Ask MS word, I run everything through it most times and did on that one. But worse, I have no concept of english. I passed on good looks. I type how I talk, and no one spel or grammer checks it
Howard, give yourself some credit...you're actually allowed to give yourself an "I". Why settle for "i"? Devon
Im also dyslectic and can type something wrong but its right to my brain and I can proof read it 10 times and my brain auto corrects as I read and I wont notice.
i dont use caps. not even for g-d. too cool for that. but my spelling, grammer, and punctuation are impeccable on or off drugs, ken. btw, you used the word "instrumentalities" in an earlier post. i am unfamiliar with that word. :laugh:
My dictionary may be different than yours, I am pretty sure mine says 'grammar'. If you change yours from 'grammer' to 'grammar', you could consider your spelling 'correct' instead of "impeccable" ... "Instrumentality": 1. A thing used to achieve an end or purpose; 2. A means or agency through which a function of another entity is accomplished, such as a branch of a governing body. Devon, correcting the grammar would go on and on ... like Prometheus ... on and on.
not to change the subject on you grammur-peccers, but 'render unto ceaser' referred ro taxes, not laws. and that acts 5:29 passage concerns laws, not taxes. so wouldnt that passage apply more to marijuana laws? if that's not proof enough, jesus' face is on every pack of zig-zags. i rest my lower case, peccers!
I'm just finishing up some analog/digital audio conversions tonight, but in closing I'll say (in as few syllables as possible), Without all you folks, this wierd hobby of trying to make Buicks go faster would be a lot less fun. Thanks to this and other message boards, the Buick world's gotten smaller in a very good way. Devon
Are there not different kinds of laws? ... it was a "tax law" or "law of taxation" as in a Roman law requiring payment of taxes according to both central Roman law (Rome's cut) and the local governing authority and army which took another cut, but in the end, was about a conflicting authority (laws, taxes, etc.) and the "instrumentalities" of that seemingly conflicting authority ...
Ironically, today's Boston Herald front page:::: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1142752&srvc=news&position=0
thomas jefferson and george washington would be proud. they grew AND sexed the plants for some unknown reason. original post: "Under current law, someone arrested for marijuana possession could face up to six months in prison and face a $500 fine." prison for small-time users? taliban-esque. ken, i concede on the bible and grammer debates. you win. i smoked my bible AND dictionary in the 90s, anyway.
Annie, Your point is well taken. The Gov. is "penny wise and pound foolish" on this one. (This will cause some heat), I would a hell of a lot rather that my tax $ were paying for the medication that you need then in blowing up folks in Iraq that never did anything to me. Please - before anyone gets too hot at this Masshole, please remember that the folks who brought us 9-11 were Saudis. Iraq had nothing to do with it.
Because the taxpayers will be/are forced to pay the welfare for all the lazy-assed or unemployable pot heads! Just like the "disabled" alcoholics. Alcohol abuse does not always have the personal responsibility attached to it that it should. Legalizing substances somehow gives them social license, in the same way lawyers often pervert the difference between legal and ethical. How about getting sued for refusing to employ a person who can't pass a hair-test for a legal substance? I have met some people that get truly stupid on pot, and others that I would not have known; just like booze. A person once asked the rhetorical question, "how many people got loaded then went home and beat up their spouse?" Well, they got me there. I am almost to the point that I agree that all drugs should be legal, however, society should NOT be held responsible for the welfare of the users or their unfortunately screwed-up offspring; I'm not paying for your bad judgement or its results. However, paying the social cost just might be cheaper than financing the "war on drugs." Thank Franklin Roosevelt and the re-interpretation of the US Commerce-clause for the feds being able to stick their noses in the states' business. Part of his true legacy.
Apparently, there are those here that smoke pot and own Buicks ... one could infer. Principle of 'aggregation' applied to the Commerce Clause. Google the US Supreme Court Case: "Wickard v. Filburn" for more info ... it involved a U.S. citizen growing his own stuff ..... (wheat, that is) ... you can read the rest, but the kist is that it would take you a llllllooonnnngggg time to find the limit boundaries of the Federal Government's authority ... "pick-up the phone in your own home", it's interstate commerce because it is connected to an interstate network ... "deposit or cash a check, even just in your own town", it's interstate commerce because it touches the Fed Reserve clearinghouse network ... "type on a computer and post a part for sale on an internet-based hobby board", you got it. The Commerce Clause is far and wide.
I agree with you 100%.:TU: Open honest discussion of topics like this can only help.....for people on both sides of the fence. And this is Buick related.....some(more than some :Brow: ) who smoke and own Buicks too....... Peace Everyone......i'm mov'in to Boston WildBill
