Posted on 01/30/2003 6:38:26 AM PST by MrLeRoy
Through his rhetoric.
Until you quote the specific "rhetoric" that equates to "drugs are benign," this remains just your baldfaced lie.
Some advice, you are getting close to being a stalker.
Oh I forgot, anybody who criticizes the plant you worship, cannabis, should be stalked for heresy, never mind.
Let your lies go? Not a chance---I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in them till you retract them.
Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.
Through his rhetoric.
Until you quote the specific "rhetoric" that equates to "drugs are benign," this remains just your baldfaced lie.
Filburn benefitted by that program. But he grew too much. He could have stored it - no problem. He didn't.
Having already harvested it, and needing feed for his livestock, and not having time to grow anything else before winter, I think that's understandable. At any rate, he didn't sell it, or have any apparent intent to do so, so I fail to see how you can attribute his actions to greed.
Retract what, that Judge Kane is an idealogical ally of disgraced Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders.
You know, the woman the Clinton administration had to let go when she that masturbation should be taught in schools and whose own son was caught in cocaine trafficking(Clinton probably said to her "Jocelyn, I agree with everything you have said, but I got to let you go for the good of the party, you are too honest")
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's a fact.
You asked me if congress should have that regulatory power. I said yes.
If congress passes a law, and the courts concur, defining a specific activity (not any activity) that affects interstate commerce, congress has the right, IMO, to enforce that law under the commerce clause.
Retract what, that Judge Kane is an idealogical ally of disgraced Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders.
What a transparent dodge. You've been caught in a lie, refuse to retract it and, as such, there is nothing new under the sun at FR.
Why does getting caught in your own lie cause you such discomfort? One would think you'd be well used to it by now.
Why does getting caught in your own lie cause you such discomfort? One would think you'd be well used to it by now
Why does the mention of your idealogical ally in the pro-drug cause, disgraced Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, give you so much discomfort.
It doesn't cause me discomfort in the least, liar. Now, about your lying....
Why does the mention of your idealogical ally and Judge Kane's ally in the pro-drug cause, disgraced Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, gives you so much discomfort.
Of course, IMHO, in the pro-drug circles that you probably run around in, it would cause you no discomfort at all that you agree with Jocelyn Elders on the drug issue.
Now back to the accusation of your calling me a liar. Is Judge Kane an idelogical ally of Jocelyn Elders on the drug issue or not.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
The 'pro-dope' movement is the love-child of the left.
It sees a life of pleasure without consequence, the same ideal that brought us abortion on demand and STDs. You want to blame the problems attendant to drug abuse on the WOD.
BS.
If you think you want to live in a pro-dope society, you can visit your utopia real cheap these days. Flights to Amsterdam leave every hour or so.
Methinks you won't want to live there.
I sure don't.
Ageed.
You asked if Congress should have that regulatory power.
No. I did not ask that.
I asked if Congress should have the power to regulate an intrastate activity that does or can affect interstate commerce.
You answered yes to that question. That is where you supported an expansive view of the Commerce Clause.
Just about any personal activity could affect interstate commerce, like growing vegetable gardens or a small family business.
You're saying the Federal government would be within its rights to regulate such activities if it chooses to do so.
That is a liberal interpretation of the scope and limits of the Federal government.
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. That's a fact.
You asked me if congress should have that regulatory power. I said yes.
Ken's not frothing, he's dead on point. You stated flatly that you believe that you believe Art. I Sec. 8 grants Congress the power to regulate not only actual interstate commerce, but anything that might affect interstate commerce.
And I believe that statement is going to come back to bite you in the butt, over and over again.
Fair point for debate.
However, most of the folks arguing against the Federal WOD are not argung a "pro-dope" position, no matter how many times you make the claim.
It is part of getting the Federal government out of areas not authorized by the Constitution such as healh care, education, the environment and welfare policies.
You should inform yourself of this by reading the mission statement of Free Republic.
Yes, the owner of this site agrees with my position on the WOD.
Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?
Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?
Can I ask you a question? Please be objective.
This is the second time that you all on the pro-drug side on this thread(EagleEye was the first I beleive around reply #86) have implied that "the owner" agrees with you.
JMO, but can't you all on the pro-drug side leave "the owner" out. You, like I, have no idea what he thinks and believes and to pull out "the owner" "crutch" that I read all too often on these types of threads shows your perpensity, IMHO, to hide, behind another person, instead of your own arguements, Ken H.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.