Medicinal Marijuana - Is Bush a moron for opposing it?

Well so much for intellectual honesty from the left. I tried.

0 Replies

<sigh>

I thought this thread was about legalizing marijuana for medical purposes?

Once again, foxfyre has tried to turn the informed replies into a mechanism to bash the left.

Is this all you ever do here????? Shocked

0 Replies

Yeah
Foxyfire is either on a mission from god to bash the left or is getting paid by Right Wingnuts to do so.

Hmm.. I wonder what J. Kerry's view of MJ Medicinal use is?

0 Replies

Hmmm I was bashing the left? What were you guys doing...praising the right? The thread started out condemning GWB for opposing states rights on this issue. I posted one explanation of how that premise was incorrect to which it was rather indelicately inferred that GWB and I are 'liars and dip shits'.
At least I know I was right on this one. Smile

0 Replies

Bush has never been right in his life. I can't speak for you.

0 Replies

I may be new here, but I learned quickly how foxfrye plays the game.

The backhanded insults preceeded by the "respectfully" intro is an old debate trick.

I hope to avoid her from now on -- trouble is trouble, even when it's said with a smile. :wink:

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

I may be new here, but I learned quickly how foxfrye plays the game.

The backhanded insults preceeded by the "respectfully" intro is an old debate trick.

I hope to avoid her from now on -- trouble is trouble, even when it's said with a smile. :wink:

There are a lot of people who do that on internet forums, and IRL... I try hard not to, but it isn't always easy. Its just like asking a loaded question, IMHO.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But GWB strongly supports the right of states to decide for themselves whether to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

Maybe, but at the same time he has threated other countries who wish to legalize marijuana and other drugs. While he may 'want' the states to decide for themselves the fedral law still overrides and persecutes medical marijuana cases.

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

It's a true testimony to the cruel soul of all conservatives who could look a victim of cancer, MS, HIV or glaucoma in the eye and play moral arbiter.

But moral arbiter is the role most conservatives enjoy most.

In the end, all that matters is this: the Feds oppose any legalizing of marijuana (medical or recreational) because the alcohol lobby is writing big checks to US lawmakers.

Does anyone seriously think the $100 billion dollar a year alcohol industry wants to share space with pot usage? Please!

not to mention that legallizing marijuana would decimate the illegal black market which the administration counts on in so many ways

0 Replies

Foxfyre, for once, just once, could you please talk about the actual topic/policy being discussed here.

We're talking about a very specific issue here. You can either attempt defend the president's actions on these issues or you can just admit that as far as this specific issue is concerned, Bush is wrong, plain and simple.

I'm not a liberal, neither are a lot of the people on here.

So instead of distracting us from the issue being brought up here, why don't you stick to topic?

0 Replies

Sorry Centroles. I thought I was exactly on topic and was just responding to what others posted. I'll go away quietly now though.

0 Replies

No. Bush thinks it's a un-christian thing to take drugs for pain and suffering, because the weed is against federal law.

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

<sigh>

I thought this thread was about legalizing marijuana for medical purposes?

Once again, foxfyre has tried to turn the informed replies into a mechanism to bash the left.

Is this all you ever do here?????

You're kidding with this kind of statement right? Either that or you have your head plated so far up, well, you get the picture.

Look at Wilso, Pistoff, roverroad, dlowen and cavfanciers responses and explain to me how you come by your statement calling Foxfyre to the carpet?

You need to seriously re-think where you want to be on A2K...

0 Replies

Perhaps it's because Foxfyre routinely uses the pretext of civility to avoid arguments that are not uncivil.

Perhaps it's because Foxfyre, while begging off, uses the exist stage for her own insults nearly every single time.

Sure, there are some shoddy arguments, but she uses them to avoid the ones that are not. And she uses the same exit strategy each time.

Paraphrased:

"Well, I tried to debate rationally but you are all a bunch of irrational idiots."

It's a one-size-fits-all strategy.

When Foxfyre is debunked she begs off using the same exit strategy.

When Foxfyre arguments are shown to be false, same deal. She'll just lie about the members and beg off with the pretext of civility.

I've no problem with conservative positions. I enjoy seeing them represented here and I enjoy arguing them.

But Foxfyre's methods are intellectually dishonest and are cheap transparent debate ploys. One example of which is her frequent declaration that those who do not agree with her conclusions are intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty is about scientific method (e.g. declaring a conclusion the only intellectualy honest position is a transparent act of intelelctual dishonesty) and is not about conclusions.

It's irritating because instead of having the intellectual honesty to support a position and address the legitimate challenges to it, she'll nearly always just state a position and dismiss any and all challenges to it.

She uses the mantle of civility as an excuse but transparently ignores said constraints on herself.

It's a low way to debate, when debunked beg off on a civility clause and simply lie.

If you's like an example I can show you one in which she posted a false claim, and when it was debunked just started up with lies about the members here (e.g. destracting from her debunked claims by saying I "constantly" call Us soldiers "murderers").

She has no problem whatsoever with simply making up a lie, and when called on it using a backhanded apology and begging off.

It's a cheap and low debate tactic for the intellectually dishonest and thus far it's been her only stock and store.

0 Replies

Well okay. I know when I'm not wanted. It has been a fun few weeks folks. See ya.

0 Replies

Case in point, begging off is preferrable to an attempt at intellectual honesty.

I didn't say Foxfyre was "unwanted", and instead of trying intellectual honesty in her arguments, it's the "poor me" exit.

0 Replies

Craven, You asked me to invite some more conservative voices to A2K because the left has an overpowering voice that tends to deafen any conservative that is here.

We have had a couple come and they have gotten nothing but grief since coming here. Foxfyre has added so much more to the conversations here than many who I can mention. You know who they are, but you tend to overlook them. Either that or you have simply given up on them.

I do not see a problem with asking for civil debate. If we still had the Roundtable, I would dare say Foxfyre probably would have stayed in there and not even posted on the politics forum at all as she has received nothing but disrespect. Same with Tarantulas, Brandon9000, and some of the other, newer conservatives.

Look how many of the conservatives that posted in the Roundtable simply don't post in the Politics forum because they know their voices will simply be drowned out by the screaming monkeys.

Would it not be better to scold those that add nothing to the conversations except their smelly feces? I am as guilty as anyone of adding to some threads and I realize that. But, I have a thick skin and I have been here long enough to know what is expected. Nothing really. Of the 2 million or so threads, maybe 6 have been of any use to anyone. A2K is nothing more than a place to argue about politics. The liberals here or no less vicious than some of the conservatives have been and I have yet to see anyone's mind get changed by anything brought up here.

So, I hope Foxfyre stays as I find here opinions refreshing and intelligent. I also agree with her.

If you want to discuss intellectual honesty, address John Webb, Pistoff, Wilso and all those that would compare Bush with Hitler and discuss Bush's lack of intelligence etc.

If asking for civil conversation is a crime at A2K, then you really need to have the moderators re-write the TOS as they are useless and have been as long as I have been here.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Craven, You asked me to invite some more conservative voices to A2K because the left has an overpowering voice that tends to deafen any conservative that is here.

Yep, this is because I don't have a problem with seeing conservative views. I welcome them.

Quote:

We have had a couple come and they have gotten nothing but grief since coming here. Foxfyre has added so much more to the conversations here than many who I can mention. You know who they are, but you tend to overlook them. Either that or you have simply given up on them.

Given up is accurate. Some lefties here want to support the right through making the left look idiotic.

Quote:

I do not see a problem with asking for civil debate.

Neither do I. I have an objection when it's just a pretext for intellectual dishonesty and simple outright dishonesty (i.e. simply lying).

Quote:

....she has received nothing but disrespect. Same with Tarantulas, Brandon9000, and some of the other, newer conservatives.

Except that Tarantulas, Brandon9000 and Fedral usually demonstrate excellent intellectual honesty.

Allow me to highlight Brandon9000's methods. His methods are exemplar. Simply fantastic ability to retain logical standards and not resort to cheap debate ploys.

He has gotten grief, and I have stood up against it. Ask him.

Quote:

Look how many of the conservatives that posted in the Roundtable simply don't post in the Politics forum because they know their voices will simply be drowned out by the screaming monkeys.

Then by all means ignore those and address the valid arguments. Foxfyre simply uses those to dismiss the valid ones and this is a cheap debate ploy.

Quote:

Would it not be better to scold those that add nothing to the conversations except their smelly feces?

Dunno, tough question. I usually ignore them.

Quote:

The liberals here or no less vicious than some of the conservatives have been and I have yet to see anyone's mind get changed by anything brought up here.

I've changed my minds and changed some. And I never said Foxfyre was vicious. Just intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

So, I hope Foxfyre stays as I find here opinions refreshing and intelligent. I also agree with her.

Same here, cept the last part. On the other hand begging off in leiu of intellectual honesty is her problem not mine. I criticized her penchant to do so and her response is, well to do precisely that.

Quote:

If you want to discuss intellectual honesty, address John Webb, Pistoff, Wilso and all those that would compare Bush with Hitler and discuss Bush's lack of intelligence etc.

I have, many more times than I have spoken about Foxfyre. For example, I believe it was yesterday that I told John Webb that one of his Nazi comparisons was delusional.

I very frequently criticize the "boons". Ask them.

It's true that I also ignore them, because I do not think we are on the same wavelength.

Quote:

If asking for civil conversation is a crime at A2K, then you really need to have the moderators re-write the TOS as they are useless and have been as long as I have been here.

This is a mis-representation of what I said. Foxfyre is not just asking for civility. She is using it as a pretext to dismiss valid arguments.

I have no qualm with wanting civility, I do have a qualm with the intellectual dishonesty of using that as a way to avoid arguments that are civil.

I have a qualm with it being used as her own brand of incivility (it's just part of her exit stage insults).

0 Replies

McGentrix,

One thing I do want to add is that she does, in fact, get a lot of flak. A lot of it's just idiotic too.

But it doesn't help that she can't differentiate between those who do and those who don't.

Case in point. Have you ever seen me say the US military is a band of "murderers" in Iraq?

She claims I do it "constantly" and lumps me in with pistoff and such who rant more so than debate.

Yes, she gets a lot of flak. I'm saying that intellectual honesty will reduce it. All the flak from me is not in any way related to her politics.

Brandon is a good example. Yes he'll get flak from some of the ranters but he does not let that make him intellectually dishonest. I really respect that because a lot of sheer idiocy was thrown his way.

0 Replies

Bush is correct to oppose because pot leads to other addictions!

0 Replies

Medicinal Marijuana - Is Bush a moron for opposing it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know