rhonda's supremes will make the rump will lose by 2 votes pot and woman's rights (Page 5/7)
82-T/A [At Work] APR 04, 03:41 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
I actually think these numbers are closer to reality than the study I cited. As I said in my post those numbers sounded a little high to me. About 50% claim that they have tried marijuana at some point in their life, but I don't know if 43% are still smoking at least once a month in their 40's and 50's.

I am man enough to admit when I might be wrong. Too bad you are not.




You didn't actually admit that you're wrong.
BingB APR 04, 03:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
You didn't actually admit that you're wrong.


I have been presented with conflicting data, so I am not certain exactly which is more accurate. So I am not 100% certain that I am wrong. But I am at least willing to admit that I might be wrong.

That is still more than you have ever done.
cliffw APR 04, 04:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
I have been presented with conflicting data, so I am not certain exactly which is more accurate. So I am not 100% certain that I am wrong. But I am at least willing to admit that I might be wrong.



99% wrong ?

Your link confirmed what 82-T/A [At Work] alleged.
BingB APR 04, 05:13 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


Your link confirmed what 82-T/A [At Work] alleged.




The numbers from my link were very different from 82TA.

But I am man enough to admit that I might be wrong on this one. I am not going to fight to defend it.

I guess I could refuse to acknowledge 82TAs numbers until he cites the exact scientific designation for the active cannabinoids in THC to deflect from the possibility that I might be wrong. But that would be petty and childish.
cliffw APR 04, 05:25 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
The numbers from my link were very different from 82TA.

But I am man enough to admit that I might be wrong on this one. I am not going to fight to defend it.

I guess I could refuse to acknowledge 82TAs numbers until he cites the exact scientific designation for the active cannabinoids in THC to deflect from the possibility that I might be wrong. But that would be petty and childish.



Of course you could.

It is petty and childish of you that you can not cite which chapter of Title 42 that governs immigration.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-04-2024).]

BingB APR 04, 05:44 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


It is petty and childish of you that you can not cite which chapter of Title 42 that governs immigration.





No it isn't.

It does not matter when discussing this issue.

Also you don't even know which section it was yourself. You are just trying to deflect from the real issue.
cliffw APR 04, 06:25 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
It does not matter when discussing this issue.



Heh, you said one does not need to know to opine on it. Shameful.


quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Also you don't even know which section it was yourself. You are just trying to deflect from the real issue.



The pot is not black Bing Deflector.

Where is your proof, evidence, that I do not know what section of Title 42 effects immigration.

Put up or shut up !
BingB APR 04, 06:49 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Heh, you said one does not need to know to opine on it. Shameful.





Knowing the section number has nothing to do with knowing how the law works. You can't give the citation for the "Stand your ground" law in Florida, but I am pretty sure you have an opinion on it.

I know more about the title 42 policy than you did. I proved that when I had to explain Arizona v Myorkas to you after you asked for my help.
randye APR 06, 12:05 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Knowing the section number has nothing to do with knowing how the law works.






I don't believe that you have any idea "how the law works".
cliffw APR 06, 07:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
I don't believe that you have any idea "how the law works".



randye he was a lawyer. Maybe that's why he became a failing teacher.