USFREEDOM WTF IS THAT PICTURE IN YOUR SIG AND WHY IS IT BLAMING PEOPLE ON DRUGS

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
I AM ON DRUGS RIGHT NOW

And I am very confused by your sig.

But I have a feeling that I want to say FUCK YOU
 
The blood on the hands of drug prohibitionists just because the want to keep people from getting high.

blood_on_hands.jpe


You keep people from getting high, people die.
 
Grind, USF is saying that buy paying violent people for drugs, you are financing death and destruction. USF is under the impression that liberty sucks, and that prohibition is good for society (although he can't really explain black market drugs).
 
Threedee said:
Grind, USF is saying that buy paying violent people for drugs, you are financing death and destruction. USF is under the impression that liberty sucks, and that prohibition is good for society (although he can't really explain black market drugs).
Click to expand...

Obviously you're unable to read posts and leave your preconceived opinions out of the mix.
I never said that I think liberty sucks or that prohibitin is good.

See, therein lies the problem.
You guys think you can debate an issue; but you are only able to see one side of the issue and everything outside of that view, is automatically wrong.

Go back and try to reread my posts, regarding this; because if you do, you would be able to see that all I did was match RShithead comment for comment.
When he escalated his comments, I met them head on and fired back.

It would be nice, if someone had the honesty and integrity to actually follow the exchange and do so without wearing their hearts on their sleeves; but then what would most of you use, to support your views.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Obviously you're unable to read posts and leave your preconceived opinions out of the mix.
I never said that I think liberty sucks or that prohibitin is good.

See, therein lies the problem.
You guys think you can debate an issue; but you are only able to see one side of the issue and everything outside of that view, is automatically wrong.

Go back and try to reread my posts, regarding this; because if you do, you would be able to see that all I did was match RShithead comment for comment.
When he escalated his comments, I met them head on and fired back.

It would be nice, if someone had the honesty and integrity to actually follow the exchange and do so without wearing their hearts on their sleeves; but then what would most of you use, to support your views.
Click to expand...
In which thread did you post it?

I have to ask. Are you saying that those who buy pot have blood on their hand for financing violent criminals?

If that's true don't those who voted for Bush have blood on their hands for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in Bush's immoral war?
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
Obviously you're unable to read posts and leave your preconceived opinions out of the mix.
I never said that I think liberty sucks or that prohibitin is good.

See, therein lies the problem.
You guys think you can debate an issue; but you are only able to see one side of the issue and everything outside of that view, is automatically wrong.

Go back and try to reread my posts, regarding this; because if you do, you would be able to see that all I did was match RShithead comment for comment.
When he escalated his comments, I met them head on and fired back.

It would be nice, if someone had the honesty and integrity to actually follow the exchange and do so without wearing their hearts on their sleeves; but then what would most of you use, to support your views.
Click to expand...

Any stance which violates the liberty principle is automatically wrong, in the context of American government and politics. Were we living in a country built upon absolute authority, or one where social norms are considered more important than individual liberty, then you would have a valid point about there being multiple sides to the argument. In our specific context, however, those sides are all blatantly un-American.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
In which thread did you post it?

I have to ask. Are you saying that those who buy pot have blood on their hand for financing violent criminals?

If that's true don't those who voted for Bush have blood on their hands for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have died in Bush's immoral war?
Click to expand...

I'll have to look for the name of the thread; because I don't remember which one it is.
RShithead and I were having a lenghty "discussion" on it, about the prohibition of mj.

Mixing apples and oranges won't give you watermelons.
 
Threedee said:
Any stance which violates the liberty principle is automatically wrong, in the context of American government and politics. Were we living in a country built upon absolute authority, or one where social norms are considered more important than individual liberty, then you would have a valid point about there being multiple sides to the argument. In our specific context, however, those sides are all blatantly un-American.
Click to expand...

First you claim that such a stance is one that is built upon authority and social norms and then you try to make the case that such is un-American.
Major failure.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
First you claim that such a stance is one that is built upon authority and social norms and then you try to make the case that such is un-American.
Major failure.
Click to expand...

It is. In absense of liberty, there is only authority and custom. Therefore, your position is un-American.
 
Threedee said:
Any stance which violates the liberty principle is automatically wrong, in the context of American government and politics. Were we living in a country built upon absolute authority, or one where social norms are considered more important than individual liberty, then you would have a valid point about there being multiple sides to the argument. In our specific context, however, those sides are all blatantly un-American.
Click to expand...

Why is it wrong to be un-American?
 
Threedee said:
Because it means your principles are jacked up, be it inobservance of liberty, promoting tyranny and/or autocracy, or any other ideal enshrined within the American Experiment.
Click to expand...

Apparently you're new argument for the existence of natural law is that not believing in it is unAmerican. Are you going to reform the congressional committee and put me in jail for believing so instead of telling me why they are real and not just useful?
 
Wickedjews said:
Apparently you're new argument for the existence of natural law is that not believing in it is unAmerican. Are you going to reform the congressional committee and put me in jail for believing so instead of telling me why they are real and not just useful?
Click to expand...

1) Not believing in natural law has always been un-American
2) Why would I throw you in prison? Its no more logical to do so than were the Red Scares, Internment, and the jailing of dissidents during WWI, the Civil War, and the Quasi War.
3) Knowing you for the big liberal that you are, I don't believe you are being truthful about the last 4 words of your quote.
 
Threedee said:
It is. In absense of liberty, there is only authority and custom. Therefore, your position is un-American.
Click to expand...

So then we should abolish authority and custom; because then liberty would reign supreme??
You just called the majority of Americans, un-American. Good job :good4u:
 
Ice Dancer said:
Our Constitution also requires a balancing of individual rights against the common good.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the Preamble, it was written AFTER the rest of the Constitution, and has no legality.

USFREEDOM911 said:
So then we should abolish authority and custom; because then liberty would reign supreme??
You just called the majority of Americans, un-American. Good job :good4u:
Click to expand...

I am, as always, calling the majority of Americans stupid. Furthermore, I don't believe that most Americans do consider authority and custom to be more important than liberty. As stupid people, they are certainly at risk of being sold on evil machinations, such as your stupid, incoherent, violent, and devastating position on victimless crimes such as possession of marijuana.
 
Threedee said:
If you are referring to the Preamble, it was written AFTER the rest of the Constitution, and has no legality.



I am, as always, calling the majority of Americans stupid. Furthermore, I don't believe that most Americans do consider authority and custom to be more important than liberty. As stupid people, they are certainly at risk of being sold on evil machinations, such as your stupid, incoherent, violent, and devastating position on victimless crimes such as possession of marijuana.
Click to expand...


Well your beliefs and a couple of dollars will get you a cheap cup of coffee; but it has nothing to do with what this thread was started about.
If you feel differently, please explain in detail.
Thanks
 
All blood, from all wars on drugs, is on the hands of the tyrants, not on the users. Period. Your argument could easily be taken to its logical conclusion, which would state that any time there is violence, the people in revolt are in the wrong, and all of the blood is on their hands. The American Patriots would be guilty and Parliament would be guiltless, for example.
 
Threedee said:
If you are referring to the Preamble, it was written AFTER the rest of the Constitution, and has no legality.
Click to expand...

In order that individuals could pursue liberty the founder's sought a government that created laws that protect and ensure the common good.

The need to balance that with individual rights is THE bedrock of our Constitution. I submit that is why as a Constitutional republic with a representative government we best ensure this ideal. Individual liberty in a nation of laws does not equal I get my way. Madison tackled this dilema in the Federlalist #10

Substance abuse is a concern of the common good.
 
Threedee said:
All blood, from all wars on drugs, is on the hands of the tyrants, not on the users. Period. Your argument could easily be taken to its logical conclusion, which would state that any time there is violence, the people in revolt are in the wrong, and all of the blood is on their hands. The American Patriots would be guilty and Parliament would be guiltless, for example.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're able to reach that conclusion, with your feeble abilities; but stating it does not make it the truth and that was nothing I promoted.

So you believe that it's the Government's fault, regarding the children poisoned by the chemicals used for making meth, and those making or using the meth bear no responsibility??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top