Posted on 01/14/2003 11:41:53 AM PST by MrLeRoy
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
IT WAS ONLY a matter of time: A new television ad campaign suggests that if you drive a sport -utility vehicle, you are helping terrorism by putting money in the pockets of oil-producing, terrorism-sponsoring countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. One of the commercials cuts from a man at a gas station to a map of the Middle East to video footage of a terrorist training camp, while a little girl's voice says, ''These are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV.''
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Why not?
Your posts, along with pops (TJ), are all that is needed. All you do MrLeRoy, is post from work. You are a hanger on - a parasite who uses other peoples money for your agenda.
You are a drug advocate. You are not a freedom fighter. You are a liar (to yourself). I am right here. I will remain here.
Take me to court - I will win.
I can imagine the screeching post you will provide in response to this.
Looking forward to reading it when I get back next weekend.
And we get to the crux of your problem. Support of keeping drugs illegal does not make one a liberal. I am a fiscal and social conservative. If I was a social liberal, I would support the right to fist your girlfriend in public with a blazing blunt in mouth. You are a social liberal, I am not. Being a "liberal" does not and has and will never hinge on how one feels about drug legalization.
On the other hand, there are a group of people marching this weekend in Pittsburgh against the "war" in Iraq. among them are the "Free Mumias", the Socialists, and Students for a Responsible Drug Policy. Pittsburgh Tribune Review
I would suspect that the Drug Advocates, allied with socialists and the Mumias, are a bit to the left.
And yet more clear evidence is Canada, the attempts in CA, Copenhagen and Amsterdam. Drugs are a liberal cause (and not a classical liberal one at that).
The evidence of your employment rebuts that. I would fire your ass in a second. Actually, my division was sold to a Scottish bank which has all their programmers in Providence. Since I do want want to move there, I choose to stay in Pittsburgh.
And yes, I am employed again. Choke on that one.
The search function is still working, pops.
Do it. Go ahead, I do not hear you. Do it. Please. Take me down.
No.
There are reasonable conservative arguments in favor of keeping drugs illegal (not that you've made any). But your liberal tendencies are indicated by your statements that those who oppose government involvement in drugs lack morality and compassion. This is precisely equivalent to the inane liberal accusations that conservatives are greedy and selfish because they oppose bloated welfare programs.
I would suspect that the Drug Advocates, allied with socialists and the Mumias, are a bit to the left.
Yeah, those pesky leftists like William Buckley, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman, and the Cato Institute. Thank God we have good conservatives like Bill Clinton who broke the record for number of nonviolent drug offenders imprisoned.
Do you make racist speeches? Do you advocate anyone else making racist speeches? Should racist speech be illegal?
The SUV owners-suppports-terrorists ads miss the point because SUVs have an overriding beneficial social utility and are virtually indistinguishable from any other vehicle in that respect.
Drugs have no compensating--let alone overriding--social worth or utility. None. Zip. They get bozos high and let Muhammad fly (e.g., 757s into the WTC).
My quote is explained on another post.
In post #33, I was attributing the quote to MrLeRoy's philosophy on drugs (and probably other issues as well). MrLeRoy, Thomas Jefferson, Hemingway's Ghost and others say they do not do drugs, do not want others to do drugs, but drugs should not be illegal.
I was making the point to Hacksaw that I considered that philosophy hypocritical. I don't support it.
In a free country, one does not have to justify one's actions in terms of "social worth".
They get bozos high and let Muhammad fly
And now you're just lying. Note that the US paid the Taliban millions to support their anti-drug operations.
Dodging the question. Let's make this real simple. Take the word "nigger". Do you use this word when referring to blacks? Do you recommend that others do so? Should its use be illegal?
I thought that was a pretty good line. It demonstrates the silliness of the (fill-in-the-blank)=terrorism tat. Propaganda is usually overblown in any arena, and it is often insulting to the intelligence.
I don't know about the USA, but many of the regular participants in these legalization threads have certainly lost it.
Rudeness abounds. The topic is divisive, but it's also interesting and you'd think civil discourse is at least possible.
Seems like the regulars are just in the habit of being nasty to each other because it makes their flesh feel so good. Hard habit to break...probably many times harder than drugs!
One last time -- the above is not my philosophy. I attributed the above philosophy to others on this board who: Don't do drugs, don't advocate others doing drugs, but don't think that drugs should be illegal.
See?
The reason I did this was to point out how, IMO, this was a hypocritical position to take. Others may disagree and see nothing hypocritical about it at all. Fine.
But the above philosophy hinges around some activity, X, that is currently illegal. Saying nigger is not illegal, just bad taste. And making it illegal would be interesting, since it would have to be illegal for everyone, wouldn't it?
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.