If you've read one you've read them all. Tell me, if I kept calling you a liar, would you keep reading my posts?
-- there are equally some real nut jobs arguing for legalization by any means. Should tpaine think that's a reference to him, its not.
Thanks for the faint praise, and for realizing that I am not making a personal attack on you either.
-- This debate on governmental prohibitional power ['states rights'] has been going on since the Constitution was ratified. -- In effect we fought a civil war about it -- Can you agree?
Now I find that you want to play a 'one way' game.. -- You get to make personal remarks about me, but claim to be above "wasting time" reading my responses. -
Bizarre ploy.
-- Feel free to imagine you're making some sort of a rational point.
Sman:
I'm breaking a new rule of mine here, but you might as well know, I haven't read a single one of your last 40-60 posts
KurtZ
This should surprise no one.
But seriously, SampleMan, you should think about going back and reading them. You might learn something.
S-man
If you've read one you've read them all. Tell me, if I kept calling you a liar, would you keep reading my posts?
Thanks for the comment KurtZ.
As we see, S-man has ~convinced~ himself that somehow this debate has become a personal insult game, and that any remarks I make about his constitutional misconceptions in effect 'call him a liar'; -- and that this allows him to make personal remarks in return.
I've run across this 'conviction' before with other opponents :
In the next stage, - when I continue to challenge his points [which he ~chooses~ to ignore], - he will call in the mods & insist on protection from my dissent.
Unable to defend his political misconceptions about prohibitions, S-man is refusing to debate. -- That is not a lie, it is a fact.
A rational man would rebut any posts calling him a liar..
-- Which of course would mean he would have to find & repost those alleged comments. -- Which cannot be done, as they do not exist.