Skip to comments.
'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?
vanity ^
| 3/20/02
| tpaine
Posted on 03/20/2002 2:46:13 PM PST by tpaine
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-125 last
To: tpaine
Constitutionality is, of course, one issue. Are you saying you two agree on the moral and societal consequences issues? I was under the impression you two were on completely different sides of the entire WOD issue.
121
posted on
03/21/2002 4:47:43 PM PST
by
Bob J
To: Bob J; texaggie79
I've said enough for now. We need aggies input before this goes any further. - And I doubt that it should.
122
posted on
03/21/2002 4:53:47 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: Bob J
We both oppose the FEDERAL WOD. There is no constitutional president for it. Were we disagree is if states can and should prohibit hard drugs.
I think pot should be legalized, but adamantly defend hard drugs remaining illegal at the state level.
So technically, it would not be a debate on the WOD, but on the constitutionality of States banning drugs.
To: tpaine
Just fleshing this thing out. How do you respond to what Texaggie said? Do you guys vehemently disagree or will you end up smooching each other by the end of the show...heheh.
124
posted on
03/21/2002 6:13:56 PM PST
by
Bob J
To: Bob J
I like the way you think on this point . it has a great deal of potential !
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-125 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson