Posted on 03/20/2002 2:46:13 PM PST by tpaine
On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR.
In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread:
Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201
Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread.
Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread:
Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts
---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed.
Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post.
Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns.
-- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' .
'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control.
No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation.
I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange.
And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods.
I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer.
-- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions..
I see that you've seen fit to follow me around, nitpicking my posts.
Bite me, Riley. You're on my list.
"If one state legalized it would be temporaraly worse as the addicts moved there but then it would get better after they died."
Unfortunatly not all of em die. They just linger. It's like they are immune to OD. It would remain a state with streets full of addicts until they reprohibit hard substances. -ta-
Common sense from weikel and more sophomoric speculation from the aggister.
Out of control substance abusers, - 'addicts', - when faced with a shortage of their 'drug of choice', simply move on to another substance.
It's common sense that we can regulate public use of such addictive substances, but we can't prohibit an endless list of them, - and still live in a free republic.
Obsessive prohibitionists cannot understand such simple truths. - They have compulsions, - that in many ways mimic addictions.
My only point was that this entire thread is "stupid."
Pot = Kettle, I really don't care. Buh bye.
I don't care about them. I care about all the millions of NEW addicts that would be created if hard drugs were legally sold.
We have a constitution/bill of rights that trumps majority rule. -- Learn to live within its bounds.
Yup smoking crack is every aspect of their life.
You need some new material. Everyone has already seen through your lies.
And your supposition above has been well refuted dozens of times by the fact that we did not have a serious addiction problem prior to 1913, when all such drugs were legal.
Fact: There were more hard drugs addicts before 1913 than today.
What the hell do you call your blantant LIES about me. I want to control every aspect of my neighbors lives? Really? You aren't even worth replying to, I will take the AM's advise and ignore you @$$. You are a one note song.
Perhaps when you will stop saying the same lies over and over, I will respond. Good day.
Debater 1 Team A - 5 minute oral presentation
Debater 1 - Team B - 3 minute cross examination
Debater 1 - Team B - 5 minutes
Debater 1 - Team A - 3 minute cross
Break
Debator 2 Team A - 5 minutes
Debator 2 - Team B - 3 minute cross
Debator 2 - Team B - 5 minutes
Debator 2 - Team A - 3 minute cross
Break
Team A - 2 minute summation
Team B - 2 minute summation
Call in comments/questions - 8 minutes
Break
Call in comments/questions - 8 minutes
A page will be put up on the Free Republic Network Site for people to vote on who they thought won the debate.
We've been wanting to have "debate" nights on Radiofr, ands this seems like a good opportunity to start them! What do you think?
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.