<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
I'm afraid the posters below have missed an important defintion of chronic that may have an affect on our state laws soon. In fact, if allowed it could lead to much less non-winable arguments over moral and opinion based issues like the one going on here.<BR>
<BR>
So relax, pay your tax, put on the album below and ask the timeless question "Can't we all just get abong?"<BR>
<BR>
from here: <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic</A><BR>
<BR>
<B>Chronic</B> may refer to:<BR>
<UL>
<LI>Chronic (medical) a persistent and lasting disease or medical condition, or one that has developed slowly
<LI><A title="Chronic toxicity" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_toxicity"><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Chronic toxicity</FONT></U></A>,
<LI><I><A title="The Chronic" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronic"><U><FONT color=#0000ff>The Chronic</FONT></U></A></I>, a 1992 album by <A title="Dr. Dre" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre"><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Dr. Dre</FONT></U></A>
<LI><I><A title="2001 (album)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_(album)"><U><FONT color=#0000ff>2001 (album)</FONT></U></A></I>, a 1999 album by <A title="Dr. Dre" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dre"><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Dr. Dre</FONT></U></A> originally to be called <I>The Chronic 2001</I>
<LI>Slang for bad, extremely unpleasant
<LI>A slang term in North America for Cannabis (Marijuana, Weed) of "better-than-average" quality. </LI></UL>
and here: <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronic">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronic</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> Message: 4<BR>> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:59:10 -0700<BR>> From: "No Weatherman" <no.weatherman@gmail.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Joseph Biden?s Foreign Policy Experience<BR>> To: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <28a621640810021059m95a71b0ge88c614055d73144@mail.gmail.com><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<BR>> <BR>> Thanks for the tip, Chas. I had number 3 in mind:<BR>> <BR>> chron?ic adjective<BR>> <BR>> 1. Of long duration; continuing: chronic money problems.<BR>> 2. Lasting for a long period of time or marked by frequent recurrence,<BR>> as certain diseases: chronic colitis.<BR>> 3. Subject to a habit or pattern of behavior for a long time: a chronic liar.<BR>> <BR>> What got in your bonnet?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 17:04, No Weatherman <no.weatherman@gmail.com> wrote:<BR>> >> Does Joe Biden's chronic plagiarism say anything about his character<BR>> >> and, if so, does it affect his judgment in matters of real foreign<BR>> >> policy, national security, or even the economy?<BR>> ><BR>> > Do you know what the word chronic means, Mr. Anonymous Coward? You<BR>> > might want to look it up.<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> Message: 5<BR>> Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:06:30 -0400<BR>> From: <joekc@roadrunner.com><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Palin Candidacy Helps Planned<BR>> ParenthoodFundraising<BR>> To: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com><BR>> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> Message-ID:<BR>> <25858903.282681222970791086.JavaMail.root@cdptpa-web21-z01><BR>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<BR>> <BR>> Roger,<BR>> <BR>> You and I can agree that we're in a bad state in terms of political rhetoric. To change it will take <BR>> some effort from both sides but neither is willing to budge. What do we do?<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> Joe Campbell<BR>> <BR>> ---- lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com> wrote: <BR>> > I would agree with your last paragraph. The problem is that the main line media goes after her every chance they get and overlook slips made by Obama and Biden.<BR>> > Roger<BR>> > -----Original message-----<BR>> > From: joekc@roadrunner.com<BR>> > Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:48:34 -0700<BR>> > To: "g. crabtree" jampot@roadrunner.com<BR>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Palin Candidacy Helps Planned ParenthoodFundraising<BR>> > <BR>> > > A few things.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > No one is claiming that the fetus is not a human being, or at least anyone who does <BR>> > > claim that doesn't know what he or she is talking about. "Human" is a species term and a <BR>> > > human fetus is a member of the species, so a human being. The point is whether it is a<BR>> > > person, whether it has rights, and whether it deserves protection from the government <BR>> > > for these reasons. The fetus can't have a right to life unless it has a right in the first <BR>> > > place and that depends on whether or not it is a person.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > According to an on-line medical dictionary, here is the definition of "fetus": "The unborn <BR>> > > offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have <BR>> > > formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an <BR>> > > embryo." A child is a human being between birth and puberty. No fetus is a child, at least <BR>> > > if you'd like to use biological precision and not try to beg substantive questions with <BR>> > > misused terminology and cheap appeals to emotion.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > Second, the argument below is a slippery slope fallacy. You could use the same type of <BR>> > > argument to show that everyone is sane (or insane), that nothing is flat, that there are no <BR>> > > heaps, that no one is bald, etc. Unless you are willing to accept those other claims there is <BR>> > > nothing about the argument itself that should get you to endorse the conclusion that you <BR>> > > hold. So why do you endorse it? What are your real reasons? So far I can't tell.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > The issue is not where you or Sarah Palin want to draw the line, or how you or Ms. <BR>> > > Palin should think about this fetus. The issue is what makes you and others think that <BR>> > > your bad arguments are reasons to tell me, or my daughter (were I to have one), where to <BR>> > > draw the line, how to think about the issue? In a previous post you talk about taking "Ms. <BR>> > > Palin's deeply held moral position in favor of life and step[ing] all over it" with the recent<BR>> > > Planned Parenthood fundraiser. But how, exactly, is the radical right view that you and Palin endorse not showing an even greater lack of respect for the "deeply held moral <BR>> > > positions" of your political opponents? For you not only disagree you don't even want to <BR>> > > allow them to decide this complex issue for themselves. You think you know better than <BR>> > > them but so far I have not seen one good reason to support your confidence in your views.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > Lastly, I don't have a problem with the fundraising campaign nor with the fact that <BR>> > > donators are asked to "list the address of the McCain campaign headquarters or the <BR>> > > Alaska governor's office." For crying out loud the woman is running for VP of the US. <BR>> > > Citizens have the right to let her and McCain know how they fell about the topic. I am <BR>> > > sick of the request that we treat Sarah Palin with kid gloves, as if she couldn't take the <BR>> > > normal abuse that comes with running for office in these times, abuse that is perpetuated, <BR>> > > in fact, by the very radical rightwing fraction that Palin represents. If Palin can't stand the <BR>> > > heat, she should get back in the kitchen. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the turn of phrase!) And <BR>> > > I am not being disrespectful. I'm being very respectful. She should be treated the same as <BR>> > > everyone else running for that office. It is a shame, given the current state of incivility, <BR>> > > what that entails but one need only check out McCain's adds to find out.<BR>> > > <BR>> > > --<BR>> > > Joe Campbell<BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com> wrote: <BR>> > > > For someone who derides others for engaging in this sort of discussion you <BR>> > > > sure do chime in with amazing frequency.<BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > It seems to be that it is your "brain use" that is in question. If human <BR>> > > > life is not created at conception, when is it? At 91 days, at 24 weeks, or <BR>> > > > at 9 months? When do you superstitiously and arbitrarily deem what is <BR>> > > > unquestionably a living entity "human." By your system there would have to <BR>> > > > be an argument to be made for bestowing the title at year 1, 5, or perhaps <BR>> > > > 18. I don't think that any amount of brain power can determine the exact <BR>> > > > moment that a child meets your criterion (whatever that might be. I've never <BR>> > > > received a satisfactory answer.) As a conservative, I prefer to err on the <BR>> > > > side of caution. No magic required.<BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Now perhaps you could polish up your soup spoon and dip me an answer out of <BR>> > > > dworshak reservoir to the question of the day. When does your mighty brain <BR>> > > > (and the impoundment) tell you that humans come into being? Please be as <BR>> > > > specific as your rational mind allows.<BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > g<BR>> > > <BR>> > > =======================================================<BR>> > > List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> > > http://www.fsr.net <BR>> > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> > > =======================================================<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ------------------------------<BR>> <BR>> =======================================================<BR>> List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR>> <BR>> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 28, Issue 19<BR>> ******************************************<BR><BR><br /><hr />Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie. <a href='http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008' target='_new'>Learn Now</a></body>
</html>