Who's A Hypocrite?

[Michael Mckelvy]

L.A. Daily News - Chris Weinkopf






November 09, 2003
Los Angeles, CA
Site Search

Enter search term

Advanced Search


Newsletters
Classifieds
Place an Ad
Automotive
Employment
Real Estate
Rentals
Newspaper Ads
Obituaries
Archive Search
Business
Business Directory
Antelope Valley
Columnists
Crossword
Film
Food
Good Sports
Health
Horoscopes
Info
L.A. Life
Marketplace
News
Opinion
Mariel Garza
Chris Weinkopf
Your Opinion
Patrick O'Connor
Write A Letter
Their Opinion
e-thepeople.com
Personals
Santa Clarita
Simi Valley
Special Sections
Sports
Sports Challenge
Subscriber Services
Traffic Report
Travel
U-Entertainment
Weather


EMAIL ARTICLE LINK TO ARTICLE PRINT ARTICLE
Article Published: Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 7:05:31 AM PST


OTHER COLUMNS
Oct. 26
- Council endorses SB 1645

Potential presidents puf pass punishment
By Chris Weinkopf


Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he
was
addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
Democratic
presidential candidates all but begging for their condemnation,
the
defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
radio
broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in
which
Limbaugh bemoaned the social damage wrought by illegal drug use,
noting that offenders "ought to be sent up." Among the social
libertines, for whom the only true sin is the rejection of
social
libertinism, this was just too much. Limbaugh was branded a
capital-H hypocrite for supposedly falling short of his own
lofty
standards.
But if Limbaugh is a hypocrite, then what does that make
presidential candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and John
Edwards?
At last week's "Rock the Vote" debate, all eight Democrats
running
for the White House were asked if they had ever used marijuana.
Four
of the candidates replied no, with Sen. Joseph Lieberman noting
that
he was, once again, "giving unpopular answers in Democratic
debates." Carol Moseley Braun refused to answer. But Dean, Kerry
and
Edwards admitted -- to loud applause from the MTV-demographic
audience -- that they had not only smoked pot but also,
presumably,
inhaled.
Does that make them capital-H hypocrites?
As governor of Vermont, Dean worked just last year to kill a
bill
that would have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal
purposes.
Kerry, who has played both sides of the medical marijuana
debate,
declined to co-sponsor legislation authored by fellow
Massachusetts
Democrat Rep. Barney Frank that would stop federal agents from
harassing sick patients who use the drug to relieve their
suffering.
Edwards has remarked that he has no objection to the Justice
Department's arresting pot-smoking AIDS and cancer patients.
This is just the question of medical marijuana, mind you. While
the
candidates might waffle on whether the drug should be made
available
to the critically ill, none even pretends to support legalizing
it
for recreational uses, the likes of which all three, by their
own
admission, have engaged in.
Limbaugh might have once quipped about sending up drug users,
but
Dean, Kerry and Edwards, in their capacity as lawmakers,
actually
have sent up drug users. And, unlike Limbaugh, the drug they
illegally used was never prescribed to them by a doctor for a
legitimate medical condition.
Certainly this should be fodder for the Hypocrisy Police, no?
After all, literally scores, if not hundreds, of pundits quickly
seized the opportunity to stick Limbaugh with the
"double-standard"
tag. Jesse Jackson joined the fray. So did Al Franken, who
couldn't
deny taking pleasure in Limbaugh's suffering.
Even Kerry got into the act, joking: "There are two ways for you
to
have lower prescription drug costs: One is you could hire Rush
Limbaugh's housekeeper or you could elect me president of the
United
States."
Yet neither Jackson nor Franken -- let alone Kerry or the
countless
others all too eager to make sport of Limbaugh's alleged
hypocrisy
-- have uttered a peep about the three would-be presidents who
would
jail cancer victims for using a drug for medical treatment that
they've used for fun.
Apparently only conservatives can be hypocrites.
And apparently the Hypocrisy Police care less about snuffing out
philosophical inconsistencies than in bludgeoning their
political
opponents for their personal failings.
Lost on the Hypocrisy Police is that there are two sorts of
hypocrisy. The first is the inevitable consequence of trying to
maintain a moral order in a fallen world. Most everyone disdains
lying, cheating or stealing, for example, yet there's not a
person
among us who, at one time or another, hasn't lied, cheated or
stolen. Does that make us all hypocrites? In a sense, yes, but
it's
better to be a hypocrite than to live without shame or
conscience.
Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy -- paying
lip
service to a certain set of standards not because one truly
believes
in them, but for opportunistic and manipulative purposes --
i.e.,
the minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of tithing
because
he's skimming the collection plate.
Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his
political opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind eye
to
his political allies' contradictions.
Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no one
is
immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.
Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor. Write
to
him by e-mail .

RETURN TO TOP


InformationCopyright © 2003 Los Angeles Daily

[dave weil]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he
>was
> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
>Democratic
> presidential candidates all but begging for their condemnation,
>the
> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
>radio
> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in
>which

Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
> L.A. Daily News - Chris Weinkopf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> November 09, 2003
> Los Angeles, CA

> EMAIL ARTICLE LINK TO ARTICLE PRINT ARTICLE
> Article Published: Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 7:05:31 AM
PST
>
>
> OTHER COLUMNS
> Oct. 26
> - Council endorses SB 1645
>
> Potential presidents puf pass punishment
> By Chris Weinkopf
>
>
> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he
was
> > addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
Democratic
> > presidential candidates all but begging for their
condemnation, Democratic

> > the defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be
seen.
> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of

>> radio broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in
>
> which Limbaugh bemoaned the social damage wrought by illegal
drug use,
> noting that offenders "ought to be sent up." Among the social
> libertines, for whom the only true sin is the rejection of

> social libertinism, this was just too much. Limbaugh was
branded a
> capital-H hypocrite for supposedly falling short of his own
lofty standards.

> But if Limbaugh is a hypocrite, then what does that make
> presidential candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and John
Edwards?

>
> At last week's "Rock the Vote" debate, all eight Democrats
running
> > for the White House were asked if they had ever used
marijuana.
> > Four of the candidates replied no, with Sen. Joseph Lieberman noting
>
> that he was, once again, "giving unpopular answers in Democratic
> debates." Carol Moseley Braun refused to answer. But Dean,
Kerry
>
> and Edwards admitted -- to loud applause from the
MTV-demographic
> audience -- that they had not only smoked pot but also,
presumably, inhaled.

>
Does that make them capital-H hypocrites?
> As governor of Vermont, Dean worked just last year to kill a
bill

> > that would have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal
> purposes.
> Kerry, who has played both sides of the medical marijuana
debate,
> > declined to co-sponsor legislation authored by fellow
Massachusetts

>> Democrat Rep. Barney Frank that would stop federal agents
from
> harassing sick patients who use the drug to relieve their
suffering.

> > Edwards has remarked that he has no objection to the Justice
> Department's arresting pot-smoking AIDS and cancer patients.
> This is just the question of medical marijuana, mind you.
While the
> > candidates might waffle on whether the drug should be made
available
> > to the critically ill, none even pretends to support
legalizing it
> > for recreational uses, the likes of which all three, by
their own
> > admission, have engaged in.
> Limbaugh might have once quipped about sending up drug users,
> but
> Dean, Kerry and Edwards, in their capacity as lawmakers,
actually
> > have sent up drug users. And, unlike Limbaugh, the drug they
> illegally used was never prescribed to them by a doctor for a
> legitimate medical condition.
> Certainly this should be fodder for the Hypocrisy Police, no?
> After all, literally scores, if not hundreds, of pundits
quickly
> seized the opportunity to stick Limbaugh with the
"double-standard"
> > tag. Jesse Jackson joined the fray. So did Al Franken, who
couldn't
> > deny taking pleasure in Limbaugh's suffering.
> Even Kerry got into the act, joking: "There are two ways for
you to
> > have lower prescription drug costs: One is you could hire
Rush
> Limbaugh's housekeeper or you could elect me president of the
> United States."

> Yet neither Jackson nor Franken -- let alone Kerry or the
> countless
> others all too eager to make sport of Limbaugh's alleged
> hypocrisy
> -- have uttered a peep about the three would-be presidents who
> would
> jail cancer victims for using a drug for medical treatment
that
> they've used for fun.
> Apparently only conservatives can be hypocrites.
> And apparently the Hypocrisy Police care less about snuffing
out
> philosophical inconsistencies than in bludgeoning their
political
> > opponents for their personal failings.
> Lost on the Hypocrisy Police is that there are two sorts of
> hypocrisy. The first is the inevitable consequence of trying
to
> maintain a moral order in a fallen world. Most everyone
disdains
> lying, cheating or stealing, for example, yet there's not a
person
> > among us who, at one time or another, hasn't lied, cheated
or
> stolen. Does that make us all hypocrites? In a sense, yes, but
it's
> > better to be a hypocrite than to live without shame or
conscience.

>> Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy --
paying lip
> > service to a certain set of standards not because one truly
believes
> > in them, but for opportunistic and manipulative purposes --
i.e.,
> > the minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of tithing
because
> > he's skimming the collection plate.
> Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his
> political opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind eye
to
> > his political allies' contradictions.
> Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no one
is
> > immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.

> Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor. Write
> to
> him by e-mail .
>
> RETURN TO TOP
>
>
> InformationCopyright © 2003 Los Angeles Daily
>
>

Reformatted for those from Rio Linda.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Dave Weil wrote:


>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:
>
>> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
>> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
>> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he
>>was
>> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
>>Democratic
>> presidential candidates all but begging for their condemnation,
>>the
>> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
>> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
>>radio
>> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in
>>which
>
>Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any better?
That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that what was
probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few Democrats hardly
compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are controlled
substances. Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.



Bruce J. Richman

[dave weil]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:41:41 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

<snip>

>>> Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy --
>paying lip
>> > service to a certain set of standards not because one truly
>believes
>> > in them, but for opportunistic and manipulative purposes --
>i.e.,
>> > the minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of tithing
>because
>> > he's skimming the collection plate.
>> Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his
>> political opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind eye
>to
>> > his political allies' contradictions.
>> Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no one
>is
>> > immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.
>
>> Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor. Write
>> to
>> him by e-mail .
>>
>> RETURN TO TOP
>>
>>
>> InformationCopyright © 2003 Los Angeles Daily
>>
>>
>
>Reformatted for those from Rio Linda.

Not that it did a damn bit of good.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:41:41 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy --
> >paying lip
> >> > service to a certain set of standards not because one
truly
> >believes
> >> > in them, but for opportunistic and manipulative
purposes --
> >i.e.,
> >> > the minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of
tithing
> >because
> >> > he's skimming the collection plate.
> >> Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his
> >> political opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind
eye
> >to
> >> > his political allies' contradictions.
> >> Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no
one
> >is
> >> > immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.
> >
> >> Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor.
Write
> >> to
> >> him by e-mail .
> >>
> >> RETURN TO TOP
> >>
> >>
> >> InformationCopyright © 2003 Los Angeles Daily
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Reformatted for those from Rio Linda.
>
> Not that it did a damn bit of good.
>
It looked fine when I reformatted it. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.
You can always read the original at www.ladailynews.com

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Weil wrote:
>
>
> >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> >> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
> >> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that
he
> >>was
> >> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
> >>Democratic
> >> presidential candidates all but begging for their
condemnation,
> >>the
> >> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
> >> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
> >>radio
> >> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment
in
> >>which
> >
> >Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any
better?

I did try reformatting it to make it easier for stupid people to read, but
for reasons unknown to me it didn't seem to make any difference.

> That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that what
was
> probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few Democrats
hardly
> compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are
controlled
> substances.

You're right they are worse.

Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
>
Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Weil wrote:
>
>
> >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> >> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
> >> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that
he
> >>was
> >> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
> >>Democratic
> >> presidential candidates all but begging for their
condemnation,
> >>the
> >> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
> >> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
> >>radio
> >> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment
in
> >>which
> >
> >Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any
better?
> That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that what
was
> probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few Democrats
hardly
> compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are
controlled
> substances. Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his
propaganda.
>

True, it is a controlled substance, but one that he is used as a prescribed
painkiller.
His reasons for first using the drug were for more legitimate reasons than
recreational use. Rush did suffer from severe back pain. Not that youthful
experimentations with recreational duges is necessarily a bad thing, as long
as one
survives the experience intact. I know some who have not.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:

> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave Weil wrote:
> >
> >
> > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> > >> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
> > >> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that
> he
> > >>was
> > >> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
> > >>Democratic
> > >> presidential candidates all but begging for their
> condemnation,
> > >>the
> > >> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
> > >> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
> > >>radio
> > >> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment
> in
> > >>which
> > >
> > >Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any
> better?
>
> I did try reformatting it to make it easier for stupid people to read, but
> for reasons unknown to me it didn't seem to make any difference.

All hail Outlook Express!

> > That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that what
> was
> > probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few Democrats
> hardly
> > compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are
> controlled
> > substances.
>
> You're right they are worse.
>
> Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> >
> Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.

There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential candidates
acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to downplay
Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals as
an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone the
"social libertine" name-calling. Calling the candidates hypocrits for
not supporting recreational use of marijuana despite their collective
youthful experimentation doesn't stick.

Let's see how cut and paste works in a non-Microsoft product:

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E21662%257E1754022,00.html

Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?

Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning talk-radio
giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he was addicted to
prescription painkillers. But now, with three Democratic presidential
candidates all but begging for their condemnation, the defenders of
drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.

Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of radio
broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in which
Limbaugh bemoaned the social damage wrought by illegal drug use, noting
that offenders "ought to be sent up." Among the social libertines, for
whom the only true sin is the rejection of social libertinism, this was
just too much. Limbaugh was branded a capital-H hypocrite for supposedly
falling short of his own lofty standards.

But if Limbaugh is a hypocrite, then what does that make presidential
candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Edwards?

At last week's "Rock the Vote" debate, all eight Democrats running for
the White House were asked if they had ever used marijuana. Four of the
candidates replied no, with Sen. Joseph Lieberman noting that he was,
once again, "giving unpopular answers in Democratic debates." Carol
Moseley Braun refused to answer. But Dean, Kerry and Edwards admitted --
to loud applause from the MTV-demographic audience -- that they had not
only smoked pot but also, presumably, inhaled.

Does that make them capital-H hypocrites?

As governor of Vermont, Dean worked just last year to kill a bill that
would have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Kerry, who has played both sides of the medical marijuana debate,
declined to co-sponsor legislation authored by fellow Massachusetts
Democrat Rep. Barney Frank that would stop federal agents from harassing
sick patients who use the drug to relieve their suffering.

Edwards has remarked that he has no objection to the Justice
Department's arresting pot-smoking AIDS and cancer patients.

This is just the question of medical marijuana, mind you. While the
candidates might waffle on whether the drug should be made available to
the critically ill, none even pretends to support legalizing it for
recreational uses, the likes of which all three, by their own admission,
have engaged in.

Limbaugh might have once quipped about sending up drug users, but Dean,
Kerry and Edwards, in their capacity as lawmakers, actually have sent up
drug users. And, unlike Limbaugh, the drug they illegally used was never
prescribed to them by a doctor for a legitimate medical condition.

Certainly this should be fodder for the Hypocrisy Police, no?

After all, literally scores, if not hundreds, of pundits quickly seized
the opportunity to stick Limbaugh with the "double-standard" tag. Jesse
Jackson joined the fray. So did Al Franken, who couldn't deny taking
pleasure in Limbaugh's suffering.

Even Kerry got into the act, joking: "There are two ways for you to have
lower prescription drug costs: One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's
housekeeper or you could elect me president of the United States."

Yet neither Jackson nor Franken -- let alone Kerry or the countless
others all too eager to make sport of Limbaugh's alleged hypocrisy --
have uttered a peep about the three would-be presidents who would jail
cancer victims for using a drug for medical treatment that they've used
for fun.

Apparently only conservatives can be hypocrites.

And apparently the Hypocrisy Police care less about snuffing out
philosophical inconsistencies than in bludgeoning their political
opponents for their personal failings.

Lost on the Hypocrisy Police is that there are two sorts of hypocrisy.
The first is the inevitable consequence of trying to maintain a moral
order in a fallen world. Most everyone disdains lying, cheating or
stealing, for example, yet there's not a person among us who, at one
time or another, hasn't lied, cheated or stolen. Does that make us all
hypocrites? In a sense, yes, but it's better to be a hypocrite than to
live without shame or conscience.

Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy -- paying lip
service to a certain set of standards not because one truly believes in
them, but for opportunistic and manipulative purposes -- i.e., the
minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of tithing because he's
skimming the collection plate.

Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his political
opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind eye to his political
allies' contradictions.

Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no one is
immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
>
> > "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Dave Weil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> > > >> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly
condemning
> > > >> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement
that
> > he
> > > >>was
> > > >> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with
three
> > > >>Democratic
> > > >> presidential candidates all but begging for their
> > condemnation,
> > > >>the
> > > >> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be
seen.
> > > >> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of
hours of
> > > >>radio
> > > >> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand
comment
> > in
> > > >>which
> > > >
> > > >Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any
> > better?
> >
> > I did try reformatting it to make it easier for stupid people to read,
but
> > for reasons unknown to me it didn't seem to make any difference.
>
> All hail Outlook Express!
>
> > > That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that
what
> > was
> > > probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few
Democrats
> > hardly
> > > compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are
> > controlled
> > > substances.
> >
> > You're right they are worse.
> >
> > Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> > >
> > Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
>
> There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential candidates
> acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to downplay
> Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals as
> an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone the
> "social libertine" name-calling.

The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people to jail
for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those who use
drugs soley for recreation.

Calling the candidates hypocrits for
> not supporting recreational use of marijuana despite their collective
> youthful experimentation doesn't stick.
>
> Let's see how cut and paste works in a non-Microsoft product:
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E21662%257E1754022,00.html
>
> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
>
> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning talk-radio
> giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he was addicted to
> prescription painkillers. But now, with three Democratic presidential
> candidates all but begging for their condemnation, the defenders of
> drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
>
> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of radio
> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment in which
> Limbaugh bemoaned the social damage wrought by illegal drug use, noting
> that offenders "ought to be sent up." Among the social libertines, for
> whom the only true sin is the rejection of social libertinism, this was
> just too much. Limbaugh was branded a capital-H hypocrite for supposedly
> falling short of his own lofty standards.
>
> But if Limbaugh is a hypocrite, then what does that make presidential
> candidates Howard Dean, John Kerry and John Edwards?
>
> At last week's "Rock the Vote" debate, all eight Democrats running for
> the White House were asked if they had ever used marijuana. Four of the
> candidates replied no, with Sen. Joseph Lieberman noting that he was,
> once again, "giving unpopular answers in Democratic debates." Carol
> Moseley Braun refused to answer. But Dean, Kerry and Edwards admitted --
> to loud applause from the MTV-demographic audience -- that they had not
> only smoked pot but also, presumably, inhaled.
>
> Does that make them capital-H hypocrites?
>
> As governor of Vermont, Dean worked just last year to kill a bill that
> would have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.
>
> Kerry, who has played both sides of the medical marijuana debate,
> declined to co-sponsor legislation authored by fellow Massachusetts
> Democrat Rep. Barney Frank that would stop federal agents from harassing
> sick patients who use the drug to relieve their suffering.
>
> Edwards has remarked that he has no objection to the Justice
> Department's arresting pot-smoking AIDS and cancer patients.
>
> This is just the question of medical marijuana, mind you. While the
> candidates might waffle on whether the drug should be made available to
> the critically ill, none even pretends to support legalizing it for
> recreational uses, the likes of which all three, by their own admission,
> have engaged in.
>
> Limbaugh might have once quipped about sending up drug users, but Dean,
> Kerry and Edwards, in their capacity as lawmakers, actually have sent up
> drug users. And, unlike Limbaugh, the drug they illegally used was never
> prescribed to them by a doctor for a legitimate medical condition.
>
> Certainly this should be fodder for the Hypocrisy Police, no?
>
> After all, literally scores, if not hundreds, of pundits quickly seized
> the opportunity to stick Limbaugh with the "double-standard" tag. Jesse
> Jackson joined the fray. So did Al Franken, who couldn't deny taking
> pleasure in Limbaugh's suffering.
>
> Even Kerry got into the act, joking: "There are two ways for you to have
> lower prescription drug costs: One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's
> housekeeper or you could elect me president of the United States."
>
> Yet neither Jackson nor Franken -- let alone Kerry or the countless
> others all too eager to make sport of Limbaugh's alleged hypocrisy --
> have uttered a peep about the three would-be presidents who would jail
> cancer victims for using a drug for medical treatment that they've used
> for fun.
>
> Apparently only conservatives can be hypocrites.
>
> And apparently the Hypocrisy Police care less about snuffing out
> philosophical inconsistencies than in bludgeoning their political
> opponents for their personal failings.
>
> Lost on the Hypocrisy Police is that there are two sorts of hypocrisy.
> The first is the inevitable consequence of trying to maintain a moral
> order in a fallen world. Most everyone disdains lying, cheating or
> stealing, for example, yet there's not a person among us who, at one
> time or another, hasn't lied, cheated or stolen. Does that make us all
> hypocrites? In a sense, yes, but it's better to be a hypocrite than to
> live without shame or conscience.
>
> Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy -- paying lip
> service to a certain set of standards not because one truly believes in
> them, but for opportunistic and manipulative purposes -- i.e., the
> minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of tithing because he's
> skimming the collection plate.
>
> Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his political
> opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind eye to his political
> allies' contradictions.
>
> Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no one is
> immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Dave Weil wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?

<snip>

> > > Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> > > >
> > > Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
> >
> > There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential candidates
> > acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to downplay
> > Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals as
> > an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone the
> > "social libertine" name-calling.
>
> The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people to jail
> for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those who use
> drugs soley for recreation.

It's a wonder how he kept up the golf game in the face of pain so strong
he had to go to illegal means to procur treatment. Still, so long as
it's not only for recreation...

> Calling the candidates hypocrits for
> > not supporting recreational use of marijuana despite their collective
> > youthful experimentation doesn't stick.
> >
> > Let's see how cut and paste works in a non-Microsoft product:
> >
> > http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E21662%257E1754022,00.html
> >
> > Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> >
> > Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning talk-radio
> > giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he was addicted to
> > prescription painkillers. But now, with three Democratic presidential
> > candidates all but begging for their condemnation, the defenders of
> > drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen...

<snip>

The formatting has survived a couple of generations now.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Dave Weil wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > > Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
> > >
> > > There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential candidates
> > > acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to downplay
> > > Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals
as
> > > an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone
the
> > > "social libertine" name-calling.
> >
> > The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people to
jail
> > for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those who
use
> > drugs soley for recreation.
>
One of his statements when he signed off before going to rehab was that the
oxicontin worked for his pain. As one who uses oxicontin, I can attest to
the fact that it does indeed work. I just renewed my Rx for it, however I
asked for a smller dose so I could still do things like talk without slurred
speech.

What did you use to post the op ed without the arbitrary line breaks?

> It's a wonder how he kept up the golf game in the face of pain so strong
> he had to go to illegal means to procur treatment. Still, so long as
> it's not only for recreation...
>
> > Calling the candidates hypocrits for
> > > not supporting recreational use of marijuana despite their collective
> > > youthful experimentation doesn't stick.
> > >
> > > Let's see how cut and paste works in a non-Microsoft product:
> > >
> > >
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E21662%257E1754022,00.html
> > >
> > > Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> > >
> > > Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning talk-radio
> > > giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that he was addicted to
> > > prescription painkillers. But now, with three Democratic presidential
> > > candidates all but begging for their condemnation, the defenders of
> > > drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen...
>
> <snip>
>
> The formatting has survived a couple of generations now.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Dave Weil wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
> > > >
> > > > There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential
candidates
> > > > acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to
downplay
> > > > Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals
> as
> > > > an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone
> the
> > > > "social libertine" name-calling.
> > >
> > > The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people to
> jail
> > > for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those who
> use
> > > drugs soley for recreation.
> >
> One of his statements when he signed off before going to rehab was that
the
> oxicontin worked for his pain. As one who uses oxicontin, I can attest to
> the fact that it does indeed work. I just renewed my Rx for it, however I
> asked for a smller dose so I could still do things like talk without
slurred
> speech.
>
> What did you use to post the op ed without the arbitrary line breaks?

Probably his backspace key.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:

> "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> >
> > > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Dave Weil wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
> > > >
> > > > There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential candidates
> > > > acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to downplay
> > > > Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and criminals
> as
> > > > an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let alone
> the
> > > > "social libertine" name-calling.
> > >
> > > The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people to
> jail
> > > for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those who
> use
> > > drugs soley for recreation.
> >
> One of his statements when he signed off before going to rehab was that the
> oxicontin worked for his pain. As one who uses oxicontin, I can attest to
> the fact that it does indeed work. I just renewed my Rx for it, however I
> asked for a smller dose so I could still do things like talk without slurred
> speech.

Chronic pain is no joke.

> What did you use to post the op ed without the arbitrary line breaks?

Cut and paste, nothing special. I'd guess your browser's wrap function
or line length setting may be contributing to the odd look.

When in doubt, post the link.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote:

> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...

> > What did you use to post the op ed without the arbitrary line breaks?
>
> Probably his backspace key.

Who has that kind of time?

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:40:16 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:41:41 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>> Then there's the second, more odious form of hypocrisy --
>> >paying lip
>> >> > service to a certain set of standards not because one
>truly
>> >believes
>> >> > in them, but for opportunistic and manipulative
>purposes --
>> >i.e.,
>> >> > the minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of
>tithing
>> >because
>> >> > he's skimming the collection plate.
>> >> Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers his
>> >> political opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a blind
>eye
>> >to
>> >> > his political allies' contradictions.
>> >> Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which no
>one
>> >is
>> >> > immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.
>> >
>> >> Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor.
>Write
>> >> to
>> >> him by e-mail .
>> >>
>> >> RETURN TO TOP
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> InformationCopyright © 2003 Los Angeles Daily
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Reformatted for those from Rio Linda.
>>
>> Not that it did a damn bit of good.
>>
>It looked fine when I reformatted it. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to see that your line length is
inappropriate. We've been through this before and you didn't get it
then, either. Of course, like Arnold, you don't care about the general
welfare of the group.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> Unfortunately, you don't seem to see that your line length is
> inappropriate. We've been through this before and you didn't get it
> then, either. Of course, like Arnold, you don't care about the general
> welfare of the group.

Neither do Sanders or Sackman, unfortunately.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
> > Unfortunately, you don't seem to see that your line length is
> > inappropriate. We've been through this before and you didn't get it
> > then, either. Of course, like Arnold, you don't care about the general
> > welfare of the group.
>
> Neither do Sanders or Sackman, unfortunately.
>
>
>

I usually try to keep my lines short, no more than a dick
length. I must have had a raging hard on last night.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Bruce J. Richman]

Art wrote:


>
>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
...
>> Dave Weil wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
>> >> Last month, they were out in full force, roundly condemning
>> >> talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh after his announcement that
>he
>> >>was
>> >> addicted to prescription painkillers. But now, with three
>> >>Democratic
>> >> presidential candidates all but begging for their
>condemnation,
>> >>the
>> >> defenders of drug-policy consistency are nowhere to be seen.
>> >> Way back then -- in October -- culling thousands of hours of
>> >>radio
>> >> broadcasts, the Hypocrisy Police dug up an offhand comment
>in
>> >>which
>> >
>> >Why do you even bother with virtually unreadable cut n' pastes?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps because obnoxious ignoramuses like duh-Mikey don't know any
>better?
>> That right-wing zealot also conveniently glosses over the fact that what
>was
>> probably some youthful experimentation with marijuana by a few Democrats
>hardly
>> compares with Limbaugh's illegal use of prescription drugs that are
>controlled
>> substances. Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his
>propaganda.
>>
>
>True, it is a controlled substance, but one that he is used as a prescribed
>painkiller.
>His reasons for first using the drug were for more legitimate reasons than
>recreational use. Rush did suffer from severe back pain. Not that youthful
>experimentations with recreational duges is necessarily a bad thing, as long
>as one
>survives the experience intact. I know some who have not.
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>News==----
>http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
>Newsgroups
>---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
>=---
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree with you, basically. I'm aware that Rush had a legitimate use for pain
killers - at least at the outset. I've actually been involved in therapy with
people like him, and admittedly, dependence on painkillers is hard to break.

The whole issue of what drugs should and should not be legalized for medical
and/or recreational use is a complicated one, with no easy answers. However, I
think that faulting a few of the Democrats for using marijuana at one time is
no more useful than, say, faulting a younger George W. (or perhaps his
daughters?) for having a problem with alcohol at a young age. Despite
duh-Mikey's blather, there arfe far more important issues in the upcoming
presidential campaign than recreational drug use. (IMHO, of course).



Bruce J. Richman

[Michael Mckelvy]

"MiNE 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
>
> > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "MiNE 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Dave Weil wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:57:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Where, o where, have the Hypocrisy Police gone?
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > Typical of McKelvy disregard of facts to spread his propaganda.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Not propaganda, an alternate, more objecticve point of view.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's a good point in there about Democratic presidential
candidates
> > > > > acquiescing to the establishment policy on drugs. However, to
downplay
> > > > > Rush's problems by portraying his views on drug crimes and
criminals
> > as
> > > > > an isolated "off-the-cuff" remark is not quite objective, let
alone
> > the
> > > > > "social libertine" name-calling.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that Rush has never spoken out about sending people
to
> > jail
> > > > for addiction to presciption drugs. He's only commented on those
who
> > use
> > > > drugs soley for recreation.
> > >
> > One of his statements when he signed off before going to rehab was that
the
> > oxicontin worked for his pain. As one who uses oxicontin, I can attest
to
> > the fact that it does indeed work. I just renewed my Rx for it, however
I
> > asked for a smller dose so I could still do things like talk without
slurred
> > speech.
>
> Chronic pain is no joke.
>
> > What did you use to post the op ed without the arbitrary line breaks?
>
> Cut and paste, nothing special. I'd guess your browser's wrap function
> or line length setting may be contributing to the odd look.
>
> When in doubt, post the link.

It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have reading
difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted to. I do notice
he had no comment at all on the substance of the piece.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:40:16 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:41:41 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >>> Then there's the second, more odious form of
hypocrisy --
> >> >paying lip
> >> >> > service to a certain set of standards not because one
> >truly
> >> >believes
> >> >> > in them, but for opportunistic and manipulative
> >purposes --
> >> >i.e.,
> >> >> > the minister who insincerely preaches the virtues of
> >tithing
> >> >because
> >> >> > he's skimming the collection plate.
> >> >> Or to use a more timely example: The pundit who skewers
his
> >> >> political opponents for "hypocrisy," while turning a
blind
> >eye
> >> >to
> >> >> > his political allies' contradictions.
> >> >> Like most every other vice, hypocrisy is one from which
no
> >one
> >> >is
> >> >> > immune, least of all the Hypocrisy Police.
> >> >
> >> >> Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor.
> >Write
> >> >> to
> >> >> him by e-mail .
> >> >>
> >> >> RETURN TO TOP
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> InformationCopyright © 2003 Los Angeles Daily
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Reformatted for those from Rio Linda.
> >>
> >> Not that it did a damn bit of good.
> >>
> >It looked fine when I reformatted it. I wouldn't have bothered
otherwise.
>
> Unfortunately, you don't seem to see that your line length is
> inappropriate. We've been through this before and you didn't get it
> then, either. Of course, like Arnold, you don't care about the general
> welfare of the group.
>
The general welfare of the group? What the **** are YOU smoking?

[dave weil]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:38:28 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have reading
>difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted to. I do notice
>he had no comment at all on the substance of the piece.

That's because, when I started reading it, it was a shambles. And
there was nothing in the first couple of sentences that made me want
to go search it out.

However, since my opinion of it seems to be critical for your
well-being, I'll go back and read it Stephen's readable cut 'n paste.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:38:28 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have reading
>difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted to. I do notice
>he had no comment at all on the substance of the piece.

OK, I read it.

It's full of faulty premises.

Satisfied now?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:38:28 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
reading
> >difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted to. I do
notice
> >he had no comment at all on the substance of the piece.
>
> OK, I read it.
>
> It's full of faulty premises.
>
> Satisfied now?

It wasn't posted only for you. The premises are sound, your interpretation
is faulty, again.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:01:21 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:38:28 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
>reading
>> >difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted to. I do
>notice
>> >he had no comment at all on the substance of the piece.
>>
>> OK, I read it.
>>
>> It's full of faulty premises.
>>
>> Satisfied now?
>
>It wasn't posted only for you.

What is *this* supposed to mean?

>The premises are sound, your interpretation
>is faulty, again.

No, the premises *aren't* sound. For instance, it might be the VERY
early drug experiences of the candidates that made them want to
support anti-drug legislation. That's just *one* thing that destroys
the premise of the article. There are plenty more, but i doubt you
want to hear them as well.

BTW, our current Prez apparently did cocaine at some point. Does this
make *him* a hypocrite as well?

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> BTW, our current Prez apparently did cocaine at some point. Does this
> make *him* a hypocrite as well?

I doubt Dubya can even spell "hypocrite".

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:01:21 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:38:28 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
> >reading
> >> >difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted to. I do
> >notice
> >> >he had no comment at all on the substance of the piece.
> >>
> >> OK, I read it.
> >>
> >> It's full of faulty premises.
> >>
> >> Satisfied now?
> >
> >It wasn't posted only for you.
>
> What is *this* supposed to mean?
>
It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will **** off Dave
Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.

> >The premises are sound, your interpretation
> >is faulty, again.
>
> No, the premises *aren't* sound. For instance, it might be the VERY
> early drug experiences of the candidates that made them want to
> support anti-drug legislation.

What sort of early expierience would have them not supporting leaving
terminally ill patients alone with regard to Pot?

That's just *one* thing that destroys
> the premise of the article.

OSAF.

There are plenty more, but i doubt you
> want to hear them as well.
>
Your lefrtist views are predictable.

> BTW, our current Prez apparently did cocaine at some point. Does this
> make *him* a hypocrite as well?
>
Given that it was ruining his life, no. Do I agree with anti-drug laws,
no.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> What is *this* supposed to mean?
>>
>It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will **** off Dave
>Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.

Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> No, the premises *aren't* sound. For instance, it might be the VERY
>> early drug experiences of the candidates that made them want to
>> support anti-drug legislation.
>
>What sort of early expierience would have them not supporting leaving
>terminally ill patients alone with regard to Pot?

Who knows? The point is, linking early experimental drug use as a
teenager to support of current policies doesn't hold much water. What
*does* hold water (and it's something that I'd expect you to praise)
is not running from the question and actually admitting to behavior
that's not considered appropriate for a presidential candidate.

> That's just *one* thing that destroys
>> the premise of the article.
>
>OSAF.

Well, it *is* a fact. There are other things as well.

>There are plenty more, but i doubt you
>> want to hear them as well.
>>
>Your lefrtist views are predictable.

I wonder if there's *any* way that you can post without a screwup.

>> BTW, our current Prez apparently did cocaine at some point. Does this
>> make *him* a hypocrite as well?
>>
>Given that it was ruining his life, no. Do I agree with anti-drug laws,
>no.

Did I say you did?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
> >>
> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will **** off
Dave
> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
>
> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?

Where did I say it was?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:18:12 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
>> >>
>> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will **** off
>Dave
>> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
>>
>> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?
>
>Where did I say it was?

When you noted that I hadn't commented on it. Why did you bother to
challenge me on it in the first place if it wasn't important?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:18:12 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
> >> >>
> >> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will **** off
> >Dave
> >> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
> >>
> >> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?
> >
> >Where did I say it was?
>
> When you noted that I hadn't commented on it. Why did you bother to
> challenge me on it in the first place if it wasn't important?
>
I didn't.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:00:57 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:18:12 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will **** off
>> >Dave
>> >> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
>> >>
>> >> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?
>> >
>> >Where did I say it was?
>>
>> When you noted that I hadn't commented on it. Why did you bother to
>> challenge me on it in the first place if it wasn't important?
>>
>I didn't.

Sure you did.

Let me remind you:

"It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
reading difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted
to. I do notice he had no comment at all on the substance of the
piece".

Spin *that* one.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:00:57 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:18:12 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will ****
off
> >> >Dave
> >> >> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?
> >> >
> >> >Where did I say it was?
> >>
> >> When you noted that I hadn't commented on it. Why did you bother to
> >> challenge me on it in the first place if it wasn't important?
> >>
> >I didn't.
>
> Sure you did.
>
> Let me remind you:
>
> "It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
> reading difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted
> to. I do notice he had no comment at all on the substance of the
> piece".
>
> Spin *that* one.

You've already done a god job. That wasn't a challenge it was simply a
comment on the fact that you always complain when I post things from other
sources.

Would you like another chair for your ego?

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:26:51 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:00:57 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:18:12 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will ****
>off
>> >> >Dave
>> >> >> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Where did I say it was?
>> >>
>> >> When you noted that I hadn't commented on it. Why did you bother to
>> >> challenge me on it in the first place if it wasn't important?
>> >>
>> >I didn't.
>>
>> Sure you did.
>>
>> Let me remind you:
>>
>> "It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
>> reading difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted
>> to. I do notice he had no comment at all on the substance of the
>> piece".
>>
>> Spin *that* one.
>
>You've already done a god job. That wasn't a challenge it was simply a
>comment on the fact that you always complain when I post things from other
>sources.
>
>Would you like another chair for your ego?

I don't need one, since apparently I'm your god.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:26:51 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:00:57 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:18:12 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:00:10 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> What is *this* supposed to mean?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >It means I didn't find an op-ed and say, "I'll bet this will
****
> >off
> >> >> >Dave
> >> >> >> >Weil. It was something might cause many people to think.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then why was it so important that I didn't comment on it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Where did I say it was?
> >> >>
> >> >> When you noted that I hadn't commented on it. Why did you bother to
> >> >> challenge me on it in the first place if it wasn't important?
> >> >>
> >> >I didn't.
> >>
> >> Sure you did.
> >>
> >> Let me remind you:
> >>
> >> "It was no secret that it came from the LA Daily News, those who have
> >> reading difficulty like Weil could have easily found if they wanted
> >> to. I do notice he had no comment at all on the substance of the
> >> piece".
> >>
> >> Spin *that* one.
> >
> >You've already done a god job. That wasn't a challenge it was simply a
> >comment on the fact that you always complain when I post things from
other
> >sources.
> >
> >Would you like another chair for your ego?
>
> I don't need one, since apparently I'm your god.

Delusions of grandeur noted.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:34:03 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> >You've already done a god job. That wasn't a challenge it was simply a
>> >comment on the fact that you always complain when I post things from
>other
>> >sources.
>> >
>> >Would you like another chair for your ego?
>>
>> I don't need one, since apparently I'm your god.
>
>Delusions of grandeur noted.

Hey, it was *you* who said it, not me.