Posted on 04/26/2013 8:31:00 PM PDT by Mason880
Oh dear.
Nanny started his weirdness with b*tching about quotes.
As if we don’t know what was just posted.
(I guarantee he doesn’t really know)
My vote for oxymoron of the year.
Look at this.
Hey Nan, wtf?
No weirdness is going to put you off your incessant pro-drug pushing agenda eh?
Welcome to Deformed America, with the new abnormal.
WTH, I told him to stop stalking me in a weird bizarre way.
Don’t say no to nannies is one weird whacked out troll and no I can’t be bothered replying or alerting him to this post as it seems he reads all mine anyway.
Thanks Berlin pal.
I;ve had a few of his legal all drugs, sell all drugs anywhere, the troll is a anything goes sex, drugs, incest what ever troll who seems to think his views ae all so important to us all even so much that he still can’t get me out of his head.
Justsayyestodrugs is nothing but a Liberal Troll.
He was recently warned by Admin Moderator to stop harassing me in two separate threads.
He was also told by AM to change his profile page because he was Trolling another Freeper.
I have seen others disgusted and reject his Liberal crap in the same kind of way you did in his link.
Now the Liberal Troll is all too happy to keep quoting you in a weird way. If he had a single decent bone in his body, he could easily respond to any point you made, in general.
Especially after you told him about your family member who suffered with drugs. But that would require at least a small measure of being a man.
Instead, the Troll is happy to create a Liberal layer on Conservative FR where there is no answer back. Which is exactly what the Liberal MSM does.
All his BS comes down to “drugs are too expensive” and alcohol, then Trolls others for drugs. I recently posted a thread about a mother who was arrested for videoing her 2 year old smoking marijuana from a bong. I wasn’t even thinking about a drugs argument, only the shocking horror of such a thing - but sure enough there came justsayyestodrugs with his “wod” keywords complaining about alcohol. That one took the cake in shamelessness!
Thank you for alerting me , it’s a shame some can’t get past teir own ego and understand this is a conservative site, if I wanted to be stalked and trolled as well as hearing liberal view points I would join DU or move on
I won’t post to him as I know he will be trolling my posts like it’s an infatuation.
I had thought he would have stopped by now but alas it seems no.
Now he has done this to others.
I have no idea why he thinks his pro drug agenda should be harped on here because this is a conservative website not a drug or liberaltarian site.
As for my sister, well he has no idea what on earth he;s on about, I saw first hand how drugs affected her and others around her.
Loss of kids, loss of job, led to stealing, robbery credit card fraud, homelessness but in his mind it’s all about him and all about him getting high .
Ever see those snotty kids from college who think their views are thr truth and the most important and have gown up thinking how they should be heard and no one else.?
He’s one of them.
you completely missed the point that legalizing drugs would only grow the drug problem
No, I explicitly refuted that point: "we already have drug use because very few of those who are undeterred by the inherent harms of the drugs themselves are deterred by the possibility of arrest and conviction."
Thus, using alcohol abuse as an example of a legal drug, we can see that more addictive drugs would be as bad and worse if made legal (crack, heroin, etc).
We see nothing of the sort - the primary effect of legalizing the drug alcohol was to cease hyperinflating alcohol profits and channeling those profits into criminal hands.
"The lush traffic in alcohol beverages during the violent years of 1920 to 1933 had laid the base of organization for a number of criminal gangs. The termination of the ban on liquor deprived these gangs of their most lucrative source of money" - Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce
Legalization would only create more of the desperate type of people you mentioned,
To repeat the point you keep evading: we already have drug use because very few of those who are undeterred by the inherent harms of the drugs themselves are deterred by the possibility of arrest and conviction.
which would mean more dangerous criminals looking to break into your home
Opposite - since legalization would slash prices it would reduce the incentive to rob.
you want to create even more of those desperate drug user types.
See above.
still be selling whatever new drug they can make more powerful in their labs.
It's the War on Drugs that incentivizes the creation and use of new more powerful drugs - just as Prohibition boosted the popularity of hard liquor relative to beer.
Then when they get exposed for that craziness, they turn around and claim alcohol really isn't that bad.
The contradiction is only in your mind. My consistent point about alcohol is that it's one (legal) addictive mind-altering drug among others (illegal) - whose non-destruction of our nation disproves the Drug Warriors' Chicken Little hysterics about the effects of legalizing other drugs, and whose toleration by the Drug Warriors exposes the insincerity of their rationalizations for the illegality of other drugs.
I make no claim about what you know - the point is that you reply with arguments that were already squashed in the posts you reply to. If there's any "weirdness" here, that's where it's found.
The FBI reports that two out of three murders are solved; the proportion of drug "crimes" that are even detected is assuredly several orders of magnitude smaller.
wtf?
The link I gave explains it all: manc asked me to not ping him when I reply to his posts and I'm complying with his request.
If manc is saying I want legalized incest (his mangled syntax makes it hard to tell with certainty) he's flat wrong. Par for the course - he was happy to falsely accuse me with no evidence of supporting gay "marriage."
he still can’t get me out of his head.
When one posts to an FR thread, any FReeper is allowed to reply; if one wants to keep it private, take it to FReepmail.
I'm replying to his posts in a manner consistent with his request - if you know a better way for me to do that, let me know.
If he had a single decent bone in his body, he could easily respond to any point you made, in general.
I do respond to all his points.
Especially after you told him about your family member who suffered with drugs.
My uncle is in a diaper and a wheelchair from alcohol - does that give me a free pass to post any nonsense I want and not be contradicted?
All his BS comes down to “drugs are too expensive”
No, to the fact that the War on Drugs puts hyperinflated profits in criminal and terrorist hands.
and alcohol,
A deadly mind-altering addictive drug, which Drug Warriors refuse to acknowledge and from whose history they refuse to learn.
I recently posted a thread about a mother who was arrested for videoing her 2 year old smoking marijuana from a bong. I wasn’t even thinking about a drugs argument
You were smearing me with another FReeper before I even showed up.
I never denied that drugs had affected her and others around her.
BTW You have a private message
No, I explicitly refuted that point: "we already have drug use because very few of those who are undeterred by the inherent harms of the drugs themselves are deterred by the possibility of arrest and conviction."That bit of idiocy says absolutely nothing about the spread of drug use if drugs become legal.
We see nothing of the sort - the primary effect of legalizing the drug alcohol was to cease hyperinflating alcohol profits and channeling those profits into criminal hands.I am talking about crime and you keep changing the subject that your drugs are too expensive. Could you possibly be more annoying? I don't think so - LoL!
Opposite - since legalization would slash prices it would reduce the incentive to rob.
See this link: The price of going soft on cannabis: Labour's experiment 'pushed up hard drug use and crime'
The contradiction is only in your mind. My consistent point about alcohol is that it's one (legal) addictive mind-altering drug among others (illegal) - whose non-destruction of our nation disproves the Drug Warriors' Chicken Little hysterics about the effects of legalizing other drugs, and whose toleration by the Drug Warriors exposes the insincerity of their rationalizations for the illegality of other drugs.Actually, I clearly showed you Liberal double-speak for what it is and had a bit of a laugh doing it. You ranted to e many times about how terrible alcohol is while wanting to make all drugs legal like alcohol, as if that makes good sense. Then you turned around here and said alcohol isn't so bad.
All while screaming I am a hypocrite. What does this make you?
I make no claim about what you know - the point is that you reply with arguments that were already squashed in the posts you reply to. If there's any "weirdness" here, that's where it's found.You don't have the power of intellect to "squash" anti-drug arguments. All your posts repeat the same BS and amount to noting more than Trolling, to be frank about it.
Case-in-point: How many times have you whined about the high prices ("hyperinflating") of drugs? Maybe 100?
The link I gave explains it all: manc asked me to not ping him when I reply to his posts and I'm complying with his request.The link just shows what an abusive Thug you are. manc said "reply to All" but you were "happy" to make that quoting him directly without him knowing. Liberals are always "happy" (as you put it) to shut down Conservative voices. Go back to DU where you belong!
I'm replying to his posts in a manner consistent with his request - if you know a better way for me to do that, let me know.manc told you to reply to all as he clearly had enough of your incessant crazy BS. You turned that into abuse. I told you in the post you are now replying to of a better way. Since you are responding, do you mind going back and reading it?
My uncle is in a diaper and a wheelchair from alcohol - does that give me a free pass to post any nonsense I want and not be contradicted?Genuinely sorry to hear that. Many older people become like that, and not from alcohol. However there is a difference between a valid argument and Trolling. When I see someone who always makes a solid Conservative argument (like manc) tell a Pro-Drugs Pusher (like you) to basically stop Trolling them, then the Troll should back off or possibly suffer the ZOT.
No, to the fact that the War on Drugs puts hyperinflated profits in criminal and terrorist hands.This is 101 times you have moaned about the high prices of drugs?
alcohol, A deadly mind-altering addictive drug, which Drug Warriors refuse to acknowledge and from whose history they refuse to learn.I been reading these "drug threads" for a while now and don't recall anyone posting that there are not bad aspects to alcohol, this is just another desperate lie from you.
You were smearing me with another FReeper before I even showed up.Wow, I "LoL'd". Btw it is not a smear when you come in and prove people right. Also you referred to Responsibility2nd in this post without pinging him, which is what you went totally mental about on me for, because I "LoL'd" and did not ping you. Simply can't make this stuff up - LoL!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.