Here, Here, oh ya, In deed, I wish this to be true. However, this is a politician's job to second guess the climate of the population, in order, to win votes. In the UK with an ever increasing aging populus, the weather of the whether is more likely to be cold. Now, if, Little B.O. Peep in the good old US. of A. could raise his pupils in an enlightened manner, and his flock of pupils of his mainstream education system, of the benefits of an enlightened education, wisdom over ignorance, then, maybe, the political sheep of the U.K. will follow wagging their tails. After All, history has proven that whether it be conservative or Labour, all political leaders, over the past 30 years alone, have had no problem in working alongside the U.S. I cite from Margaret Thatcher, with Ronald Reagan to Tony Blair and George (excuse me whilst I gasp for breath) Bush. Now, Tony Blair could bring this Country to war over mindless information (no conceptualised existence) and still escape the label of being branded delusional and psychotic. Its still the pot calling the kettle black. Ask the politicians, why this Country advocates that children have to grow up always having to learn the hard way? The Wisdom of hind (the back end of a deer) sight looking backwards, behind, instead of forwards? Ask any child if he would prefer to be always looking behind them or if they would prefer to be looking forwards to something and I am sure the child would reply I am looking forward. It still puzzles me why our political system promotes crime? Do they just want to keep it all for themselves???
-------------------------------------------------- From: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 6:14 AM To: <[email protected]> Subject: [epistemology 10924] Re: On a lighter note (hee hee get it) CurrentAffairs UK the drugs Row > Which is more the crime? Taking away someones right to be responsible, and > substitute it with laws declaring what is right or wrong? or educating > people to the extent they can make the right choice on their own? > > There was a time when Rock and Roll was considered to be harmful to > society, yet without the ability to make that choice for yourself, you > become less capable of making others. > > The law can't dictate the choices you make, anymore than it can dictate > the weather. What is in nature cannot be restricted by laws of something > that doesn't exist by nature. The more we restrict the decisions by law, > the less we educate people to the proper degree to be truly independent. > We shouldn't replace dependency with dependency. > > Gene > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Serenity Smiles" <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:48:22 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [epistemology 10920] On a lighter note (hee hee get it) Current > Affairs UK the drugs Row > > > Alan Johnson (our red cheeked minister, is it home affairs??? I keep > coming > back to China lol) is really looking foolish lol, he is so off his Nutt > (Prof). All his drug advisors are about to quit. Maybe to take up > smoking > pot lol. I never think prohibition works, it leads to black markets, gun > and knife crime, theft, murder etc etc.. It didnt in the US over alcohol, > and as we have seen in the UK and USA the more they have tried to stop the > more and the more diverse over time the use of different narcotics has > become, from natural to manufactured . When I was young, we didn't have > half of the problems of anti-social behaviour through alcohol like we have > now, we didn't have half as many drugs either. (That is a fact, Mr. > Johnson). Was it not the US government that first developed LSD which it > used as experiments in the most incredible dosages to see if it could be > used as a weapon? Its only your created laws of fish ally creation, the > "fear of God" that creates mindless behaviour. So what is wrong with Mr. > Johnson, to disagree with his experts? I agree with his experts, alcohol, > refined drugs such as cocaine and heroin are far more lethal and harmful. > > Mr. Johnson, stop going over the top over pot, or are you just against > fighting crime??? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "ornamentalmind" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:21 PM > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Subject: [epistemology 10909] Re: Where and Who is God ? > >> >> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle >> >> On Oct 29, 4:43 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Science and Religion: Is there a conflict? >>> Or maybe: >>> Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. >>> / Albert Einstein. / >>> Or maybe: >>> All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. >>> / Albert Einstein. / >>> # >>> Science and Religion: Is there any conflict? >>> Or maybe there isn’t any conflict. >>> Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ? >>> Or maybe our stupidity asks these questions. >>> ===== . >>> Socratus. >>> >>> http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&i... >>> ================== . . >> > >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
