The campaign is heating up!

[Glimmerjim]

Heavy handed mods banned TK. AB just had a little meltdown, he will be back. MMMMKAyyy

Yep!! Give TK the heads up and I can try to get him back, too.

TK had multiple meltdowns here. Even if he came/was invited back, it wouldn't last long. He loves some of us way too much.

I might have to pm you about that one, tiler. I may have a glimmer of which you speak.

[Glimmerjim]

I've concluded that because I want to keep meth illegal, I'm the root of what is wrong with America

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

[Glimmerjim]

AB and TK were both participants in this thread. How sad they're no longer around

I've spoken with both of them. I think I could get them to contibute if the moderators have no issue. We all butted heads at times, but never any skin off my nose and I often enjoyed their perspective and respected both of them.

You're doing everything you can to get on Olly's good side aren't you?

No, I don't think so QH. I just knew them both from another forum, DHC, and while we went around sometimes, I liked them both. I've never been one to try that hard to get on someone's good side unless I feel I have really, unjustly, criticized them them something. Then I think it's my duty to try to rectify a situation I turned wrong.

[Bootlipkiller]

Jim quit fucking up my thread

[R. Chapman]

Jim quit fucking up my thread

Shut up Boot! No one gives a shit!

[Bootlipkiller]

I just gave you 3 shits

[GadwallGetter530]

Jim quit fucking up my thread

Shut up Boot! No one gives a shit!

Go reload something.

[gila-river]

Unlike TK, this nigga really doesn't give a fuck:lol:

No offense intended, Eric, but when did this term become socially acceptable? And I'm not trying to condemn you for its use, I've just seen it used regularly and am surprised at it.

I think Eric is allowed to say it because he is black.

[Eric Haynes]

Unlike TK, this nigga really doesn't give a fuck:lol:

No offense intended, Eric, but when did this term become socially acceptable? And I'm not trying to condemn you for its use, I've just seen it used regularly and am surprised at it.

I think Eric is allowed to say it because he is black.

Yup.

[RonE]

I've concluded that because I want to keep meth illegal, I'm the root of what is wrong with America

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

That is just about the dumbest statement you have made to date Jim. The statement is so stupid that it doesn't merit an iota of enlightenment.

[Olly]

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

Spoken like a true liberal. You can run other people's lives better than they can their own. Thank you for your shining guidance.

[FlintRiverFowler]

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

Spoken like a true liberal. You can run other people's lives better than they can their own. Thank you for your shining guidance.

[clampdaddy]

Unlike TK, this nigga really doesn't give a fuck:lol:

No offense intended, Eric, but when did this term become socially acceptable? And I'm not trying to condemn you for its use, I've just seen it used regularly and am surprised at it.

I think Eric is allowed to say it because he is black.

Yup.

I've only ever had one black friend and I never heard him use the word. One day we were fishing, killing beers and just having an all around kick ass day and he tells me, "Matt, you ma nigga". Perfect set up for a joke. I looked at him with the sternest, most pissed off look I could make and told him "We may be friends and all Thomas, but don't you ever use that fucking word in front of me". The look on his face was priceless.

[GadwallGetter530]

[assateague]

I'm Mexican, so I can use it, too.

[Olly]

I'm Mexican, so I can use it, too.

If you're Mexican for Lopez then I'm Mexican for Fernander. Hell most people call me Fernandez anyway.

[sws002]

I'm Mexican, so I can use it, too.

If you're Mexican for Lopez then I'm Mexican for Fernander. Hell most people call me Fernandez anyway.

Wait. You're NOT Mexican?

[The Duck Hammer]

Mind blown.

[Olly]

WAIT did everyone here think I was a Mexican? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Tiler_J]

WAIT did everyone here think I was a Mexican? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Yep.

[R. Chapman]

WAIT did everyone here think I was a Mexican? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Buncha blind bastards.

[DeadEye_Dan]

You have a sort of a swarthy skin tone, wasn't sure if you were a mesigan or a raghead. Assumed mesigan since you haven't blown anything up recently.

[Glimmerjim]

Unlike TK, this nigga really doesn't give a fuck:lol:

No offense intended, Eric, but when did this term become socially acceptable? And I'm not trying to condemn you for its use, I've just seen it used regularly and am surprised at it.

I think Eric is allowed to say it because he is black.

Yup.

Lucky nigga. Wish I could say it.

[Glimmerjim]

I've only ever had one black friend and I never heard him use the word. One day we were fishing, killing beers and just having an all around kick ass day and he tells me, "Matt, you ma nigga". Perfect set up for a joke. I looked at him with the sternest, most pissed off look I could make and told him "We may be friends and all Thomas, but don't you ever use that fucking word in front of me". The look on his face was priceless.

Well played hand, cd!

[Glimmerjim]

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

Spoken like a true liberal. You can run other people's lives better than they can their own. Thank you for your shining guidance.

It's not that I, personally, can run someone's life better than I can. It is that the accumulated opinion of a society can see the effects of certain practices, and when those practices are recognized as having absolutely NO social value, are life-threatening,and have no positive merits either to the individual or the society, the society can utilize whatever tools are at hand to rid itself of a pestilence. Placing meth in the same category as weed is akin to placing a bullet to the brain as equal to target shooting. If we had an epidemic of a certain disease with a high fatality rate would we not do whatever was possible to eliminate that disease from our society? Well, we know that the innoculation of certain strains of disease are beneficial, and we know that the body develops a strong resilience to many diseases through the introduction of these pathogens. So based on the one is good, all is good theory, we should give every child a shot of HIV/AIDS withhis measles innoculation.
However, do we? NO. We recognize one as beneficial, or at the least has very few negative effects. The other is opening the door to mass destruction of the spirit and soul of a human being. Why condone that? Or, if it makes you happier, why allow that to be an option in a civilized society? Many do NOT know their limits, do not have the ability to resist immediate gratification at the expense of their long-term health, face peer-pressure to conform to the worst behavior imaginable, and in accordance with that peer-pressure, there are always some that wish to demonstrate their machismo by going to the extremes.
Allowing the use of a toxin to be implicitly condoned by a society results in the weakening of a society.
And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

[Olly]

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

Spoken like a true liberal. You can run other people's lives better than they can their own. Thank you for your shining guidance.

It's not that I, personally, can run someone's life better than I can. It is that the accumulated opinion of a society can see the effects of certain practices, and when those practices are recognized as having absolutely NO social value, are life-threatening,and have no positive merits either to the individual or the society, the society can utilize whatever tools are at hand to rid itself of a pestilence. Placing meth in the same category as weed is akin to placing a bullet to the brain as equal to target shooting. If we had an epidemic of a certain disease with a high fatality rate would we not do whatever was possible to eliminate that disease from our society? Well, we know that the innoculation of certain strains of disease are beneficial, and we know that the body develops a strong resilience to many diseases through the introduction of these pathogens. So based on the one is good, all is good theory, we should give every child a shot of HIV/AIDS withhis measles innoculation.
However, do we? NO. We recognize one as beneficial, or at the least has very few negative effects. The other is opening the door to mass destruction of the spirit and soul of a human being. Why condone that? Or, if it makes you happier, why allow that to be an option in a civilized society? Many do NOT know their limits, do not have the ability to resist immediate gratification at the expense of their long-term health, face peer-pressure to conform to the worst behavior imaginable, and in accordance with that peer-pressure, there are always some that wish to demonstrate their machismo by going to the extremes.
Allowing the use of a toxin to be implicitly condoned by a society results in the weakening of a society.
And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

Jesus man. Run on sentences.... I'll sum up your last post for everyone else because I'm most certainly the only one dumb enough to try and read it.

You're a socialist.

[Eric Haynes]

Pretty sure that shit house door was just removed from the hinges it was slammed so hard.

[The Duck Hammer]

Thanks for the cliff notes Olly.

[FlintRiverFowler]

Of course it should remain ilegal Red. Anyone who thinks differently is a crankster or cares not a whit for people.

Spoken like a true liberal. You can run other people's lives better than they can their own. Thank you for your shining guidance.

It's not that I, personally, can run someone's life better than I can. It is that the accumulated opinion of a society can see the effects of certain practices, and when those practices are recognized as having absolutely NO social value, are life-threatening,and have no positive merits either to the individual or the society, the society can utilize whatever tools are at hand to rid itself of a pestilence. Placing meth in the same category as weed is akin to placing a bullet to the brain as equal to target shooting. If we had an epidemic of a certain disease with a high fatality rate would we not do whatever was possible to eliminate that disease from our society? Well, we know that the innoculation of certain strains of disease are beneficial, and we know that the body develops a strong resilience to many diseases through the introduction of these pathogens. So based on the one is good, all is good theory, we should give every child a shot of HIV/AIDS withhis measles innoculation.
However, do we? NO. We recognize one as beneficial, or at the least has very few negative effects. The other is opening the door to mass destruction of the spirit and soul of a human being. Why condone that? Or, if it makes you happier, why allow that to be an option in a civilized society? Many do NOT know their limits, do not have the ability to resist immediate gratification at the expense of their long-term health, face peer-pressure to conform to the worst behavior imaginable, and in accordance with that peer-pressure, there are always some that wish to demonstrate their machismo by going to the extremes.
Allowing the use of a toxin to be implicitly condoned by a society results in the weakening of a society.
And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

You've missed the point entirely.
Injecting people with aids is not the same as decriminalizing ALL drugs.

[clampdaddy]

....And who is going to be financially responsible for the resultant health issues? A destitute, sneak-thief plagued by an addiction, or society in general?

If not for socialised medicine, the problem would work itself out in short order. This isn't a drug that has to be smuggled into our country. It's made in people kitchens out of stuff you can buy at the store. Right now, anyone that wants to do meth, can do meth and is doing meth. Don't get me wrong. It's fucking putrid and I wish there was a way that we could make it disappear, but where do you or I get the right to tell someone else what they can or can't put in their own bodies, and where do they get the right to expect us to pay for their self inflicted medical issues?