Einstein, you ignored every point I made in another thread in which you asked for my positions. You have responded to 0 of them. Yet you're awfully quick to claim I've conceded anything. If you aren't comfortable talking about the subject, you don't need to start multiple threads asking to.

Your only "arguments" here are laughably silly myths.

"If you significantly increase the price via a good crackdown then fewer start, or return, to drugs."

Pure fantasy, like your other claims. You're just posting what you want to believe--what you imagine--happens. Real evidence in the real world, however, all begs to differ. A few minutes googling drug decriminalization will show reduced or unchanged--not increased--usage rates. I don't care to argue with your fantasies. You clearly want to believe what you do, and you clearly don't want to examine evidence which may cause you to question your position. Calling pot a "gateway drug" is not a serious argument, it's a talking-point fed to people who want to believe anything that suggests pot is evil. It's not a serious argument: Academic research tears up the claim; it doesn't support it. If you don't care enough to pose honest arguments, don't expect me to respond to them. Especially when you completely ignore all of mine.

You completely ignore my positions and post silly myths (long disproven) and presumptions. You then claim I've conceded anything. And that you're a bit of an expert. Give me a break.

Believing drugs should be policed can surely be a legitimate position that I can respect. I made arguments regarding freedom, economics, and people getting killed because of such policy. You responded to none of my points or my position, so I presume you accept my arguments, but just figure that yours are stronger. But your arguments are that you feel pot is more harmful than it is. You attribute all of the psychological disorders of the dysfunctional people you've lived with who smoked pot to pot. That unhealthy people use pot at a disproportionately high rate is not evidence of causality. And a few people you've lived with aren't a very strong basis for any position.

You aren't any sort of expert on the topic, and your posts make that very clear. That you judge marijuana to be more harmful than alcohol shows that you've barely studied the topic at all, if at all. That you referenced people with psychological disorders using pot and just presumed causality shows no level of academic study, or any level of study or thought at all.

Again, in responding to Justinian, you presume that the world functions as you want it to, not as evidence suggests that it does. Drug users are not rational actors. Not all general economic rules apply so well. You're arguing that people MUST use less drugs when prices go up, because a general economic rule suggests this. But does a study of reality confirm this theory? Do people necessarily eat less when prices go up? No. Do drug users often continue use of drugs, just as they continue eating, when prices go up? Yes. Often harming themselves and resorting to crime to support the habit because of current drug prohibition [increasing prices].

It=Agriculture.

The point was: That slavery can occur within an industry is not a reason to outlaw that industry. It doesn't just happen in prostitution; it happens in things as moral and fundamental as agriculture.

Less confused?

Too many of you reply as if he's legit. This is encouragement. My ignoring him would not stop you from encouraging him. In the absence of real moderation, communities must regulate themselves. I provide this regulation to the best of my ability by tearing his psychotic claims apart. It's an exercise in patience for me, to respond to a troll statement by statement, and it's obviously unpleasant for him. Unpleasant for him is good. I suggest you try it.

I just read Einstein's claims about pot being a "gateway" drug, presuming causation, and almost left the forum. Then I read your awful comparison between alcohol and pot where you concluded that pot is more damaging to the body than alcohol and I'm going to leave the forum.

This is just ignorant garbage. In addition, I already layed out a position on drugs, which you'd asked for, and you didn't bother responding. It's insulting to have the same topic brought up again when you just ignored it when you got a response last time, let alone such ignorant garbage at this.

You ignore the fact that use/addiction rates remain relatively unchanged in societies where they're legalized. You ignore the fact that crimes occur because drugs are illegal--this skyrockets their prices. Nobody is committing crimes for cigarettes. They're cheap, and that's with a mountain of taxes on them.

I support freedom on the issue, you support a nanny state regulating what people do with their own bodies. I'm not going to re-argue my position, seeing as you ignored it last time and made such a lazy and fallacious case here.

Regarding regulations, I hardly think dismissing employees after each administration would have any impact on their corruption. They're still motivated by the same garbage progressive ideology. They're still motivated by the selfish desire to increase their budgets and power. Most importantly, bribery is legal in this country and they're still motivated to do what gets them bribe cash.

Regarding Ron Paul, I've stated that he's by far the least bad of "prominent" politicians in DC. Why you would describe him as my "favorite boy" (no homo) is beyond me, seeing as I rarely make any reference to him and have outlined that I think he's nuts. It sounds like you're looking for a straw man.

Your complaints about him are weak. Your analogy was awful. It sounds like you're jealous that he votes against pork that your beloved conservatives (ie progressives, just like liberals) frequently vote for.

I've explained why he doesn't deprive his own district of federal funds. Agree or disagree, you never respond to my explanations but ignore them, ignore the thread, and just re-state your case later. I can respect that you think he shouldn't include funding, but you repeatedly ignore my explanations. You repeatedly ignore that the difference between him and others is that he votes against these bills. Apparently you think this is bad? You pretend his votes are meaningless, whereas they're the most important thing he does. Again, I'm not going to re-explain beyond this, seeing as I did before and, like the drugs topic, you never responded.

Since these bills will pass "no matter what," why do their authors include money for his district? Especially considering he votes against them. They're all so stupid. It's like the Twilight Zone.

"in truth if he opposed it he would never have attached the pork at all."

That's your opinion. I don't disagree that he could, perhaps, make a stronger case if he refused federal funds. Of course, his district pays federal taxes. Of course, nobody else is refusing federal funds. So, if he refused federal funds, he'd be harming his district w/o significant savings. The only way significant savings would be achieved is if congressmen voted against these bills. Oh, look, he's one of the few doing that. But you're jealous he's more financially responsible than conservatives, so ignore this and pretend I'm a liar to explain this--and you're honest to ignore it and then start a new thread about it in a few weeks.

Slavery is the problem. It's not a reason to outlaw prostitution or agriculture. Sheesh.

Tell us more about investing, xeno. I wish to increase my earnings with use of your knowledge.

We'd elect garbage just as bad to replace them.

Problem is with the people. Problem is with the culture.

It's a violation of the Constitution: There's a separation of powers and he's claiming international consent now has a power granted solely to Congress. It's unlawful. It's a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution.

It's sad that the Supreme Court is a bunch of gutless intellectual lightweights who let the Constitution be used as toilet paper by the President. They don't even try to defend their actions in regard to the constitution, they just continually ignore it. That's their strategy: Ignore the law and hope Congress and the Supreme Court let them continue to get away with it until it sets a precedent. Presumably this is what Obama studied at Harvard and spent so much keeping secret.

"but what does that really mean?"

It means he ignores the Constitution -- the law -- which gives power over declaring war to Congress.

Why are you so focused on official policy? If you think that's most of what's going on I've got some snake oil I'd like to sell ya!

You're presuming that Obama would reject the desires of his international handlers in saying he doesn't consider the UN an authority. This remains to be seen.

Edited posts do not denote anger.

Ignoring absolutely all subject material and getting pissy like a child and posting purely to rage does.

lol [Bad!] got pwnt