6-3


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060117/NEWS11/60117008


I love it when social conservatives get pw3d






[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 1:15 PM. Reason : Ashcroft can suck it!]

1/17/2006 1:13:52 PM

who owes them what?

1/17/2006 1:26:27 PM

Thank god! Now, if we could just get the SCOTUS to strike down the FDA, ATF, and FBI we can get back to business.

1/17/2006 1:54:46 PM

^^

Quote :

"pw3d pwn3d"

1/17/2006 2:52:02 PM

From the phony REP/DEM point of view....

DEMS--allow killing the unborn and the old folks via abortion & assisted suicide
REPS--killing foreigners and our young people via illegal and disasterous wars


From the realistic point of view, knowing that both parties are controlled and really the same...

REPUBLICRATS--killing the unborn, old folks, foreigners, and our young people while the republican faction pretends to oppose killing the unborn and old folks and the democratic faction pretends to oppose killing foreigners and our young people in useless wars (well, that's in question...aren't the democrats pretty much openly in favor of the Iraq war now?)

1/17/2006 3:02:44 PM

blah blah blah

i hope you have some fucking keystroke macros

1/17/2006 3:04:15 PM

he doesn't need a macro. he just has to hit ctrl-v since his clipboard never changes

1/17/2006 3:23:42 PM

^ and ^^
Don't you realize that when you simply mock or laugh at salisburyboy, myself or others, it just demonstrates that you can't refute our arguments/points? As radical as some of our viewpoints may be, simply pointing out how they aren't mainstream doesn't refute them. The Dems and the Reps are the same thing. It's fucking obvious. If you disagree, why don't you address the issue like a man?--by being serious in your posts, and refraining from ad hominem name calling, mocking, taunting, trolling and the like. Are you in middle school? I think you're just afraid that you might be wrong, so rather than being serious when debating issues and running the risk of exposing yourself as not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, you just avoid meaningful debate altogether....


Go ahead, throw some insults at me in your next post, prove me right.

IOW, if you've got nothing worthwhile to contribute the issue, then STFU and go post in Chit Chat….

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2006 3:30:44 PM

I'll quickly refute salisburyboy's claim that democrats want to kill old people. In order for doctor assisted suicide to take place, the patient has to consent. Therefore there isn't some massive age cleansing program going on.

1/17/2006 3:34:21 PM

Quote :

"If you disagree, why don't you address the issue like a man?"

real men dont need drugs to escape reality.

1/17/2006 3:35:26 PM

1. I don't need drugs any more than you need red meat. Drugs are an option that I elect to take.

2. Drugs aren't for escaping reality. (Unless you are abusing them.)

3. Don't talk about shit you obviously know so little about.

4. OMF, LIKE, I'M SO SOBER RIGHT NOW, MANNNNNN1

1/17/2006 3:53:32 PM

hahaha i bet hempster eats a lot of soy products....

gg eating food that's gone through more industrial processing than a chicken nugget

1/17/2006 3:55:28 PM

drugs have obviously skewed his sense of reality

1/17/2006 3:57:27 PM

i'm waiting for someone to point out that chicken nuggets are 90% soy anyway... to which i will point out that the 10% chicken brings their industrial-processing average below that of pure soy products.

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 4:04 PM. Reason : s]

1/17/2006 4:04:42 PM

i like to eat old people I just euthanized, where are they on the industrial-processing scale?

1/17/2006 4:07:01 PM

depends on if they worked in the industry or not

1/17/2006 4:08:26 PM

Quote :

"DEMS--allow killing the unborn and the old folks via abortion & assisted suicide REPS--killing foreigners and our young people via illegal and disasterous wars "

These divisions are based on part on disagreements on who can give consent, be it God, government, parent, doctor, or individual. Just because the division isn't one group is always pro life no matter what and one group is always pro death no matter what, that doesn't make the same. I think the question should be one of consent and not one of whether or not life is a good thing (which would be the question for the always pro life or always pro death groups), since releases from pain, protecting a country, and several other circumstances make death a kind of good thing.

Of course the circumstances I agree with tend to line up more so with those who call themselves liberal for reasons I wont muddle the topic with by mentioning now, I still think the question of consent that both democrats and republicans ask, is the right question to be asking.

1/17/2006 4:36:51 PM

i blame cheese

1/18/2006 4:00:28 PM

^We all do from time to time, but surely even salisburyboy can see there are legitimate differences in these political parties. Its not surprising that two parties within the same culture have many similar traits, but I think these can in large part be explained away without sinister motives.

1/18/2006 4:18:00 PM

^It will be clear to you one day......


------------------------------------------------------------

This Supreme Court decision was really about the power of the DEA to regulate how a doctor may use drugs, not the right-to-die.

Oregon passed a 1994 initiative that allowed doctors to prescribe drugs to help terminally ill patients end their lives--this became law in 1997. Also, the SCOTUS, in 1997, ruled unanimously that people have no constitutional right to die, keeping physician-assisted suicide a states issue, thus upholding Oregon’s new law.

Then, Ashcroft asserted in 2001 that doctors who prescribed drugs to help patients kill themselves were violating federal laws designed to prevent drug trafficking, because assisted suicide was not "a legitimate medical purpose.", this week's ruling rejected Ashcroft's 2004 attempt to make an end run around states' rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissent, said the majority opinion "beats a hasty retreat" from the court's ruling last year that doctors can be prosecuted under the federal drug law for prescribing marijuana.

Sort of a minor win for medical marijuana, despite last year's ruling.....
(Yep, I had to bring it up.)

1/18/2006 4:27:47 PM

Quote :

"^It will be clear to you one day......"

Do you subscribe to the republicrats, no difference between parties, ideas of salisburyboy?

1/21/2006 7:01:13 PM