Bush & Cheney who don't wish have any soft drug competition from to their alleged lucrative business of heroin smuggling?

> But I suspect the real people don't care about doing something illegal -or being accused of treason against the government that will ultimately pay their social security for them- is because they are too high to care.

This last paragraph I think was really uncalled for. I know both you and Rainbow feel strongly about this subject for personal reasons, but I too would like to see a more mutually respectful debating style.

Rainbow, quoting :

>> : "The federal law is canceled out by the voters of California when it comes to states rights and medical purposes."

>

> F*** the Feds! Do you really think they feel the pain of the sufferers?

>

>> : "Does anyone here actually disagree with medical usage by authorized doctors for legitimate purposes?"

>

> Would the man you call Jesus deny a dying, terminally ill, cancer patient a joint?

>

> By the way, did He, ever, break any Roman laws? Jewish laws? How about the money changers in the temple?

>

> I know you go to church. How often do you visit with terminally ill cancer patients on chemotherapy?

>

> My own father became blind and deaf, among other things, from such treatments to 'cure' throat cancer caused by a barbaric form of tonsillectomy in his youth.

Rainbow, I totally understand your pain at seeing your father suffer in the hands of incompetent doctors, but please try to not take your frustration out on who was just making a neutral observation and asking a qustsion about the subject. From what I can see, he is not at all opposing your views but actually supporting them. In the paragraph between the ones you quoted, wrote:

"Someone in extreme pain denied medicines where pharmaceuticals have failed who is also law abiding should not suffer the law of something that was not voted upon by the people."

Inger

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

and I are, for once agreeing, and attempting to infect Tom with TOLERANCE

This is very telling, Rainbow. Very demonstrative of the American left. Tolerance, as the left calls, is not tolerance at all, but forcing those who disagree with the left to give up their convictions and convert to the left wing view.

If the left genuinely believed in tolerance, it would respect the opposing view and not try to "infect" them with tolerance.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating that the left is not about tolerance at all, but all about using "tolerance" as a hammer to beat its foes into submission.

So much for being tolerant in the true sense.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 3:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

and I are, for once agreeing, and attempting to infect Tom with TOLERANCE

This is very telling, Rainbow. Very demonstrative of the American left. Tolerance, as the left calls, is not tolerance at all, but forcing those who disagree with the left to give up their convictions and convert to the left wing view.

If the left genuinely believed in tolerance, it would respect the opposing view and not try to "infect" them with tolerance.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating that the left is not about tolerance at all, but all about using "tolerance" as a hammer to beat its foes into submission.

So much for being tolerant in the true sense.

[Guest guest]

> Inger: "Rainbow, I totally understand your pain at seeing your father suffer in the hands of incompetent doctors, but please try to not take your frustration out on who was just making a neutral observation and asking a qustsion about the subject. From what I can see, he is not at all opposing your views but actually supporting them. In the paragraph between the ones you quoted,  wrote:....."Inger, my post was addressed to Tom, not . You are correct! No opposition! I used 's quote to support my position.  and I are, for once agreeing, and attempting to infect Tom with TOLERANCE.Kindly re-read my post?> "I too would like to see a more mutually respectful debating style."I apologize Inger. As an ordained minister four letter words are not a part of my life. I thought that we all had agreed to disagree on these matters long ago. I have seen our conversations regarding plants and politics as a lesson in tolerance, something we all agree to need, but so slowly learn to express. I haven't attempted to change anyone's mind, only hoped that some of them might open.   Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> Inger: "Rainbow, I totally understand your pain at seeing your father suffer in the hands of incompetent doctors, but please try to not take your frustration out on who was just making a neutral observation and asking a qustsion about the subject. From what I can see, he is not at all opposing your views but actually supporting them. In the paragraph between the ones you quoted,  wrote:....."Inger, my post was addressed to Tom, not . You are correct! No opposition! I used 's quote to support my position.  and I are, for once agreeing, and attempting to infect Tom with TOLERANCE.Kindly re-read my post?> "I too would like to see a more mutually respectful debating style."I apologize Inger. As an ordained minister four letter words are not a part of my life. I thought that we all had agreed to disagree on these matters long ago. I have seen our conversations regarding plants and politics as a lesson in tolerance, something we all agree to need, but so slowly learn to express. I haven't attempted to change anyone's mind, only hoped that some of them might open.   Rainbow

[Guest guest]

On the other hand, if people didn't use pot, the police wouldn't have

to waste economic resources catching them and arresting them.

But pot users would rather disobey the law and all distract police

from catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-

pushers and other REAL criminals.

But that is the logic of addiction.

Tom

Administrator

" Treasonous " ? HOW can it underminne the federal government

economically? If the police could re-divert their resources into

catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-pushers and

other REAL criminals instead of on filling prisons with ordinary, non-

criminal people for simple possession, that's a HUGE saving right

there. They could even put a tax on it, just like tobacco, and MAKE

money from it.

[Guest guest]

On the other hand, if people didn't use pot, the police wouldn't have

to waste economic resources catching them and arresting them.

But pot users would rather disobey the law and all distract police

from catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-

pushers and other REAL criminals.

But that is the logic of addiction.

Tom

Administrator

" Treasonous " ? HOW can it underminne the federal government

economically? If the police could re-divert their resources into

catching paedophiles, economic criminals, heroin- & crack-pushers and

other REAL criminals instead of on filling prisons with ordinary, non-

criminal people for simple possession, that's a HUGE saving right

there. They could even put a tax on it, just like tobacco, and MAKE

money from it.