Right-to-life not important to right wing

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by rich hammet » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:41:07


http://SportToday.org/***.ap

Is this what congress intended to say?

rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://SportToday.org/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by walstib7 » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:05:08


Quote:
> http://SportToday.org/***.ap

> Is this what congress intended to say?

> rich
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \  Rich Hammett      http://SportToday.org/~rhammett
> / --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

The anti-*** crowd had six years of control of all three branches
of the Federal government.

What did they do with it?

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:50:15

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:41:07 -0000, rich hammett

Quote:

>http://SportToday.org/***.ap

>Is this what congress intended to say?

>rich

Certainly.

The problem is that in their infinite lack of wisdom they neglected to
provide for bona fide exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

I would certainly be prepared to make an exception for authoritative
medical evaluation. I could even do the same for euthanasia.

Intelligence combined with common sense is a rare quality. Those
people rarely run for public office.

Hugh

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by Tom Enrigh » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:28:36


drunk, I'm just drinkin:

Quote:
> http://SportToday.org/***.ap

> Is this what congress intended to say?

If you don't understand the court's decision, why don't you just say
that?

-Tom Enright

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
-Winston Churchill

Quote:
> rich
> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \  Rich Hammett      http://SportToday.org/~rhammett
> / --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by rich hammet » Sat, 17 Mar 2007 02:06:56

Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, Tom Enright:

Quote:

> drunk, I'm just drinkin:
>> http://SportToday.org/***.ap

>> Is this what congress intended to say?
> If you don't understand the court's decision, why don't you just say
> that?

The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
without taking that drug.

rich

--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett       http://SportToday.org/~rhammett
/ --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by walstib7 » Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:41:36


Quote:
> Minun olisi pit?nyt tiet??, olisi pit?nyt tiet??,
> olisi pit?nyt tiet?? KUKA SIN? OLET, Tom Enright:


> > drunk, I'm just drinkin:
> >>http://SportToday.org/***.ap

> >> Is this what congress intended to say?
> > If you don't understand the court's decision, why don't you just say
> > that?

> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
> without taking that drug.

> rich

> --
> -to reply, it's hot not warm
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \  Rich Hammett      http://SportToday.org/~rhammett
> / --I am sick of the self-absorbed city of New York.

And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
to decide this issue for themselves.

That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.

Just pop another pill, Nancy.

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by Trent Woodruf » Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:19:50

Quote:


>> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
>> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
>> without taking that drug.
>And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
>to decide this issue for themselves.
>That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
>1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
>Just pop another pill, Nancy.

You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
educate yourself.

--
..."I am certain that most Americans find your whining unbecoming of an NCO.
Thank you for quitting.  This country doesn't need your kind of leadership.
Your kind weaken national security."
Charles Beauchamp, 25 Nov 06

..."Yep the Air Force is scraping rock bottom if a psycho like you could be
anywhere near leadership.  You work in a training command?  No wonder we are
losing the war in Iraq.  Yep.....it is your fault.  Now put that in your sig
too ***."
Charles Beauchamp, 19 Feb 07

..."Whatever the standards are today they need to be high enough to
prevent people like you from entering - we've lost enough wars
recently."
Hugh Sullivan, 26 Jan 07

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by Dennis » Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:50:05

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:19:50 -0500, Trent Woodruff

Quote:



>>> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
>>> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
>>> without taking that drug.

>>And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
>>to decide this issue for themselves.
>>That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
>>1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
>>Just pop another pill, Nancy.

>You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
>educate yourself.

he's got REEFER MADNESS I SAY!!!!!!
 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by Dennis » Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:51:09


Quote:

>Intelligence combined with common sense is a rare quality. Those
>people rarely run for public office.

I might have to add THAT to my .sig, but I know you're not the only
one that ever said it... ;-)
 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by J. Hugh Sulliv » Sun, 18 Mar 2007 00:10:58

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:51:09 GMT, Dennis J

Quote:



>>Intelligence combined with common sense is a rare quality. Those
>>people rarely run for public office.

>I might have to add THAT to my .sig, but I know you're not the only
>one that ever said it... ;-)

Maybe I'll be the only one to say it today. 8-)

I would say that most logical deductions have been made by someone
before.

Hugh

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by walstib7 » Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:28:50


Quote:


> >> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
> >> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
> >> without taking that drug.
> >And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
> >to decide this issue for themselves.
> >That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
> >1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
> >Just pop another pill, Nancy.

> You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
> educate yourself.

> --
> ..."I am certain that most Americans find your whining unbecoming of an NCO.
> Thank you for quitting.  This country doesn't need your kind of leadership.
> Your kind weaken national security."
> Charles Beauchamp, 25 Nov 06

> ..."Yep the Air Force is scraping rock bottom if a psycho like you could be
> anywhere near leadership.  You work in a training command?  No wonder we are
> losing the war in Iraq.  Yep.....it is your fault.  Now put that in your sig
> too ***."
> Charles Beauchamp, 19 Feb 07

> ..."Whatever the standards are today they need to be high enough to
> prevent people like you from entering - we've lost enough wars
> recently."
> Hugh Sullivan, 26 Jan 07

Oh, pray tell; please do enlighten me.

It's not like I didn't live it or anything. If Carter were re-elected;
pot would be legal right now. Instead, we have mandatory minimums.

JUST SAY NO.

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by Trent Woodruf » Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:29:43

Quote:




>>>> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
>>>> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
>>>> without taking that drug.
>>>And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
>>>to decide this issue for themselves.
>>>That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
>>>1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
>>>Just pop another pill, Nancy.
>> You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
>> educate yourself.
>Oh, pray tell; please do enlighten me.
>It's not like I didn't live it or anything. If Carter were re-elected;
>pot would be legal right now. Instead, we have mandatory minimums.
>JUST SAY NO.

You may have "lived it" during the Reagan years, but you certainly
didn't "live it" during the years when the drug hysteria was ACTUALLY
created.  "Reefer Madness" followed Prohibition almost 70 years ago,
son and THAT was the beginning of the drug hysteria...long before
anything Reagan did.

--
..."I am certain that most Americans find your whining unbecoming of an NCO.
Thank you for quitting.  This country doesn't need your kind of leadership.
Your kind weaken national security."
Charles Beauchamp, 25 Nov 06

..."Yep the Air Force is scraping rock bottom if a psycho like you could be
anywhere near leadership.  You work in a training command?  No wonder we are
losing the war in Iraq.  Yep.....it is your fault.  Now put that in your sig
too ***."
Charles Beauchamp, 19 Feb 07

..."Whatever the standards are today they need to be high enough to
prevent people like you from entering - we've lost enough wars
recently."
Hugh Sullivan, 26 Jan 07

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by <aborg.. » Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:23:59

Quote:





>>>>> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
>>>>> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
>>>>> without taking that drug.

>>>>And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
>>>>to decide this issue for themselves.
>>>>That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
>>>>1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
>>>>Just pop another pill, Nancy.

>>> You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
>>> educate yourself.

>>Oh, pray tell; please do enlighten me.
>>It's not like I didn't live it or anything. If Carter were re-elected;
>>pot would be legal right now. Instead, we have mandatory minimums.
>>JUST SAY NO.

> You may have "lived it" during the Reagan years, but you certainly
> didn't "live it" during the years when the drug hysteria was ACTUALLY
> created.  "Reefer Madness" followed Prohibition almost 70 years ago,
> son and THAT was the beginning of the drug hysteria...long before
> anything Reagan did.

Reagan didn't create drug hysteria - he just ramped it up massively
after about 10 years of the feds backing away from their draconian drug
policies. Then did everything he could to ramp the hysteria as a
political tool.

--
Aaron

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by Trent Woodruf » Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:49:03

Quote:






>>>>>> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
>>>>>> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
>>>>>> without taking that drug.
>>>>>And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
>>>>>to decide this issue for themselves.
>>>>>That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
>>>>>1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
>>>>>Just pop another pill, Nancy.
>>>> You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
>>>> educate yourself.
>>>Oh, pray tell; please do enlighten me.
>>>It's not like I didn't live it or anything. If Carter were re-elected;
>>>pot would be legal right now. Instead, we have mandatory minimums.
>>>JUST SAY NO.
>> You may have "lived it" during the Reagan years, but you certainly
>> didn't "live it" during the years when the drug hysteria was ACTUALLY
>> created.  "Reefer Madness" followed Prohibition almost 70 years ago,
>> son and THAT was the beginning of the drug hysteria...long before
>> anything Reagan did.
>Reagan didn't create drug hysteria - he just ramped it up massively
>after about 10 years of the feds backing away from their draconian drug
>policies. Then did everything he could to ramp the hysteria as a
>political tool.

I don't disagree with that, as it doesn't counter what I'm saying at
all.

--
..."I am certain that most Americans find your whining unbecoming of an NCO.
Thank you for quitting.  This country doesn't need your kind of leadership.
Your kind weaken national security."
Charles Beauchamp, 25 Nov 06

..."Yep the Air Force is scraping rock bottom if a psycho like you could be
anywhere near leadership.  You work in a training command?  No wonder we are
losing the war in Iraq.  Yep.....it is your fault.  Now put that in your sig
too ***."
Charles Beauchamp, 19 Feb 07

..."Whatever the standards are today they need to be high enough to
prevent people like you from entering - we've lost enough wars
recently."
Hugh Sullivan, 26 Jan 07

 
 
 

Right-to-life not important to right wing

Post by <aborg.. » Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:06:36

Quote:







>>>>>>> The court's decision is simple, and based on a law, and says
>>>>>>> that it is legal to outlaw a drug even if a person will die
>>>>>>> without taking that drug.

>>>>>>And the feds have decided that, for some reason, states have no right
>>>>>>to decide this issue for themselves.
>>>>>>That is wrong; it's based on unfounded drug hysteria created by the
>>>>>>1980's Reagan team anti-drug propaganda.
>>>>>>Just pop another pill, Nancy.

>>>>> You think Reagan created the drug hysteria in the 1980s?  Egads,
>>>>> educate yourself.

>>>>Oh, pray tell; please do enlighten me.
>>>>It's not like I didn't live it or anything. If Carter were re-elected;
>>>>pot would be legal right now. Instead, we have mandatory minimums.
>>>>JUST SAY NO.

>>> You may have "lived it" during the Reagan years, but you certainly
>>> didn't "live it" during the years when the drug hysteria was ACTUALLY
>>> created.  "Reefer Madness" followed Prohibition almost 70 years ago,
>>> son and THAT was the beginning of the drug hysteria...long before
>>> anything Reagan did.

>>Reagan didn't create drug hysteria - he just ramped it up massively
>>after about 10 years of the feds backing away from their draconian drug
>>policies. Then did everything he could to ramp the hysteria as a
>>political tool.

> I don't disagree with that, as it doesn't counter what I'm saying at
> all.

It wasn't supposed to.

--
Aaron