Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your Attention Please [Breaking News and WoD Flamewars]

Posted on 02/13/2003 6:20:56 AM PST by Admin Moderator

Edited on 02/13/2003 7:35:18 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 481 next last
To: RabidBartender
As the Admin Moderator stated, neither side's hands are completely clean, and I didn't intend to say that they were. However, as far as I know, flaming the thread was a squelching tactic used by only one side.

I'd love to hear a reasoned, well-intentioned, conservative-based argument in favor of the Drug War. I haven't heard one yet. Come on in and make your case---don't leave it to the Usual Suspects.

101 posted on 02/13/2003 7:50:01 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And how were those legislative dictas tested in the courts for legitimacy? Many laws are passed, not all pass muster.
102 posted on 02/13/2003 8:00:31 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Wod_list ping:

'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.'
103 posted on 02/13/2003 8:00:54 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; aculeus; general_re; Poohbah; BlueLancer

Marching Song of the Civil War* Threads

* For those of you who insist, "War of Northern Aggression."

104 posted on 02/13/2003 8:01:51 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost; RabidBartender
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.

105 posted on 02/13/2003 8:01:57 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Nice find!
106 posted on 02/13/2003 8:04:23 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of August 1917 banned the production of distilled spirits for the duration of the war. The War Prohibition Act of November 1918 forbade the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating beverages of more than 2.75 percent alcohol content, beer and wine as well as hard liquor, until demobilization was completed.

That these legislative bans were found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime.

107 posted on 02/13/2003 8:08:01 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
So are you an authoritarian Statist who desires to rule with an iron fist and shred the Constitution

or a Soros worshipping, libertine doper/pedophile/hippy pornmonger?

What a choice, what a choice ...

108 posted on 02/13/2003 8:10:45 AM PST by strela (Magog Brothers Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
That these legislative bans were found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime.

And people are willing to accept restrictions and regulations during wartime that would be considered draconian in peacetime. Perhaps the whole point of referring to it as a "War on Drugs" is to try and elicit that kind of compliance.

109 posted on 02/13/2003 8:15:01 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
So are you an authoritarian Statist who desires to rule with an iron fist and shred the Constitution or a Soros worshipping, libertine doper/pedophile/hippy pornmonger?

They both sound like such fun ....

110 posted on 02/13/2003 8:15:02 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Sorry, I learned my lesson on debating rationally here - for a lot of folks, it's more about sticking it to the other guy and winning technical points than than about the issues at hand. I am too thin-skinned for those types of threads and knowing the past histories of some posters, I automatically read their posts with some disdain - that ain't right. I'll stick to the "Julia Roberts Sucks" and "Screw the UN" fluff pieces, even though the majority of the issues here interest me.

It would be nice if folks were more civil and less hateful on heated threads like those. But I guess we'd sooner see Kevin Curry, tpaine, Cultural Jihad, ThomasJefferson, Dane, and Danconia55 sit down and agree on the sky being blue. (no offense to above named individuals)

And before anyone thinks I'm a touchy-feely whacko - screw the French and German governments! Nuke the whales! Close our borders!
111 posted on 02/13/2003 8:15:14 AM PST by RabidBartender (Hi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Thanks Admin Mod, you're a good one!
112 posted on 02/13/2003 8:18:26 AM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"That these legislative bans were found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime."

Yeah, I remember now. We used a different US Constitution during WWI. Could you do me a big favor and dig that one up for me?

113 posted on 02/13/2003 8:26:22 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Nah, post an article about how Asian women are better than white/American women and have a dozen Freepers show up saying that American women suck, are ugly, and that they'll never date American women again. Man, that thread was definitely flamebait.
114 posted on 02/13/2003 8:28:29 AM PST by Nataku X (Never give Bush any power you wouldn't want to give to Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Nice find!"

Thank you. Thought it would make things interesting.

115 posted on 02/13/2003 8:28:53 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"That these legislative bans were found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime."

Yeah, I remember now. We used a different US Constitution during WWI.

No, but the Supreme Court has traditionally taken a relatively lenient view of federal actions presented as wartime needs.

116 posted on 02/13/2003 8:37:35 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Look, legislatures pass illegal laws at times. These temperance laws obviously were political bone-tosses. Did they get tested in the courts? Some times, such bad laws don't -- no one enforces them, mooting a court action, or as may have happened here -- a legitimate act superceded these bad laws and they never did get tested.

So let's ask ... Are they still in force now? And did they ever get tested in the courts?

117 posted on 02/13/2003 8:42:57 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you [...] I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! [...] Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"
118 posted on 02/13/2003 8:50:22 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, you said that Congress needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. I proved to you that they didn't.

I'm done. The ball's in your court. If you can point out where these Acts were unconstitutional or illegal (other than just saying so), be my guest.

119 posted on 02/13/2003 8:57:20 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
you said that Congress needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. I proved to you that they didn't.

No you didn't. That legislative bans were found justifiable during wartime in no way implies that they would be justifiable during peacetime.

120 posted on 02/13/2003 9:01:08 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 481 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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