Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?
vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine

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..


TOPICS: Cheese, Moose, Sister; Free Republic Policy/Q&A; Humor
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-125 next last
To: Texaggie79
I have yet to see it used well in my experience people either are teetotalers, social drunks, or permanent alchohlics.
61 posted on 03/21/2002 9:21:18 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: riley1992
I do that all the time. I was not addressing tpaine's little point, and I knew it.

I see that you've seen fit to follow me around, nitpicking my posts.

Bite me, Riley. You're on my list.

62 posted on 03/21/2002 9:26:03 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Yet to see alcohol used responsibly? What hole do you live in? Jesus used it. Wine is enjoyed in restaurants all over this nation. Beer is used my millions of people that don't even get drink enough at a time to get drunk.
63 posted on 03/21/2002 9:29:02 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
ROTFL. I have responded to two of your posts in likely a week, the first I ended up agreeing with you on, and now I am following you around? Paranoia is a scary place. BTW, thanks for the invite onto your list. I was feeling left out.
64 posted on 03/21/2002 9:34:44 AM PST by riley1992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79; weikel
weikel says:

"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.

65 posted on 03/21/2002 9:35:40 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: riley1992
Not a problem. I'm sure you and pain will be very happy together, in constant agreement.

My only point was that this entire thread is "stupid."

Pot = Kettle, I really don't care. Buh bye.

66 posted on 03/21/2002 9:37:14 AM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Out of control substance abusers, - 'addicts',

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.

67 posted on 03/21/2002 9:39:54 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Yea sure aggie. -- Your compulsion to control every aspect of your neighbors life is well documented on this forum. - You've been spouting 'community standards/majority rules' BS here ever since you joined.

We have a constitution/bill of rights that trumps majority rule. -- Learn to live within its bounds.

68 posted on 03/21/2002 9:53:00 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Your compulsion to control every aspect of your neighbors life is well documented on this forum.

Yup smoking crack is every aspect of their life.

You need some new material. Everyone has already seen through your lies.

69 posted on 03/21/2002 9:58:14 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I care about all the millions of NEW addicts that would be created if hard drugs were legally sold.

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.

70 posted on 03/21/2002 9:59:41 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

71 posted on 03/21/2002 10:02:44 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
You are resorting to personal attack because you can't refute my words on your political stance.
72 posted on 03/21/2002 10:03:14 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
That is not a fact. - It is your supposition.
73 posted on 03/21/2002 10:05:14 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You are resorting to personal attack

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.

74 posted on 03/21/2002 10:10:39 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Thank you. -- And the next time you advocate a communitarian position, I will post much the same words in opposition.
75 posted on 03/21/2002 10:32:03 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: admin moderator; diotima; bob j
I'm tellin' ya.... FR Radio show. You're looking at a hit.
76 posted on 03/21/2002 10:44:24 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Your bickering is lame...grow up and settle your wars in emails. This is WEAK
77 posted on 03/21/2002 10:49:26 AM PST by smith288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Steel Cage Match.
78 posted on 03/21/2002 10:54:16 AM PST by socal_parrot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: All
I have formally asked Texaggie79 and tpaine to debate this issue on a one hour segment of RadioFR. I would prefer 2 person teams (they're more interesting), here is the format I recommend;

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?

79 posted on 03/21/2002 12:51:27 PM PST by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain; Redbloodedamerican; kevin curry; Cultural Jihad; headsonpikes; phasma proeliator...
ping
80 posted on 03/21/2002 1:24:12 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson