"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.