beausox

It is so easy to be considered smart when your detractors are so limited

Ah! Another ad hominem attack. How unusual!

If MJ is the ONLY and/ or most effective thing then there is no argument.

Are there not more effective nausea reducing drugs than pot? Many suspect that the alternatives are more effective. Obviously superior non hallucinagenic drugs do not fit libertines agendae.

Why do they call dope dope?

You go girl!

In politics only perception counts. whether candidates R's or D's are effete,elite , neither or both matters not. Doesnt it strain intuition that the party of big business fields cancidates of the sod and the party of the working class keeps front loading Cambridge-Berkley types? The starkest contrast was Laura v Teresa. Nuf said McGreevey?

Emblematic as to how clueless the Democrats are. I contend that Bush' "underacheivement" was more politically wise than Kerry's assumed intellectual superiority. The Dems continue to feed the nation effete elite (Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern et al). Clinton was the only one who could connect with the average person, and gee, he won twice!

Is not pot illegal? Just how many have terminal illnesses? Had I a terminal illness I would do pretty much do as I please. My lawyer is good enough to stall til my death. Save that obey the law and expect that you may outlive the consequences.

I quite agree that events change and knowledge expands. That a right to privacy in papers and person exists and existed few would doubt. Could it be held that the unborn at SOME POINT of development have standing, have 14th amendment protection? Scott Peterson was paradoxically convicted of murdering a child in utero which Lacy and a "caring" doctor could have dispatched with impunity.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution- absolutely nothing. In addition Jefferson was the theoretical poster child of the Anti-Federalists and practiced Federalism as President.

Thank you for corrective info regarding Griswold which was a contraception case I believe. (Was it not used as a central precedent in Roe?) There is however a lot of distance and appropriateness between bedroom acts between even among consulting adults and abortion which is non negotiated. Few would dispute that citizens enjoy rights to privacy. It is however unique to abortion that the exercise of it concludes "life for the unborn". Would it not be better that the" livng Constitutionalists "should populate the Legislatures and not the bench?

Supremes by 6!-3 rule medicinal marijuana laws to be null. Behind virtually every dooby lurks a liberterian. Scream on if you like but this muddies the waters re: the upcoming replacement of at least two Justices. Will liberals rediscover States Rights in the penumbra? Edit: the penumbra part is a reference to Roe in that Justice Douglas not having found a Constitutional mention of abortion divined that the right to an abortion emanated from a penumbra of 9th amendment. Nearly 40 state Legislatures had already "liberalized" abortion statutes prior to Roe and a penumbra is not firm ground for a landmark decision. Yet Douglas et al could not wait. Such is the legacy of judicial activism. Further beclouding the issue is that Scalia and Thomas differed. So much for a monolithic Court?

No my friend. You are giving obtuseness a bad name. Let me relate one example of the bolgia of Hell. Relatively high in the conical structure is the (sic) bolgia reserved for those who stood for nothing , stood by the wayside and committed sins of omission. They and there are many will eternally chase after a dirty banner of no hope all the while being stung viciously and repeatedly by wasps and horse flies whose bite draws blood which seeps down their bodies to pool a foot or more deep. As the residents of this section slosh through the offal in the pool maggots form and regenerate exhausted wasps and flies. You will not be consigned at that bolgia. Let me see; would you join Faust? No on second thought that would require intelligence and you lack that. Would you join the invincibly ignorant? No you are just smart enough not to get that.hhhhmmmmm?

1) I doubt you are a physicist except in the respect that we all are. 2) The only proof that "I demonstrably don't know what {I am} talking about is MY admission that I am not knowledgeable about Physics which begs the question... 3) What "demonstrably" do You know. 4)Where did I say "so I am going to opine with pretended expertise on the subject"........since I never said that- nor anything remotely close- am I to conclude that you make up things out of whole cloth? 5) How does one stipulate that one knows little, as I did, and in the same sentence claim, as I did not though you claim I did, this is grounds to "opine" "expertise"?

Dante claimed that sinners will suffer the suffering their sins engendered.

College Guy; I hope you are still in college- my suspicion is you are and will be for a while- so that it may occur to you in your exhaustive study of feminist reconstructionism and the history of gay and lesbian artifacts and the exploitation by dead europeans of everyone that Christians inherited the ID from Judaism. Even the most backward pagan cults had creation stories. Indeed it is only the illuminati of post- Enlightenment Europe who are so stupid as to fall from grace.

Pascal's Wager: " 'God is, or He is not'. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up.... which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things at stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose...But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and loss in wagering that God is...If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "

Wow. You are sure a fierce debater. That riposte was carefully constructed. I am helpless. You have at once disproven my statement with inescapable argument and placed yourself in an intellectual pantheon. I only continue so that your wisdom will somehow edify me. Thank you for showing an interest in me.

Precisely. That is why they are called theories. Einstein did not posit his "theory" as anything more than just that - an explanation of how the universe operates based on underlying supposition, to wit, that God created a universe in which there was order. While the discussion is fun i recall my Philosophy of Science prof remarking that " Science can never explain Why and Theology can never answer how

I think we all agree that she is certainly dead now as in completely dead as opposed to life that inconveniently continues to annoy us. If Terri could have given an opinion........ the vast majority of us , 67% in Gallup/NYT poll, would give a thumbs down. Thats a clear majority. And now this wife comes along. It is so tiresome what with summer and baseball and 4th of July and weddings and births of deserving babies........

Einstein claimed God would not make junk and so posited a unified theory that still is holding up. Chesterton remarked that an atheist has a hard course because he has to believe in EVERYTHING being possible. Pascal's binary mind concluded that either God and Heaven and stuff is true or it is not. If "off" it matters not but if "on" it matters for eternity; thus, the safe bet is "on". Food for thought.