[Freakinoldguy]

What false accusation? Do you or have you ever imbibed in illegal drugs? Do you support people who imbibe or sell illegal drugs?

If you answered yes to any one of those questions then I think you have your answer.

$1:

$1:

My marijuana use is perfectly legal. So you have your answer, and I expect this will be the last time I have to respond to your allegations.

So your marijuana use may be legal but the point remains you support people who don't have as good a doctor as you do and have to resort to illegal drugs to get their high. So I guess your answer is yes to one of the questions isn't it?

As for military service. Believe what you like because your opinion on the matter means less to me than a piece of nat shit sitting on Portage Ave. But, whether you want to believe or not the fact remains. Unlike you and your drug addled friends I didn`t spend my life sitting at home on my couch eating cheeto`s and watching Sesame street while dreaming up new ways of sucking taxpayer monies out of the Government to give to people who abuse the system.

So, until you can actually stop defending the indefensible, acting like a one trick pony and sincerely stop trying to change the world to suit your own agenda I just can't take you seriously. But, until that time arrives you come off as just another drug using apologist with a hate complex who can`t stop whining about how much worse everyone else is.

$1:

$1:

Yeah sure. You support prohibition, so you support organized crime profiting from it, and you support it being sold in every high school across this land. I do not.

At this point in time I support decriminalization for small amounts of marijuana but don't let the facts get in the way of your "if you don't support the decriminalisation of all drugs you're for prohibition and criminals" because it doesn't wash even if it's your fallback.

BTW what's your new infatuation with the Taliban. Did your subscription to the "I hate Harper" weekly run out?

But since I was never in the military and everything they taught me at the Leadership Academy was a figment of my imagination humour me and play along.
When conducting a divisional interview we were taught to leave the interviewee with a positive at the end that they can work on and feel better about themselves. So just for you.

$1:

$1:

Apparently you aren't allowed to accuse people of child molestation around here, even when they accuse you of supporting crime. This one is more appropriate counter attack, because when you accuse me of supporting the people I fight against, I can accuse you of supporting terrorism. It's an eye for an eye.

You're gonna have to explain this to me since I must be missing something about your last paragraph because it's incoherent to say the least? You are either accusing me of being a child molester or are you claiming you have the right to call anyone a child molester if they disagree with you or call you something you dislike?. Which is it? Are you accusing me of something besides being a member of the Taliban or are you just babbling?

In one sense you are right. Tony Clements misuse of money is no better than Chief Nutri System's and he should be held to as high a standard if not higher but, once again following your sage advice I'll stay on topic so this, unfortunately is all a moot point in the discussion.

$1:

$1:

I'm glad we agree on something. I do however notice you have a "Federal Conservative party supporters" icon beside your avatar. If you want to stay on topic, stop bringing every discussion back to prohibition.

The way forward on native issues includes an end to the name calling, and reciting CPC propaganda about Attawapiskat at every opportunity, as well as levelling the standards for health and education between reserve and non-reserve communities

.

I guess you haven't had time to read the thread I posted about the millions of dollars that Chief Spence and her gang can't account for? But then again it'll be the Conservatives fault because they didn't give her even more money to be use without proper documentation and if asking where Canadian Taxpayers money has been spent is wrong and CPC propaganda then may I be so bold as to suggest you STFU about anything the Conservative Gov't does with our tax dollars because we wouldn't want a double standard being set now would we? Especially since you claim to be non partisan in your politics.

As for prohibition I guess you also haven't had the time to read the thread on the decriminalization of marijuana here on the coast that I posted because had you taken the time you'd have noticed that I said it was a stance that's time had come. But I also said that the complete legalization activists wouldn't like it and would probably try and undermine it which is why I'm waiting to see if it becomes fact over theory. So if wanting checks and balances on marijuana makes me a prohibitionist then, guilty as charged but, I somehow don't think championing decriminalization makes me a prohibitionist like you claim.

So long story short. If you want to call people disgusting names and then claim to be leaving the forum forever and you get called on it, expect to get your buttons pushed when you carry on in the same manner when you return.

Especially since some people here think you should have had the courage of your convictions and stayed away since your self imposed hiatus doesn't appear to have taught you anything about dealing with people who have divergent views from yours.

[Curtman]

It's very hard to read your posts when you mess up the quotes..

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

You're gonna have to explain this to me since I must be missing something about your last paragraph because it's incoherent to say the least? You are either accusing me of being a child molester or are you claiming you have the right to call anyone a child molester if they disagree with you or call you something you dislike?. Which is it? Are you accusing me of something besides being a member of the Taliban or are you just babbling?

That's what we do on this forum. When someone you disagree with posts in a topic, you immediately accuse them of something completely unrelated to the post. Get with the program you Jihadi.

It seems stupid to me, but when in Rome..

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I guess you haven't had time to read the thread I posted about the millions of dollars that Chief Spence and her gang can't account for? But then again it'll be the Conservatives fault because they didn't give her even more money to be use without proper documentation and if asking where Canadian Taxpayers money has been spent is wrong and CPC propaganda then may I be so bold as to suggest you STFU about anything the Conservative Gov't does with our tax dollars because we wouldn't want a double standard being set now would we? Especially since you claim to be non partisan in your politics.

The difference for me is that Attawapiskat is very far from here, and their leaders do not represent me. The Harper government represents me, and should be accountable. I don't bitch about Alison Redford or Brad Wall for example, because they have very little to do with me and I wouldn't expect them to care how I feel about their mandate because they don't represent me. If you lived in Attawapiskat, I could see why it would be a frustrating issue for you. But you don't.

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

As for prohibition I guess you also haven't had the time to read the thread on the decriminalization of marijuana here on the coast that I posted because had you taken the time you'd have noticed that I said it was a stance that's time had come. But I also said that the complete legalization activists wouldn't like it and would probably try and undermine it which is why I'm waiting to see if it becomes fact over theory. So if wanting checks and balances on marijuana makes me a prohibitionist then, guilty as charged but, I somehow don't think championing decriminalization makes me a prohibitionist like you claim.

Decriminalization is still prohibition. If you are against the creation of a legal regulated supply, then you support the black market and the profit to local organized crime, you support the drug cartels, and the teenage drug mules, etc that go along with it. There are no checks or balances in the black market drug trade. The meanest, nastiest, unscrupulous players grow their markets through fear and intimidation. Survival of the fittest is the only regulating factor in it, and it only makes things worse.

Decriminalization addresses a different issue, it's one of fundamental justice and whether the punishment fits the crime. It bothers me that non-violent drug offenders are locked up for a crime that has no victim, but it's not why I fight prohibition. Decriminalization means that drugs still come from the black market. Nobody keeps track of who is using what. Nobody guides addicts to treatment. Nobody oversees production and sales. Only a regulated market can do that, and decriminalization doesn't do a thing for that. I don't oppose decriminalization by any means, but I don't think it will do any good except for an end to locking up non-violent offenders.



You should watch the video that I posted in the topic that you posted

$1:

This law will make a first step toward legalization
...
This campaign will only succeed with thousands of people just like you, showing up to make legalization a reality

Thanks for your support FOG.

[andyt]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

What false accusation? Do you or have you ever imbibed in illegal drugs? Do you support people who imbibe or sell illegal drugs?

If you answered yes to any one of those questions then I think you have your answer.


As for military service. Believe what you like because your opinion on the matter means less to me than a piece of nat shit sitting on Portage Ave. But, whether you want to believe or not the fact remains. Unlike you and your drug addled friends I didn`t spend my life sitting at home on my couch eating cheeto`s and watching Sesame street while dreaming up new ways of sucking taxpayer monies out of the Government to give to people who abuse the system.



At this point in time I support decriminalization for small amounts of marijuana but don't let the facts get in the way of your "if you don't support the decriminalisation of all drugs you're for prohibition and criminals" because it doesn't wash even if it's your fallback.

Here's how it's done, Curt. Throw insults that have nothing to do with the argument, then make a big deal out of something that the poster actually supports changing (legality of using pot):

FOG - no you spent your time getting boozed up and cornholing your fellow swabbies - perfectly legal, I'll grant you.


You also spent your whole life as a civil servant sucking off the govt's tit, including your pension, while denigrating everybody else who wanst some govt largesse. You were never in harms way, but wrap yourself up in sanctimony that sailing around in your tin can was some sort of sacrifice. Meanwhile, your rah rah war comrades ("The Afghan war is good for my career") who did come home with broke bodies whine because the govt tit isn't being generous enough to support them for their futile enterprise, when they wanted to be there and knew the risks. For what? What did all that waste of lives and money accomplish?

As for being pro decrim but against legalization, how stupid is that? The group in question is actually not advocating decriminalizing pot possession, but just not enforcing the laws against it. They have to take this very unfortunate position because of people like you, who can't adapt. What other laws do we want the cops not to enforce?

Decrim seems to have benefitted Portugal, but what a dumbass position. We're not going to go after people holding small amounts of a substance, just collect a tax from them, but keep production and distribution illegal. Has making pot production and distribution worked? Is it a marginal enterprise? Doesn't seem that way to me. So let's say you and your compadres are right and there would still be plenty of illegal pot production and distribution after legalization. How is having at least some legal and regulated production and distribution but with a continuing strong black market worse than having 100% black market?

If OTI is right, and decrim would lead to greater pot use (much less severe penalties), if all production and distribution is still illegal, won't that just increase the illegal activity? How is that a good thing?

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

[Here's how it's done, Curt. Throw insults that have nothing to do with the argument, then make a big deal out of something that the poster actually supports changing (legality of using pot):

FOG - no you spent your time getting boozed up **mod edit**- perfectly legal, I'll grant you.

I see what you mean... **mod edit** He shouldn't be ashamed either if that's what he's into. Assuming it's consensual adults.

$1:

Changes to the criminal code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences. Most famously, George Klippert, a homosexual, was labelled a dangerous sexual offender and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. He was released in 1971.

At one point he would have been labelled a criminal sexual psychopath though.

[andyt]

Curtman Curtman:

At one point he would have been labelled a criminal sexual psychopath though.

Well, society progresses. We'll laugh at the FOG's raving on about how using pot is illegal at one point too. Funny, he wants to decriminalize it but make a big deal out of it being criminal as well. And somehow decriminalizing it but making people buy it from criminals (ie not legalizing it) makes sense to him. Booze in excess will do that to your brain.

[Curtman]

andyt andyt:

Curtman Curtman:

At one point he would have been labelled a criminal sexual psychopath though.

Well, society progresses. We'll laugh at the FOG's raving on about how using pot is illegal at one point too. Funny, he wants to decriminalize it but make a big deal out of it being criminal as well. And somehow decriminalizing it but making people buy it from criminals (ie not legalizing it) makes sense to him. Booze in excess will do that to your brain.

Sad really.. How about this one:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

So your marijuana use may be legal but the point remains you support people who don't have as good a doctor as you do and have to resort to illegal drugs to get their high.

He has no problem with people using medical resources to obtain recreational drugs, but he does have a problem with people who don't follow this route.

There's even a form that you can submit to say you've asked your doctor for access to medical marijuana but he refused. That will get you a card that allows you to purchase from a dispensary or from the gangsters. legally.

Just say no to booze, or this will start making sense.