Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Advocates for legalizing marijuana tout the benefits at Hempfest
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) ^ | August 21, 2006 | MIKE LEWIS

Posted on 08/21/2006 5:54:00 PM PDT by Know your rights

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 last
To: Know your rights
"Nothing misleading in my accurate statement, as it neither claims nor even implies anything about strength of support."

It's misleading because you know the actual, posted results of the survey, yet choose to present those results differently. The fact that you continue to do this tells me that you realize how weak your argument is.

141 posted on 08/26/2006 9:39:45 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
the actual, posted results of the survey

Are you claiming that Zogby posted the results you cite ... or that nobody has posted the summary I cite?

142 posted on 08/27/2006 1:31:03 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Congress is using their constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the interstate commerce of marijuana.

Congress is appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce. There is no objective of regulting commerce.

143 posted on 08/28/2006 5:35:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"Are you claiming that Zogby posted the results you cite ... or that nobody has posted the summary I cite?"

I am claiming that you know the actual Zogby poll rsults (if for no other reason than I told you), and that you are misleading others by choosing to present those results differently. It's immaterial whether you summarized the results or saw them somewhere else -- repeating anothers misstatement is no excuse.

144 posted on 08/28/2006 5:55:05 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Congress is appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

Are you saying that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce but no power to enforce those regulations?

145 posted on 08/28/2006 5:56:55 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Are you saying that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce but no power to enforce those regulations?

No, I'm not, but you have to try and make it look that way to keep your sophistic house of cards propped up.

146 posted on 08/28/2006 7:42:45 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I am claiming [...] that you are misleading others by choosing to present those results differently.

Blatant nonsense. If I know the distance between the soles of my feet and my navel, and the distance between my navel and the top of my head, is it "misleading others" by simply telling them I'm six feet tall?

It's immaterial whether you summarized the results or saw them somewhere else -- repeating anothers misstatement is no excuse.

An accurate statement is certainly not a "misstatement."

147 posted on 08/28/2006 7:46:40 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"If I know the distance between the soles of my feet and my navel, and the distance between my navel and the top of my head, is it "misleading others" by simply telling them I'm six feet tall?"

If those two separate distances are disproportionate to the general population (in other words, you are misshapen), then you are indeed misleading others by solely telling them your overall height.

That happens to be the case with this survey. You know the results are skewed, yet you present them in a way to hide that fact. That's called "misleading".

148 posted on 08/29/2006 7:53:38 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"An accurate statement is certainly not a "misstatement."

It can be an accurate but a misleading statement.

149 posted on 08/29/2006 7:59:04 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Here's a misleading statement:

I have no desire nor intention whatsoever in controlling your behavior.
473 posted on 08/16/2006 4:49:11 AM PDT by robertpaulsen

150 posted on 08/29/2006 8:07:58 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If those two separate distances are disproportionate to the general population (in other words, you are misshapen), then you are indeed misleading others by solely telling them your overall height.

That happens to be the case with this survey. You know the results are skewed

Really? What is the strongly/somewhat distribution for a 'typical' survey? Supply proof.

151 posted on 08/30/2006 5:43:00 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"What is the strongly/somewhat distribution for a 'typical' survey?"

Irrelevant. The results in this survey are significantly skewed.

You glossed it over. You're misrepresenting the facts as you know them. You are attempting to mislead others on this forum. You are dishonest.

And every time I catch you being dishonest on this forum, I will expose your antics to the public.

152 posted on 08/31/2006 4:58:10 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Not misleading at all. Why would I want to do that, tpaine? We both know I can't. Why bother?

You are free to do whatever your little heart desires. I cannot nor will not stop you from exercising your free will.

I, however, along with others in society can certainly set up consequences, leaving you free to choose your course of action. That is a right I retain.

153 posted on 08/31/2006 5:04:27 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Here's a misleading statement:

I have no desire nor intention whatsoever in controlling your behavior.
473 posted on 08/16/2006 4:49:11 AM PDT by robertpaulsen

Not misleading at all.

You've advocated, many times, that 'majority rule' law can prohibit & control behavior.

You are free to do whatever your little heart desires. I cannot nor will not stop you from exercising your free will.
I, however, along with others in society can certainly set up consequences,

There you go again, admitting you want to control behavior by 'setting up consequences' -- by making prohibitory laws..

leaving you free to choose your course of action. That is a right I retain.

You and your fellow socialists "retain" no right to ignore our Constitution in enacting prohibitions.

154 posted on 08/31/2006 5:36:05 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
What is the strongly/somewhat distribution for a 'typical' survey?

Irrelevant. The results in this survey are significantly skewed.

By what standard? The robertpaulsen-says-so rule?

155 posted on 09/02/2006 9:05:15 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"By what standard?"

Your dissembling is proof enough.

156 posted on 09/02/2006 9:16:43 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So the proof that I've been dissembling is that I haven't shown the skewed results, and the proof that the results are skewed is that I've been dissembling.

This is one for the robertpaulsen Hall of Fame.

157 posted on 09/02/2006 9:21:12 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"So the proof that I've been dissembling is that I haven't shown the skewed results, and the proof that the results are skewed is that I've been dissembling."

No, the fact is that you've been dissembling because the actual results are skewed against the argument you're trying to make.

158 posted on 09/02/2006 9:28:15 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
the actual results are skewed against the argument you're trying to make.

You can't support your old unsupported claims with new unsupported claims. (But you can amuse me by trying.)

159 posted on 09/02/2006 9:46:35 AM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson