Liberal solution to illegal immigration
in [Golf]
|
Prev: March of the Titans (brief video re: White Race, 1 min, 30sec)
Next: What the heck is Tiger doing?
From: Jack Hollis on 9 May 2010 15:23 On Sat, 08 May 2010 21:09:39 -0500, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>However, when I think of what I did when I was young, I have to >>shutter a bit. > >This didn't register at first. Shutter? Columbia? No photographer.
From: Jack Hollis on 9 May 2010 15:37 On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:44:37 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote: >In article <enudu555hcneaq4s25ihnmciigtuiu6uhh(a)4ax.com>, > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:30:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> >> wrote: >> >> >"synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin". >> >> Sure it is. > >No, Jack, it's not. > >They are both members of the class "opiod", but being members of the >same class doesn't make them the same thing. The major difference is that one is synthetic and the other is not. In any case, would you agree that methadone is a synthetic opioid that is used to replace heroin use in addicts?
From: Alan Baker on 9 May 2010 16:08 In article <hi3eu5h6k9a1t1358bl0cf19pl3v6anho0(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Sun, 09 May 2010 11:44:37 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > >In article <enudu555hcneaq4s25ihnmciigtuiu6uhh(a)4ax.com>, > > Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 08 May 2010 18:30:05 -0700, Alan Baker <alangbaker(a)telus.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >"synthetic opiod" is not equivalent to "synthetic heroin". > >> > >> Sure it is. > > > >No, Jack, it's not. > > > >They are both members of the class "opiod", but being members of the > >same class doesn't make them the same thing. > > The major difference is that one is synthetic and the other is not. Major or minor... ....THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. > > In any case, would you agree that methadone is a synthetic opioid that > is used to replace heroin use in addicts? Absolutely, but why in the hell do you have to say things that aren't so? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
From: Howard Brazee on 9 May 2010 17:39 On Sun, 09 May 2010 12:11:28 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >Other national groups who suffer political opression like the Cubans >are also allowed to stay. Some other national groups get this status. It depends on who's doing the oppressing. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: John B. on 9 May 2010 18:09
On May 9, 1:07 am, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <e9313f6a-885e-44f8-b4cb-5362aeb48277 > @b7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, johnb...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > On May 8, 7:01 pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <vunbu5h4vpn0f3edg9q2n03slsuhm87...(a)4ax.com>, > > > how...(a)brazee.net says... > > > > > On Sat, 8 May 2010 08:56:27 -0400, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > >Mexicans nationals cannot own property in the US. > > > > > Why not? > > > > It is all part of the reciprocity argument. Non Mexicans are not allowed > > > to be majority owners of property in Mexico. Just turn the tables on > > > them when in our contry. > > > How is that reciprocal when Americans can own property in Mexico? > > Please provide proof that US nationals can be majority owners of real > property in Mexico. Why do you have to have everything proven to you? Are you too lazy to research anything on your own? I attended a language school in Cuernavaca, Mexico that was owned by Americans. |