'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?

vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine

[weikel]

I have yet to see it used well in my experience people either are teetotalers, social drunks, or permanent alchohlics.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Texaggie79]

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.

[riley1992]

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.

[tpaine]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Texaggie79]

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.

[tpaine]

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.

[Texaggie79]

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.

[tpaine]

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.

[Texaggie79]

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.

[tpaine]

You are resorting to personal attack because you can't refute my words on your political stance.

[tpaine]

That is not a fact. - It is your supposition.

[Texaggie79]

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.

[tpaine]

Thank you. -- And the next time you advocate a communitarian position, I will post much the same words in opposition.

[Sir Gawain]

I'm tellin' ya.... FR Radio show. You're looking at a hit.

[smith288]

Your bickering is lame...grow up and settle your wars in emails. This is WEAK

[socal_parrot]

Steel Cage Match.

[Bob J]

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?

[Texaggie79]

ping