Denver DEA Rep: Don't Legalize It

The Daily Camera ^ | August 27, 2006

[muawiyah]

You may think you have a question in there but all of your premises are in serious error.

Have no idea where to begin with that one ~ but it does look like you and your buddy favor anarchy.

[tacticalogic]

You may think you have a question in there but all of your premises are in serious error.

Then you shouldn't have any problem at all explaining where those premises differ from those your original statement is based on.

[muawiyah]

We've been through this several times. I post a response to some drivel or the other of yours, then you recast that response in other terms which change the meaning of the response, and, might I add, take it completely out of the context to which it was addressed.

The consequence is you create meaningless challenges that you consider to be questions.

Sorry, it's not a game I care to play. Go back to your delusion of a future with free dope.

It ain't gonna' happen!

[tacticalogic]

You post veiled threats and implied accusations and then howl that you're misunderstood, but refuse to make any attempt to clarify your position, even when asked explicitly to do so. The only game you won't play is to state your position and opinions in clear, unambiguous terms.

[muawiyah]

There were no "veiled threats" unless you're a mind-numbed, robot-like, knee-jerk Liberal who thinks every mention of "right of self-defense" means guns with them as the target.

Best you keep your paranoia to yourself.

[tacticalogic]

Your post didn't get pulled for nothing. Perhaps it was the implied accusations. I notice you don't bother to deny those.

[muawiyah]

You complained about that post without considering it in the context you had presented.

Obviously you have no sense of personal responsibility, nor do you comprehend English well enough to use it as a debating language. That you were able to fool the moderator is a surprise, but sometimes that happens ~ occasionally while dining on their full lunch of roast duck and mango salsa, or washing it down with Piper-Heidsieck champaign, they'll fall back on the old "Don't say nothin' 'bout the brother" standard, or just cave in to the village crank to get you out of their hair.

I'm sure there was nothing personal in it, or even well thought out, on the part of the moderator(s). In your case, I detect elements of a conspiracy to trash me.

[tacticalogic]

I didn't report anything to the moderator. I did ask you to clarify what you had posted. You declined.

[muawiyah]

The moderators don't search for stuff.

[tacticalogic]

The moderators don't search for stuff.

I didn't say they did. I believe they will pull inappropriate posts that they run across, and will monitor threads on topics known to produce flame wars and personal attacks. We can ask them if you like. All I can tell you for sure is that I didn't report anything to them.

[Lurker]

Already been done. See decisions of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS has the authority to add things to the Constitution? Well that's a very LibDem way you think, there.

I suppose next you'll be in full agreement with SCOTUS adding the right to kill unborn children to the Constitution.

L

[muawiyah]

Hmmm ~ hijacking this thread eh?!

[Lurker]

Hmmm ~ hijacking this thread eh?!

Why don't you just answer the question?

Are you in favor of the SCOTUS adding 'rights' and 'powers' to the Constitution?

L

[Know your rights]

Sad what passes for 'conservatism' nowadays.

[Lurker]

Sad what passes for 'conservatism' nowadays.

More frightening than sad if you ask me.

L

[Know your rights]

That too.