On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:28:30 -0500, William > wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:21:44 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 16:05:44 -0500, S Viemeister
> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/7/2015 8:53 AM, William wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cigarettes are legal and Cocaine is not. Stupid Victorian Laws that
>>>> are relics of the eighteeth century.
>>>
>>>???
>>>Victorian laws from the eighteenth century?
>>
>>Yes, I questioned that also
>
>I stand corrected JeBus. Americans currently enjoy a smorgasboard of
>recreational drugs including narcotics.

They do indeed (much like any other developed nation). Which only
proves that the hopelessly inappropriate 'war on drugs' mentality is a
complete failure which only benefits dealers, government departments,
and to a degree, the pharmaceutical industry.

>I should not insinuate that
>our outdated laws were created by Queen Victoria. They were created by
>American politicians in the wake of the "Victorian Era".

Well, that is highly debatable. I'd be looking much closer at industry
magnates such as Dupont's influence on the demonising of cannabis,
just as a starting point.

>What is so ridiculus in the year 2015 is that Marijuana is about the
>only substance that is still illegal while millions of Americans are
>hooked on legally written Prescriptions for Narcotic drugs. People buy
>Marijuana on the street. The government is not stopping them from
>smoking.

And really, they don't want to stop them either. It is to their
benefit that the status quo is maintained (from their skewed point of
view). It is also somewhat ironic that in some (U.S) states where it
has been 'legalised', there is still a thriving black market in
cannabis - much cheaper due to no taxes to be paid.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:45:52 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:


>> What is so ridiculus in the year 2015 is that Marijuana is about the
>> only substance that is still illegal while millions of Americans are
>> hooked on legally written Prescriptions for Narcotic drugs. People buy
>> Marijuana on the street. The government is not stopping them from
>> smoking.
>
>They aren't?? Half the prison population in the US are in there for drug
>offences. Of those, 27% are for marijuana. That translates to about
>12% of the prison population being for marijuana. Compare that to 0.4%
>for financial crimes, 4% for burglary and property offences
>2.8% for homicide, aggravated assault and kidnapping, 3.8% for robber
>and 6.1% for sex offences.

You need to ask yourself why those rates of imprisonment also happen
to coincide with the rise of privately run prisons, and the army of
lobbyists that go along with that. Those 27% are very easy targets...
err, I mean cash cows for the prison industry.

I find the whole concept of profiting from human incarceration
obscene, and highly dangerous to society.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:59:25 -0400, wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:50:10 -0500, William > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:22:15 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:53:26 -0500, William > wrote:
>>>
>>>>It's really sad isn't it? Vodka is legal and Marijuana is not.
>>>>Cigarettes are legal and Cocaine is not. Stupid Victorian Laws that
>>>>are relics of the eighteeth century. Most of the ignorant people
>>>
>>>You may want to review your comments.
>>
>>Oh no! You're not going to burn down the White House again are you?
>>
>>William
>
>Jeßus is not Canadian, he's a Tassie.

Oh, okay. I couldn't quite figure out what William was alluding to
Presumably this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 11:14:24 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>William wrote:
>>
>> In the early twentieth century the government decided people were not
>> going to drink liquor any more. What did people do? My Great
>> Grandfather started making it in the backyard. His was so good, the
>> neighbors wanted him to make some for them.
>
>Unless I've heard wrong, I believe that the Kennedy's made their
>fortune by bootleging booze during those times. Feel free to correct
>me if I'm wrong.

You are correct. For a good read, only the names are changed:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2857119-the-chains

On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:10:14 -0400, wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 10:14:52 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:59:25 -0400, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:50:10 -0500, William > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:22:15 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:53:26 -0500, William > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's really sad isn't it? Vodka is legal and Marijuana is not.
>>>>>>Cigarettes are legal and Cocaine is not. Stupid Victorian Laws that
>>>>>>are relics of the eighteeth century. Most of the ignorant people
>>>>>
>>>>>You may want to review your comments.
>>>>
>>>>Oh no! You're not going to burn down the White House again are you?
>>>>
>>>>William
>>>
>>>Jeßus is not Canadian, he's a Tassie.
>>
>>Oh, okay. I couldn't quite figure out what William was alluding to
>>Presumably this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
>
>Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
>celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
>better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~

LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
the most thin-skinned, that's for sure

On 3/7/2015 4:43 PM, sf wrote:
> > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2015 8:53 AM, William wrote:
>>> Cigarettes are legal and Cocaine is not. Stupid Victorian Laws that
>>> are relics of the eighteeth century.
>>
>> ???
>> Victorian laws from the eighteenth century?
>
> Unless lawmakers were clairvoyant, Victorian laws were made in the
> 19th century.
>
Indeed.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-03-07 4:14 PM, Reggie wrote:
>
>>> Victorian laws from the eighteenth century?
>>
>> they were ahead of their time. or behind the times.
>>
>
>
> They were contemporary at the time.

whoosh!

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/7/2015 4:43 PM, sf wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2015 8:53 AM, William wrote:
>>>> Cigarettes are legal and Cocaine is not. Stupid Victorian Laws that
>>>> are relics of the eighteeth century.
>>>
>>> ???
>>> Victorian laws from the eighteenth century?
>>
>> Unless lawmakers were clairvoyant, Victorian laws were made in the
>> 19th century.
>>
> Indeed.

Perhaps I am wrong but I just accept what some people around here say and
have done for a long time. I never see the point in arguing but in this
case, it seems to have worked

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 20:10:14 -0400, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 10:14:52 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:59:25 -0400, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:50:10 -0500, William > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:22:15 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 08:53:26 -0500, William > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's really sad isn't it? Vodka is legal and Marijuana is not.
>>>>>>>Cigarettes are legal and Cocaine is not. Stupid Victorian Laws that
>>>>>>>are relics of the eighteeth century. Most of the ignorant people
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You may want to review your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh no! You're not going to burn down the White House again are you?
>>>>>
>>>>>William
>>>>
>>>>Jeßus is not Canadian, he's a Tassie.
>>>
>>>Oh, okay. I couldn't quite figure out what William was alluding to
>>>Presumably this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
>>
>>Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
>>celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
>>better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~
>
> To quote a local identity: Heaven forfend!

;--)

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Jeßus" wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
> >celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
> >better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~
>
> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure

They always "carry a big stick" though.

Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
Australia.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> I run a small hydroponic unit and I've had
> tradesmen doing work for me, looking at it most suspiciously and asking what
> I was growing, until I told them they were tomato plants. Of course once
> the fruit is growing there is no problem.

A few years ago, I had all my windows replaced. (What a pain). At the
time, I had about 8 Japanese Maple trees growing on my back porch. I
have the green leaf kind, not the red leaf ones. The leaves look just
like marijuana leaves.

The contractor complimented me on my back porch plants with a wink.
I'm sure he thought I was growing weed out there. ehehh

"Jeßus" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:03:25 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
> >Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> We had a
> >> helicopter flying over our place the other day. I'm not sure whose
> >> property they were looking at exactly, but I do pick up an
> >> unmistakable smell not far from our place, when we drive to town
> >
> >I *might have* grown a crop of pot in the past.
>
> I have in the past, and I do now too. And I will in subsequent years.
>
> >One thing I do know is that it doesn't smell while growing.
>
> Then it wasn't very potent... mine are only just starting to bud now,
> and you can most certainly smell them from a distance.
>
> >Unmistakable smell while smoking it, but not while growing.
>
> Hmm.

It's been over 35 years since I've grown any but I never remember
smelling it while growing. Plants grown inside were only one or two
at a time. Grown for novelity, not to maintain my smoking habit.

About a dozen plants out in the corner of my yard once. I had to take
them down early because they were getting visible from the street.
Still never smelled them.

OH well.

If it ever becomes legal here, I will fill my house with pot plants. I
have no interest in smoking....I just love the look of them. This is
why I have some Japanese Maple plants here now. I just love how they
look and they look very similar to pot plants.

G.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> I run a small hydroponic unit and I've had
>> tradesmen doing work for me, looking at it most suspiciously and asking
>> what
>> I was growing, until I told them they were tomato plants. Of course once
>> the fruit is growing there is no problem.
>
> A few years ago, I had all my windows replaced. (What a pain). At the
> time, I had about 8 Japanese Maple trees growing on my back porch. I
> have the green leaf kind, not the red leaf ones. The leaves look just
> like marijuana leaves.
>
> The contractor complimented me on my back porch plants with a wink.
> I'm sure he thought I was growing weed out there. ehehh

<g>
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:52:59 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
> >"Jeßus" wrote:
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
> >> >celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
> >> >better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~
> >>
> >> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
> >> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
> >
> >They always "carry a big stick" though.
> >
> >Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
> >here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
> >Australia.
>
> But why would you, what would be the point?

That's the whole point. We would never do that unless provoked to
protect ourselves. All the little third-world dictator countries that
threaten other countries are the problem. Someone needs to "carry a
big stick" just to keep them in check.

On 2015-03-08 9:52 AM, Gary wrote:

>> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
>> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
>
> They always "carry a big stick" though.
>
> Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
> here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
> Australia.
>


If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able to
win single handed in the last 100 years were against might Grenada and
Panama?

On 2015-03-08 10:58 AM, Gary wrote:

>>> They always "carry a big stick" though.
>>>
>>> Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
>>> here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
>>> Australia.
>>
>> But why would you, what would be the point?
>
> That's the whole point. We would never do that unless provoked to
> protect ourselves. All the little third-world dictator countries that
> threaten other countries are the problem. Someone needs to "carry a
> big stick" just to keep them in check.

That is exactly what Saddam was doing in Iraq. We all knew he was a
nasty ******* and most of your allies, besides not believing the lies
about the massive stockpiles of WMDs, thought it best to have him in
place to keep some of the nastier elements under control. In hindsight,
some Americans are starting to realize what they friends were trying to
tell them before they squandered all that good will.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2015-03-08 9:52 AM, Gary wrote:
>
> >> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
> >> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
> >
> > They always "carry a big stick" though.
> >
> > Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
> > here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
> > Australia.
> >
>
> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able to
> win single handed in the last 100 years were against might Grenada and
> Panama?

The politicians here always tie the military's hands behind their
backs rather than sending them in to war to win quickly and
efficiently. We could have ended the Vietnam war in 6 months if the
military was given free reign to do what they can do without
restraint. That's all Johnson's fault.

Iraq could have been finished with during the first war when they
invaded Kuwait but we chased them out and didn't follow them into
their own country to end the threat.

Patton wanted to invade Russia after Europe was won. They were hurting
and we probably could have done that, thus preventing the infamous
Cold War.

And want to go back to WW2? Japan started the Pacific part, we kicked
their ass after a few years, even to the point of "melting" many of
their civilians at the end.

The "stick" has always been there. Just to hesitant to use it full
force.

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 6:42:24 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-03-08 9:52 AM, Gary wrote:
>
> >> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
> >> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
> >
> > They always "carry a big stick" though.
> >
> > Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
> > here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
> > Australia.
> >
>
>
> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able to
> win single handed in the last 100 years were against might Grenada and
> Panama?

Winning ain't everything. Sometimes, just killing a whole lot of people is enough. :-)

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 12:52:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> In hindsight,
> some Americans are starting to realize what they friends were trying to
> tell them before they squandered all that good will.
>
Do try to keep up Dave. Those who went into Iraq gung-ho are beating
the war drums again. The rest of us didn't want to and knew it meant
nothing but bad would come of it.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 2015-03-08 1:04 PM, Gary wrote:

>> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able to
>> win single handed in the last 100 years were against might Grenada and
>> Panama?
>
> The politicians here always tie the military's hands behind their
> backs rather than sending them in to war to win quickly and
> efficiently. We could have ended the Vietnam war in 6 months if the
> military was given free reign to do what they can do without
> restraint. That's all Johnson's fault


It is not just your government. There are laws about war that we in the
civilized world are expected to abide by. AFAIAC, the idea of a clean
war without collateral damage is a farce. You are still going to have
questionably innocent people killed. Let's give them the benefit of the
doubt and call them non-combatants, though they are likely friends,
family and supporters of the combatants.

Some military leaders in WWI thought a big mistake was being made by
allowing German to surrender without inflicting total defeat on them.
They learned from that in WWII, soundly defeating Germany and Japan.
>
> Iraq could have been finished with during the first war when they
> invaded Kuwait but we chased them out and didn't follow them into
> their own country to end the threat.

That was the UN mandate to oust them from Kuwait.
>
> Patton wanted to invade Russia after Europe was won. They were hurting
> and we probably could have done that, thus preventing the infamous
> Cold War.
>
> And want to go back to WW2? Japan started the Pacific part, we kicked
> their ass after a few years, even to the point of "melting" many of
> their civilians at the end.

Yep. For a while there, every August we would start hearing the sob
stories about dropping nukes on those cities which falsely claimed to
have had no military value. I had no sympathy. I knew a man who had
been a POW in a Japanese camp. He said they had it bad but that the
Americans were treated a lot worse. Then there was the information that
came out about Nanking and how the Japanese solders systematically
slaughtered 300,000 Chinese, mostly civilians. They raped, mutilated and
murdered thousands and thousands of girls and women. The Japanese did
not deserve any sympathy after the many atrocities they committed.



>
> The "stick" has always been there. Just to hesitant to use it full
> force.
>

On 2015-03-08 1:10 PM, dsi1 wrote:

>> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able
>> to win single handed in the last 100 years were against might
>> Grenada and Panama?
>
> Winning ain't everything. Sometimes, just killing a whole lot of
> people is enough. :-)
>



Oh? And how is that working for you?

On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 7:33:35 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-03-08 1:10 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able
> >> to win single handed in the last 100 years were against might
> >> Grenada and Panama?
> >
> > Winning ain't everything. Sometimes, just killing a whole lot of
> > people is enough. :-)
> >
>
>
>
> Oh? And how is that working for you?

I don't have any feelings on things I have no control over. I'll leave feeling for other folks. I just comment on the strategy: we get biblical on other people's asses.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 13:33:33 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-03-08 1:10 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> >> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able
> >> to win single handed in the last 100 years were against might
> >> Grenada and Panama?
> >
> > Winning ain't everything. Sometimes, just killing a whole lot of
> > people is enough. :-)
> >
>
>
>
> Oh? And how is that working for you?

He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 2015-03-08 1:53 PM, sf wrote:

>>
>> Oh? And how is that working for you?
>
> He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.
>


Okay. I see you have flipped back to stupid bitch mode.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 14:00:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-03-08 1:53 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Oh? And how is that working for you?
> >
> > He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.
> >
>
>
> Okay. I see you have flipped back to stupid bitch mode.

And you're in stupid mode.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 2015-03-08 2:52 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 13:32:54 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> Yep. For a while there, every August we would start hearing the sob
>> stories about dropping nukes on those cities which falsely claimed to
>> have had no military value.
>
> It is true, I never understood why they picked those cities.

They were both large, industrial centres manufacturing war materials and
transport hubs.



>
> Personally I am more shocked by German atrocities. The Japanese
> civilisation was totally different to ours but one can`t explain away
> what Germans did with their Final Solution and frankly, when people
> whine about the bombing of Dresden, I say so what - remember
> Stalingrad. As a kid I thought it was normal to get up in the night
> and go to the shelter because bombs were falling!

To be fair to the Germans, when they invaded and occupied countries they
had no problems finding locals to do their dirty work for them.


>

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 12:04:16 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2015-03-08 9:52 AM, Gary wrote:
>>
>> >> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
>> >> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
>> >
>> > They always "carry a big stick" though.
>> >
>> > Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
>> > here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
>> > Australia.
>> >
>>
>> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able to
>> win single handed in the last 100 years were against might Grenada and
>> Panama?
>
>The politicians here always tie the military's hands behind their
>backs rather than sending them in to war to win quickly and
>efficiently. We could have ended the Vietnam war in 6 months if the
>military was given free reign to do what they can do without
>restraint. That's all Johnson's fault.
>
>Iraq could have been finished with during the first war when they
>invaded Kuwait but we chased them out and didn't follow them into
>their own country to end the threat.
>
>Patton wanted to invade Russia after Europe was won. They were hurting
>and we probably could have done that, thus preventing the infamous
>Cold War.
>
>And want to go back to WW2? Japan started the Pacific part, we kicked
>their ass after a few years, even to the point of "melting" many of
>their civilians at the end.
>
>The "stick" has always been there. Just to hesitant to use it full
>force.

And after all that went on in the early '60s with the Cuban blockade
it was all for nought if our immature pres makes a deal with Castro...
the only deal is to take over the entire island and make it a
possession... woulda been if JFK wasn't so preoccupied chasing skirts.
A lot of sailers suffered for a whole year for nothing.

On 3/8/2015 10:26 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 12:04:16 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2015-03-08 9:52 AM, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>>> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
>>>>> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
>>>>
>>>> They always "carry a big stick" though.
>>>>
>>>> Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
>>>> here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
>>>> Australia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If that's the case, why is it that the only wars you have been able to
>>> win single handed in the last 100 years were against might Grenada and
>>> Panama?
>>
>> The politicians here always tie the military's hands behind their
>> backs rather than sending them in to war to win quickly and
>> efficiently. We could have ended the Vietnam war in 6 months if the
>> military was given free reign to do what they can do without
>> restraint. That's all Johnson's fault.
>>
>> Iraq could have been finished with during the first war when they
>> invaded Kuwait but we chased them out and didn't follow them into
>> their own country to end the threat.
>>
>> Patton wanted to invade Russia after Europe was won. They were hurting
>> and we probably could have done that, thus preventing the infamous
>> Cold War.
>>
>> And want to go back to WW2? Japan started the Pacific part, we kicked
>> their ass after a few years, even to the point of "melting" many of
>> their civilians at the end.
>>
>> The "stick" has always been there. Just to hesitant to use it full
>> force.
>
> And after all that went on in the early '60s with the Cuban blockade
> it was all for nought if our immature pres makes a deal with Castro...
> the only deal is to take over the entire island and make it a
> possession... woulda been if JFK wasn't so preoccupied chasing skirts.
> A lot of sailers suffered for a whole year for nothing.
>

Oh yeah, the sailors had a hard time in Cuba but the last 50 years ain't
been a cakewalk for the Cubans either. Are you absolutely sure that you
were in the Navy?

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:52:59 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
>> >celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
>> >better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~
>>
>> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
>> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
>
>They always "carry a big stick" though.
>
>Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
>here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
>Australia.

And? I don't follow your logic.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 11:36:08 -0300, wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:52:59 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
>>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
>>> >celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
>>> >better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~
>>>
>>> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
>>> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
>>
>>They always "carry a big stick" though.
>>
>>Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
>>here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
>>Australia.
>
>But why would you, what would be the point?

I've no idea.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 09:58:50 -0500, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:52:59 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >"Jeßus" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Yes and no, most of those English forces formed Canada. We were
>> >> >celebrating the war of 1812 but the US not so much Anyway we
>> >> >better be very careful or sf will come storming in ~
>> >>
>> >> LOL, not just her, either. As a nation of people, they're definitely
>> >> the most thin-skinned, that's for sure
>> >
>> >They always "carry a big stick" though.
>> >
>> >Critisize the USAians all you want. There's enough fire power right
>> >here in my town and Norfolk to reduce Tasmania to a sandbar south of
>> >Australia.
>>
>> But why would you, what would be the point?
>
>That's the whole point. We would never do that unless provoked to
>protect ourselves. All the little third-world dictator countries that
>threaten other countries are the problem. Someone needs to "carry a
>big stick" just to keep them in check.

I know people like you exist, but when I come across one, it's still
almost too far-fetched to believe. How can you be that simple-minded?

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 14:00:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-03-08 1:53 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Oh? And how is that working for you?
>>
>> He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.
>>
>
>
>Okay. I see you have flipped back to stupid bitch mode.

She had another mode?!?

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 09:38:31 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:03:25 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> We had a
>> >> helicopter flying over our place the other day. I'm not sure whose
>> >> property they were looking at exactly, but I do pick up an
>> >> unmistakable smell not far from our place, when we drive to town
>> >
>> >I *might have* grown a crop of pot in the past.
>>
>> I have in the past, and I do now too. And I will in subsequent years.
>>
>> >One thing I do know is that it doesn't smell while growing.
>>
>> Then it wasn't very potent... mine are only just starting to bud now,
>> and you can most certainly smell them from a distance.
>>
>> >Unmistakable smell while smoking it, but not while growing.
>>
>> Hmm.
>
>It's been over 35 years since I've grown any but I never remember
>smelling it while growing. Plants grown inside were only one or two
>at a time. Grown for novelity, not to maintain my smoking habit.
>
>About a dozen plants out in the corner of my yard once. I had to take
>them down early because they were getting visible from the street.
>Still never smelled them.
>
>OH well.
>
>If it ever becomes legal here, I will fill my house with pot plants. I
>have no interest in smoking....I just love the look of them. This is
>why I have some Japanese Maple plants here now. I just love how they
>look and they look very similar to pot plants.

Agreed, they are a very attractive plant.

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 5:47:37 PM UTC-6, Julie Bove wrote:
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 1:42:23 PM UTC-10, Julie Bove wrote:
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:20:24 -0500, Dave Smith
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2015-03-06 2:10 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:47:18 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> really lke fried okra !!! YUM !

> >> >> >> Don't they have anything better to do?
> >> >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...71425654596337
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The headline says "cops raid retiree's garden, seize okra plants".
> >> >> > But
> >> >> > what really happened is "the officers apologized and took some of
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > suspicious okra leaves". I guess that headline wouldn't attract as
> >> >> > many readers.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep...and some people apparently don't read much further than the
> >> >> headline. Someone sees the stock photo of okra pods and assumes the
> >> >> sops
> >> >> are a bunch of dumb asses for seizing his crop when the fact is that
> >> >> they mistook the leaves for pot, went to investigate and then left.
> >> >
> >> > Idiot cops that mistake okra leaves for marijuana leaves need
> >> > something better to do.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I would think so! Maybe they are okra haters.
> >
> > I think they should legalize dope and make okra illegal. :-)
>
> I'm sure that a lot of people would agree with you. I actually like okra
> but I know that a lot of people don't.

On 2015-03-08 5:10 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 14:00:21 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-08 1:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh? And how is that working for you?
>>>
>>> He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Okay. I see you have flipped back to stupid bitch mode.
>
> She had another mode?!?
>
Sometimes she can be quite pleasant.

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 17:52:57 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-03-08 5:10 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 14:00:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-03-08 1:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh? And how is that working for you?
>>>>
>>>> He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay. I see you have flipped back to stupid bitch mode.
>>
>> She had another mode?!?
>>
>Sometimes she can be quite pleasant.

Problem is every time I relent and exchange relies with her, it isn't
very long before she says something obtuse/arrogant. So I rarely
bother these days.

On 2015-03-08 5:56 PM, wrote:

>> To be fair to the Germans, when they invaded and occupied countries they
>> had no problems finding locals to do their dirty work for them.
>
> That doesn't wash, the Germans were supposed to be white and just like
> us - they may have found locals but the ideas were all theirs.

Sadly, pogroms aimed primarily at Jews were not limited to German in
1930- 45, and anti Semitism was not limited to Germany. In fact, Germany
had been one of the safer places for Jews. Many North Americans were
educated on the line "In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue", and
discovered North America....where there were already people who knew it
existed. That was the year that Isabella and Ferdinand married and
united their kingdoms. Their combined strength gave them the power to
overpower the Moors to spread their fervent Catholosism. They evicted
the Moors.... and the Jews.

There are countries in Europe where the number of men who joined the
Freicorps outnumbered the people who joined the resistance. While I
agree that the German led attempt to exterminate the was horrible, I can
credit /blame them only for organizing it. They had lots of people in
the occupied territories to do the dirty work.



> I have often thought if cattle trains were passing through here day
> after day full of people and yet they came back empty and there was no
> greater demand for food at those camps, wouldn't it have been very
> obvious that one way or another, they were dead ? So local Germans
> were at least co-operative.

On 2015-03-08 6:03 PM, wrote:

>>>>>> Oh? And how is that working for you?
>>>>>
>>>>> He's living in Paradise - and you? You're in Canada.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay. I see you have flipped back to stupid bitch mode.
>>>
>>> She had another mode?!?
>>>
>> Sometimes she can be quite pleasant.
>
> Problem is every time I relent and exchange relies with her, it isn't
> very long before she says something obtuse/arrogant. So I rarely
> bother these days.
>


I know how you feel.

On 2015-03-07, Gary > wrote:

> I *might have* grown a crop of pot in the past.

> One thing I do know is that it doesn't smell while growing.

Your second statement proves you either grew a small plot outdoors or
your first statement is a lie. Regardless, indoor growers spend
thousands of dollars on aroma filtering equipment. Blooming cannabis
positively reeks!

nb

On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:21:25 -0700 (PDT), rosie >
wrote:

> On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 5:47:37 PM UTC-6, Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure that a lot of people would agree with you. I actually like okra
> > but I know that a lot of people don't.

I like the okra that's coated in cornmeal and fried. It's yummy but I
don't fry, so I don't make it.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room