?

The people being massacred are often worse than the people massacring. Western insurgents often instigate conflict in order to justify intervention. Some of the expelled journalists were former special forces. But that was just a coincidence.

So would you or would you not support using drones to combat drug trafficking/dealing/using? Or to assist you in fighting your closeted homosexual urges?

Way to dodge the questions.

Edit: For the record, you do not upset me. I've just had coffee and watched a film I enjoyed surprisingly very, very much. I'm in quite a good mood this morning. I'm not saying such awful things about you because you upset or anger me, but because I've really nothing else to say at this point. You've demonstrated, repeatedly for months, a completely juvenile and stupid personality which makes a mockery of this forum and any legitimate human discourse. You continue to now, worse than ever, now that I've called you on it.

You've asked for conversations on certain topics. You then refused to respond to any of what was presented, as you asked. Well enough. But to then childishly attack the intelligence of the poster whose content you were afraid/unable/unwilling to even respond to, in ANY way whatsoever? That's just stupid. It's ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense.

You continue to ignore completely content-driven posts. And you continue to arrogantly, childishly, embarrassingly insult me. I frequently disregard that you're childish, petty, and angry: I just respond to the topics. Whether you respond to the content I post, ignore me entirely, or whine that I upset you is your decision. You've obviously chosen to ignore my content entirely but whine, just as before. The childishness of this refusal to either engage me in conversation nor ignore me because you're obviously too childish to have an adult conversation without upsetting yourself is self-evident.

Option 1: Adult conversation.

(One example, one of many points you'd have responded to in ANY way:) You'd have explained to us how the 'drug war' achieving 0 reduction in usage (and subsequent harm) is worth countless billions and the lives of both law enforcement and collateral damage of violence created by the lucrative underground business of drug trafficing/dealing caused by illegalization. I made the argument that, because there's 0 evidence for reduction in drug usage rates from various case studies across the globe, there's no justification for our current drug policy. It wastes money. It kills people. It produces no results.

Which drugs are how harmful is irrelevant to this argument. Ranting vaguely about how pot ruins lives--which is the ONLY response you gave--is not a response to this argument. It's not a refutation even if all the bullshit you posted was true.

Obviously I wouldn't be predisposed to agree with your justification, but the fact is you haven't given us one to even consider. It's not that I disagree with you on anything; it's that you don't even respond to the topic at hand with what you disagree with and how/why, yet arrogantly cry as if you had and we just won't accept that you're right. It doesn't make any sense. Frankly, it's stupid.

Option 2: Ignore me entirely.

I suggest you take up this one, like xeno. Sometimes common sense and adult thoughts are just too much for intellectual lightweights whose parents raised them to be arrogant slobs nonetheless. Notice I've never called into question your intelligence. I tend to be detail-oriented and content-driven. Taking the obvious bait and making fun of you for your conduct and display of intellectual capacity would just be too easy and not further any discussion. Comments on the maturity and rational behind posting certain bizarre nonsense are not insults to your intelligence, they're attacks on what you've posted. Responding with why you do not agree it's bizarre nonsense would be legitimate discourse. Crying that someone called you out on stupid posts without any clarification/explanation/justification would not.

So you've given up making ANY attempt at all to respond to the content of my posts for months. The ONLY thing you've posted in response to me--for months--has been to cry that you hate evil libertarians and I'm trolling. That's not furthering discussion, so why not just ignore me entirely, since you refuse to reply to my actual posts?

Option 3: Ignore all content I post, but cry that I upset you

This is the option you've been taking for months. I really don't need to explain why this is stupid and childish. Say what you will about who's mocked, I really don't need to explain because you've spoken for yourself plenty already.

I'm not mad. I'm not angry. I'm not upset. You don't threaten me. But you do make me embarrassed to read this forum. You make me feel bad for you. It's pretty stupid. I suggest you ignore me and stop crying. Because the crying is pointless and embarrasses you, and the option of having a conversation with me seems far too difficult for you.

Edit 2: Sorry Mr. Yell, for the lengthy explanation. I appreciate that when we disagree it's simple and on-point. At your request I will promptly move this, if you please.

What if they're spying on drug dealers and users? Or fags? I bet you'd support voyeurism when it comes to homosexuals.

The Yell,

25 grams of marijuana is insufficient to conceal a 32 ounce beverage.

OR SO I'VE HEARD.

*****

I agree with you all. Ban plus-sized hookers. And I think we're all trying to be nice and not share the fact that we laugh out loud every time someone in this thread mention's Einstein's obvious inability to even take a woman on a date.

He can't even find a hooker to PAY for it! OH SNAP!

BeoWolfe,

You meant "you're."

What are you basing your presumption on? Just your endless optimism? Thanks for that input. It means a lot.

*****

Einstein,

I've responded to content since my pointing out the obvious. You continue to ignore things which baffle you, but post anyway as if you've addressed questions and objections raised. It's childish and stupid.

"Like all Libertarians, yes I said ALL, he is incapable of debate or serious intelligence."

You literally never responded to/disagreed with/refuted a single thing I said regarding government and homosexuality nor drug policy. Not one. Your childish antics aren't worth dignifying with a response. A "challenge" thread? You already ignored literally everything I said. You raised juvenile, ignorant, stupid questions of "gateway drug theory" which you don't even know is a bullshit theory. You make absolutely ridiculous appeals to authority, because you take drug users' (who you've lived with) accounts as truth. You make absolutely ridiculous claims of physical addiction and withdrawl effects which literally no one in the scientific community supports.

How can you not be embarrassed to act like such an idiot? You sound like the Occupy crowd. I DON'T KNOW WHY I DESERVE RESPECT BUT GOD DAMNIT I KNOW I'M RIGHT AND I DESERVE RESPECT AND FREE STUFF! You won't even touch what I posted in any way--commentary, statement of disagreement, questioning, refutation--Yet you have the ignorance and stupidity to pretend you're not embarrassing yourself. It's just awkward and dumb.

Thanks for your opinion on who is supposedly mocked. We all value the opinion of a fat man who acts like a dumb child. When someone's official campaign website doesn't use formal language, they're in good standing to talk about mocking others. When someone embarrasses themself and looks like a moron claiming expertise on topics they know literally nothing about, they're in good standing to talk about mocking others.

You're embarrassing. Like xeno ranting about self-replicating robot technology given to man by aliens and basing political thought on this assumption, you bring this forum down to a retarded and childish level by refusing to discuss topics but raging about other posters as if you had.

BeoWolfe, the point is that he's incapable of debate. To presume that he'll be capable of something in real life, in public, on the spot--that he can't manage on a forum, in private, at his leisure--is a bit of a stretch.

It's a great hope of mine that people stop being stupid. And posting stupid things.

Mace,

My apologies. You were referring to a mundane, irrelevant random tid-bit. I overestimated you. My apologies.

Zidi,

Maybe I want a soda. This is America. Government babysitters are outlawed under our constitution. What he proposes is illegal. You don't value law?

Mace,

Your post completely missed the points of the thread. It was either stupid or trolling. I don't know which is more offensive to which people, so I generally try to give the benefit of the doubt to intelligence and call people trolls. I am aware that this is usually incorrect. As I have already explained, nobody was talking about government "advising" anything. What you said about that made no sense. Nobody was talking about "buy[ing] into" government nombers. What you said about that made no sense. You demonstrated that you have no understanding of what this simple topic is about. Thus I called you a troll.

The Mayor of NYC is proposing that soda of 24oz size be banned from sale in the city. He's not advising anything. We're not discussing "buying into" government suggestions. It's not a complicated topic. If it's too complicated for you to grasp, yeah, I'm going to presume you're trolling.

Americans don't have the right to "general liberty," they have a right to liberty. This includes photon torpedoes. We may accept some regulations regarding the safe store and transport of said photon torpedoes as reasonable and beneficial to the public good, but damn you if you try to infringe on our right to own and operate photon torpedoes.

lol @ your ignorant account of the crisis. lol @ your straw-man attacks on capitalism.

Share with us your ignorance. We want to hear the whining of children and base policy on it.

Soda is already taxed. Most everything is.

Nobody ever mentioned government advising anything. Buying into anything. We're talking about government babysitter mandates and restrictions.

Taxing it additionally, claiming it's to cover healthcare, is problematic because of this little thing called the United States Constitution, the fourteenth amendment and other places.

I would go on, but you're a troll and a moron. You're not very entertaining.

"If my law happens you could sue with the knowledge it will happen thus stopping that Government Chemical plant from having that faulty equipment."

And go absolutely [clucking] crazy suing everyone for things that might happen _if_ they did literally anything differently/wrong. Trial lawyers would love it, because you wouldn't need any basis in fact. You could just imagine something and sue!

Which is why your proposal is absolutely ridiculous. And you are, as always, ignoring posts which tear you a new one. Good luck in politics. Stick to those talking points.

Please explain to us how an unenforceable (that's how it's spelled) law is causing you such grief and hardship.

How is proposing new legislation easier/preferable to electing non morons into office, who will repeal dumb laws and remove moron appointees to make dumb regulations? It's a hell of a lot cheaper and less demanding of private citizens (both in terms of time and money).