Your Attention Please [Breaking News and WoD Flamewars]

[Admin Moderator]

Since my last vanity announcement on keywords went so swimmingly (it ended up with something like 5000 keywords added to it) I thought a great idea would be to throw some propane on some other fires with a vanity.

Breaking news is being abused again, big time. This goes in cycles, with sometimes people being responsible, but other times people not being very responsible.

We are in one of the not-very time periods.

Please, do not post something in Breaking News because you think it is something you want people to see. Place something in Breaking News only if it is

1. Something the networks would interrupt their programming to say,
2. The networks would interrupt their programming to say if they weren't overwhelmingly liberal,
3. Something that honestly would (not should, would) be of interest to majority of self-described conservatives
4. Official chapter announcements

Or things along those lines. Don't consider that a list of rules, but of guidelines. But act as if the guidelines matter, please. And flame the heck out of people that don't. And provide appropriate feedback to people who don't.

Some things that are never breaking news: Stories that have been posted before, stories that are over a day old, opinion vanities, freep this poll, or anything from the op-ed section of any newspaper.

Now, on to the WoD [War on Drugs] flamewars. There are a few problems with them. The flaming on them is tremendous. It is wrong for several reasons, and it should stop and the first thing we are going to do to try to get them to stop is to make a request for them to stop. If you feel the need to flame someone for something they say on one of these threads, do this (and yes, it involves a lot more work than just hitting reply, but such is life):

1. Post a copy of the article to the Smokey Backroom
2. Ping your flamee to that copy.
3. Go to town over there and keep the crap off the main forum.

Instead of hitting abuse on someone on a WoD thread right away (unless it is extremely bad), please just advise them to do what I am saying here- take it to the backroom. Link them to this if need be. And if you don't want to get into a flamewar, leave it at that. If you do, then join them in the backroom and have at it. The WoD flamewars overwhelm the latest posts page with a neverending sequence of posts that are just mindless insults. Please, spare us, and don't try to put it on the moderators to determine who fired the first shot. There are rarely clean hands here, and no matter what we do one side or another is going to complain.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled Freeping. I expect no fewer than 500 taunts at us in the keywords here before this is over. Thank you, and God Bless. ;-)

[AdA$tra]

HERE IS A BREAKING NEWS ITEM: The Texas lady who accidently ran over her hubby three times: GUILTY

[bvw]

We can then assume -- the most reasonable assumption -- that these laws weren't tested, that the Prohibition Amendment superceded any test of them. This is reasonable -- the only reasonable assumption -- due the short time between when these laws were passed and the passage of the Prohibition.

[swarthyguy]

Don't bogart that thread, my friend, pass it over to me!

[AdA$tra]

eeeeeere!

[Eagle Eye]

They both sound like such fun ....

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.

[robertpaulsen]

Even with proof....

The Controlled Substances Act (current anti-drug laws) was passed in 1970. It has been constitutionally tested in different federal courts numerous times. It has been been found constitutional unanimously.

Despite this, the drug legalization crowd still insists that the CSA is unconstitutional. So much for the validity of "testing".

So, please forgive me if I don't waste my time proving something to you or anyone else just to be brushed off.

If you want to take the time to document a case, I'll listen.

[TomServo]

This is funny. The Admin Moderator starts a flame war.

[Roscoe]

Every WOD thread goes the same way. You present the law and the facts, the other side responds with falsehoods and flames.

[swarthyguy]

>>The Texas lady who accidently ran over her hubby three times:

That would tend to break a person's bones/nyuk nyuk!

[Billthedrill]

Yeah, and the guys doing it can't seem to help it. Kinda makes ya wonder who it is that's addicted to what, don't it?

Personally, I try to keep all of my posts cordial and civil. Not like the rest of you miserable, carping commie pinheads.

[robertpaulsen]

Exactly right. No matter how much you present in the way of cites, proof, references, documented law, etc., the response is always the same, "But it's unconstitutional".

Pathetic, actually.

[TomServo]

</i>Not like the rest of you miserable, carping commie pinheads.</i>Hey! Who you callin' miserable?

[Roscoe]

An article you might enjoy:

http://federalreview.com/Winston.htm

[jayef]

I've seen him. You should take back the invitation.

[tpaine]

I'd love to hear a reasoned, well-intentioned, conservative-based argument in favor of the Drug War. I haven't heard one yet.

Me neither.

Me three
And, - I doubt we ever will, seeing that there are no reasoned, well-intentioned, conservative-based arguments in favor of the Drug War, that can stand up to logical, constitutional scrutiny.

[jayef]

Your law is wrong. Your facts are wrong.

[CWOJackson]

A threat? No way. I just like the way you like to invoke the posts of other people then run and refuse to discuss the issue. I know talking behind people's backs is the way you like to operate; don't be surprised when they challenge you.

I'll be seeing you around. Feel free to quote me behind my back any time...and don't be surprised when I show up. Later Tootsy.

[Roscoe]

stand up to logical, constitutional scrutiny.

Every court that has ever heard the issue disagrees with you.

No matter how much you present in the way of cites, proof, references, documented law, etc., the response is always the same, "But it's unconstitutional".

-- robertpaulsen

[MrLeRoy]

The Controlled Substances Act [...] has been constitutionally tested in different federal courts numerous times. It has been been found constitutional unanimously.

The Roe v Wade ruling passes the same test; color me unimpressed.

[jayef]

Well that settles it then. Due to your considerable legal credentials, we defer to your judgement in these matters. Please, oh lawgiver, tell us exactly which laws you think are just and which are not. We can do away with the Supreme Court and with state laws now that you have spoken.