Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 07:45 In article <MPG.1fd2d7e6ed030e26989ce1(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <slrnemhu90.5qi.don(a)manx.misty.com>, don(a)manx.misty.com >says... <snip> >> Also, the USA's worst-in-the-world "War On Drugs"! Punish users >> inadequately and make most punishment to distribution, so as to give >> a profit motive to smarter meaner distributors! >> I thing USA is better off choosing either of two extremes: >> >> 1) Get caught with half a joint, spend 2 years in "The Joint". According >> to my German teacher when I was taking German in highschool, that was the >> law of Germany! >> >> 2) Make USA's recreational drug laws like they were in 1900 - when >> marijuana, cocaine and opiates were LEGAL! > >Legalizing marijuana is a good idea, the government doesn't like it >because unlike alcohol or tobacco it cannot be taxed. It's too >easy to grow. I don't like the idea of legalizing cocaine or >opiates. THe cost to society of these things now makes tobacco look >like chump change. In case you two haven't noticed, the trend is to make possession of tobacco illegal. That kind of rhetoric has already started in Massachusetts. And, since this is an all-Democrat state, you others can't blame Republicans. It is one of life's largest ironies that the Democrats, who call themselves Liberals, are the most tight-assed, prudish, intolerable people. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 07:50 In article <ek9rql$lag$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >[....] >>It's similar to my inability to understand >>how royalty functioned in Europe. > >It isn't that complicated. You don't understand what I'm talking about. I can't explain it better. > The easiest way to understand it is not to >follow its tortured history. You can get to the same basic result through >a path that is more "american". > >(1) >The president and other people really in government don't have the time to >go to all the weddings and funerals. > >(2) >There are lots of actors unemployed. Many of these can be made to look >good if we dress them up. > >(3) >We have a bunch of museums and parks. To appear to be a high status >person from the US, the actors can be directed to claim to own all that >stuff. > >(4) >We need a system that is not quite but nearly random to select the actors >for the job. > >Now let your thinking run forwards in time any you will find that this >leads to nearly where the royal family of England is today. They got >there by a very different path. > I see you've become silly. Long threads can do that. :-) /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Nov 2006 07:55 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:59:03 -0500, Jamie > <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:05:38 +0000, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>>unsettled wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Our post offices are also open till 5PM in most places. > >>> > >>>Is that supposed to be some kind of special US achievement ? Ours stay open later > >>>than that ! > >> > >> > >> --- > >> That's because they're so inefficient they have to. > >> > >> > >:)) good one! > > --- > :-) > > -- > JF IDIOT
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 07:52 In article <phineaspuddleduck-6E5882.14501825112006(a)free.teranews.com>, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >In article <ek9kq1$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >> I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. >> >> /BAH > >Brevity. > Some posters do it for slyness. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Nov 2006 07:53
In article <MPG.1fd263c4e7918985989c9d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ek9kq1$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <phineaspuddleduck-9CD347.14112925112006(a)free.teranews.com>, >> Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >In article <ek9ig1$8qk_005(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> >This doesn't affect the patient in any significant way.. >> >> >> >> You are blind. >> >> >> > >> >It doesn't. >> > >> I wish you hadn't snipped what "this" referred to. >> >Just plonk the duck. He's never come close to write anything worth >reading. I'm already ignoring two: one because of posting repititious drivel and the other by his request. Every once in a while somebody does chime in with an interesting post. /BAH |