~ ~ 5 ~ ~

[Sandy]

I hit abuse on the idiot. My abuse report said, "Check out the retread. Ned, perhaps?" And then he was gone.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You entered this thread with an insult, didn't you?

[Diddle E. Squat]

5 Alarm Fire?

[Diddle E. Squat]

5 games to go?

[Diddle E. Squat]

Looking for 2 teen recruits to complete the circle

[Diddle E. Squat]

Buffalo girls won't you come out tonight(or we'll never reach a 5th Superbowl)

[Sir Gawain]

after being outted over and over on this thread alone. Isn't VDS or someone waiting in the wings for you, sweetie?

Not only are you a psycho stalker, RBAhole, you have a creative imagination as well.

[Diddle E. Squat]

No comment.

[Diddle E. Squat]

666+5

[Diddle E. Squat]

This wasn't for 10, 2, and 5

[Diddle E. Squat]

We ate dinner at 5.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Dyslexic 9-4=5

[Diddle E. Squat]

5 doubled=ten foil

[VaBthang4]

No it was definitely a guy. Registered sent me the links to his own webstuff. Whoever the guy is He got sniffed out by someone on another thread...it was a guy fronting. He owns some kind of cigar store or something. He was talking dirty to some high FR mucky mucks and everything....at least that is the word I got. I dont know who the girl is that he was pretending to be....but I am pretty sure CGEB was no female.

[cake_crumb]

"Yeah. When we need another libertarian loon lecture, we know where to look for you. In debasement."

ROFLOL...almost lost a keyboard reading that!

[rb22982]

How do you "prove" any law adequately stops the behavior it is directed against? By your standard of "uselessness" we should do away with every criminal law that doesn't eliminate the behavior it is directed against, e.g., murder, burglary, shoplifting, indecent exposure.

True, but smoking weed in one's house isn't hurting anyone else. Most normal people do not think up ways to hurt others. Many however like a temporary escape from reality. The reason for my comment is that no one I know has any trouble finding drugs.

And I'll say it again, if my tax monies must be spent on behalf of dopers, I want it spent to punish them and make them uncomfortable--not to coddle them and tell them their are poor victims.

I don't have a problem with this view, I'd rather not support anyone who uses drugs with my tax dollars be it alcohol, weed, cocaine, nicotine (lung surgery), unhealthy foods (not a drug but with all the health problems caused by obesity) or crack. But if you didn't have to pay for them to be dopers and there wasn't any socialism, would you be ok with legalizing it? (Btw the drug war costs more than economic costs to society on it, and that includes hard drugs such as crack and meth, marijuana has very little economic costs to society)

[Sir Gawain]

I think you're mistaken.

[Sir Gawain]

Insult? LOL. BTW, please see here for the person that hit abuse. Apology accepted.

[Texaggie79]

When the hell did OPH get the boot? Why am I always the last to know?! This suxors!

[malakhi]

I have no problem with the perspective of most Constitutionalists. We may differ on method but in the end...I am far closer to them then they probably think.

I think FreedomFriend's #332 sums up the concerns pretty well from the paleo-con perspective. Speaking for myself, I support the actions of our president and elected representatives on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that support for the war on terror need require unquestioning support for everything the administration wants to do both domestically and abroad. Even in matters of military strategy in the WOT, there is room to ask questions and to disagree. I believe that it is our obligation as citizens to inform ourselves and to hold our elected representatives responsible for the decisions they make. Questioning the prioritizing of Iraq as the next target in the WOT does not automatically mean that the poster is a democrat or a leftist. A representative republic has room for differing opinions.