Davis Terminated! Arnold becomes Gov...

[Unit 5302]

Dark_5.0, I'm a chronic ******, as you put it, because I sometimes have to deal with people at your level, and it's incredibly frustrating and difficult for me to suddenly stop using 75% of my brain to communicate directly with you. I don't need to respond to you further. As typical, you're out of your league with me.

Mr 5 0, you must enlighten me on this Unit 5301, he sounds like my kinda guy!

84_GT350, Mr 5 0 is politely advising you to avoid getting into a debate with me based on my critisism of your position. He is right. I am a lot meaner than him. Of course I think I already made my point, and left you out of it for the most part.

In actuality, the Democratic & Republican parties are very different from one another as a general rule. Democrats are fiercely loyal and dependant on one another. Very rarely will you see one buck the trend against how other Democrats are voting/speaking. Republicans; however, will vote much more independantly, based on what they feel is the best for their constituents. Democrats are masters of the negative campaign, and disrespectful debate. It's been sick to watch every single Democrat vs anybody debate I've ever seen. Not only will the democrat refuse to let the other debator speak, but they'll basically sit back and lob insults the entire time. It's how they avoid letting people know what their policy is. If people knew that, the Democrat wouldn't stand a chance at getting elected. It's also why they run negative campaigns focusing on their opponents flaws instead of their own good qualities. What I've come to see is that I like neither party, but at least respect republicans. Both are partisan and often disagree just for the sake of disagreement.

Since we're all letting it out, I have no political affiliation, no religious affiliation, and no faith system I believe in.

What I really want to know is where did that post that I put in here explaining alexa ratings go? Must be that nasty edit/delete bug this place is so famous for.

[StangFlyer]

What I really want to know is where did that post that I put in here explaining alexa ratings go? Must be that nasty edit/delete bug this place is so famous for.

Geee, I can't recall having to delete any posts for quite a long time now... wait a minute... perhaps that's because you left for quite some time!

Don't come here to bash MW, attack me on my own site stats when your not in any position nor have the logs to know what they are, and expect to be welcome. I'm not going to have you suck me in to a continual debate over MW. As I stated at the end of my post, keep this thread on topic to Arnold, California, and politics. MW is not the topic. I have already stated my position, the facts, and feel no need to debate it further. So yes, continued attempts at doing so will be deleted. That's my privledge, as you're certainly not the one flipping the bills to operate MW.

[84_GT350]

Originally posted by Unit 5302
[B84_GT350, Mr 5 0 is politely advising you to avoid getting into a debate with me based on my critisism of your position. He is right. I am a lot meaner than him. Of course I think I already made my point, and left you out of it for the most part.[/B]

That's what confused me. The only thing I corrected you on was my brithplace. Like you said...that didn't have much, if anything, to do with me.

BTW...if you think this site is bad for edits/deletes, I could recommend you to at least one Chevy board where one disagreement with the owner will get you banned.

<------needs an IP blocker so he can go back and f@ck with that guy.

[Snakeman]

great site, dan!
i need to come by more and shake things up
hope you aren't irritated with me for baiting 5.0...
he's funny.

[T5superduty]

Arnold is pro marijuana though. He kicks asss!

[84_GT350]

Originally posted by T5superduty
Arnold is pro marijuana though. He kicks asss!

Oh for the love of...if that's your entire basis on endorsing him do us all a favor and shut the f@ck up. If you've got anything else, I'd be more than willing to entertain it. Weed is for losers...have some self respect.

[Snakeman]

arnold smoked a lotta pot...he's governor of california and worthy of great respect if you believe some of these guys.

george bush did cocaine, he's president of the USofA!

Cannabis (weed to the uneducated) has been approved for use as medicine in quite a few states, the Supreme Court just denied Bush's latest attempt to circumvent state's authority in deciding what is best for its citizens. Cannabis helps many people who are in constant pain, can't eat because of chemotherapy, and many other afflictions. Cannabis has never been attributed as the sole cause of death in the thousands of years that mankind has used it. prescription drugs like oxycontin (any Rush Limbaugh fans out there??), Nicotine, caffiene, even water toxicity cause hundreds, if not thousands of deaths annually.

but cigarettes and alcohol are legal, while harmless marijuana is put on the shelf as "worse than we thought" WTF does that mean? are the doctors that prescribe marijuana for their patients WRONG?

so, aids sufferers are losers because they need cannabis to fend off the nausea from the chemicals they have to take to survive...are LOSERS??? I hope your mother or father never has to endure chemotherapy without the benefits of medicinal quality cannabis to ease the nausea...
a new study has shown great benefit from cannabis in combatting the twitches/tics in Tourette's Syndrome sufferers.

current drug policy stifles research and denies the benefits of fiber-cannabis to farmers. anyone old enough to remember "Hemp For Victory"? it was a U.S. government slogan to get the public to grow hemp to aid in the war effort.
persecution of Cannabis smokers started in Texas when the cops wanted a way to harass the mexicans. let's stop the ignorance. Education = power
support NORML
support a reasonable drug policy in the United States.
http://www.norml.org

[84_GT350]

I don't think he was refering to smoking marijuana in a medicinal sense or for it's uses as a cash crop. I don't think there's anything wrong with using it as a medicinal remedy or as a means of making textiles, paper, etc. That, however, is a far cry from recreational use. Take it from a former loser...I smoked pot (or "cannibus" to those of us you'd like to think are uninformed) for 3 years just about every day so, while it may sound a little hypocritical, I actually know how badly it can screw you up. I watched good friends who had goals become listless wastes of space because they just wanted to get high. In that effect, yes, it's solely for losers who have problems they don't want to deal with. Cigarettes are legal because their metal effects are so minute that they're almost non-existant. Alcohol is legal because it can be regulated...you have no way of knowing how much tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC to those who are uneducated) is in one plant or one leaf or one joint. And NORML...NORML is a joke. They do lobby for it's medicinal use but they also advocate it's recreational use. That's a pretty slippery slope. They also believe that "drinking and operating heavy machinery while under the influence of marijuana should be prohibited". Ummmm....both are actually currently prohibited. So...to summarize:

1. Marijuana for medicinal uses (i.e. cancer patients, AIDS patients, etc) = good

2. Marijuana as a cash crop = good.

3 Marijuana because you can't deal with your problems = you're a loser.

[Dark_5.0]

Unit:

As long as you think you are smart I am happy for you.

You just keep on tooting your own horn and I will continue to live in reality.

You have got to be the most insecure and immature person I have ever run across.

Your standard response to everyone has always been. "Your stupid and not worth my time."

If nothing else your unjust arrogance has been amusing. Someone in your position calling me dumb deserves a good laugh.

You talk the talk but you can not walk the walk.

[Mr 5 0]

84_GT350:

After wading through your last lengthy, and frankly, tedious message to me I've decided that this exchange is getting far too long-winded and has lost most of it's meaning as it has devolved into personal bickering, as most political arguments eventually and unfortunately do. If you won't stop it, I will, as it takes two to argue and I don't have the time.

I'll throw out a few of the more salient points I've made (that you've managed to ignore up until now) and beyond that, you can post to your heart's content if you wish but I'm done here. Life is too short ot spend this much time trying to educate those who already believe they know everything, even when they only grasp the barest edges of what they are pontificating about; in this case, politics and foreign policy. Despite what some folks think, I don't 'know it all' by a long shot - but you, my friend, have a lot to learn.

You made reference to the fact that I'm older than you, which is true. My school days are far behind me. You believe I'm not 'open to new ideas', which, if you knew me personally, you would know was laughable. I hate to deflate your assumptions but (outside of personal information) nothing you've posted here is new. Nothing. It's all been said before, many times many ways. Same goes for my posts to you, lest you think I'm being unfair. Conservative and liberal politics have been around long before either one of us was born. As you said: the two major parties are similar but where you are greatly mistaken is that their phiolsophy is anywhere near similar. It is not. Republicans are far more wary of taxes that burden the middle class and far more alert to the need for defense than any Democrat. It's n old debate and you appear to have taken - whether you realize or admit it - the liberal side. Your statements on the Iraq war and the ongoing war on terrorism are quite indicative of that mindset; the one you insist you don't have.

You're furious that I keep referring to you as a 'liberal' and I respond to that in this way: I call them as I see them; you know: if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's probably a duck. Same with those who insist they are independent, then spout the same ideas, same lines and attack the same people as admitted liberals do. I understand that you don't like Clinton and probably share some agreement with conservatives on some issues but it's my judgement, based on what you posted here - not what you claim to be - that you are, at heart (as it were) a liberal. I've been around politics for a long time and believe me, I know liberalism when I see it. Don't run from it, it's who you are, at least politically. Examine the tenents of the Democrat party and I think you'll find much you agree with, once you understand them.

Your agnosticism is common and I find it a bit sad but you're young enough to grow out of it some day...or maybe not. That's not my business, really. I have little interest in debating 'religion' with you as I stand firm in my Christian beliefs and don't need to defend them to anyone, especially anonymous strangers far away from me. Your resentment at the fact that America is, demonstrably, a religious country and that Christianity, especially, underlines much of our collective attitudes and does seep into politics is understandable, as you have no religion. That's your choice to make, for whatever reason, but it has little bearing on the 90+% of Americans that believe in God and more importantly, have a religious faith - often, Christianity in some form (Protestant or Catholic). That you believe that religious belief doesn't matter to people and has no play in politics is simply, well, naive.

Frankly, much of your commentary in this thread has been naive, starting with your shallow denouncations of California Governor-elect Arnold Schwartzenegger based - as far as I can tell from your posts - on the fact that he's a Hollywood actor who made violent movies and has an accent. This brings us full circle. This thread originally was about the election of Arnold Schwartzenegger as California Governor. We've managed to veer off in various directions, as is common on political threads, but I would contend once more that Schwarzenegger's election was not only a good thing for California but a sea-change in politics that allowed the people, via the ballot, using their power to decide who governs them and to me, that is the essence of democracy, even for those who didn't like the outcome.

With that observation I close our dialogue as it's clear that you will keep repeating the same things - I'll keep opposing them with facts you'll ignore - and no purpose is served. I try to discuss politics on a serious basis with those whom I consider at least serious enough to use up my time on. We had some interesting exchanges but frankly I've stated all the points I have to make here. I only came back to the thread to challenge 'Snakeman's' claims but you decided to take it personally and continued the exchange, which I responded to. Now, I see you're becoming strident and bordering on insulting - and so am I, which elevates neither of us so I think a respite is in order. That said, I close my part of the exchange as other sites, other issues, call. I wish you well in your studies and your life and I hope that some day you'll see at least a little of the truth of some of what I've given you. If not: oh well. It was an interesting exercise.

[84_GT350]

Mr 5 0

Finally! Something we can agree on. These posts have become way too long winded and tedious. While I can't say I bothered to read your entire post (I assume it was more of the same sanctimony and passive aggressive cracks at your belief that I'm naive, liberal and stupid) I will only say that when you debate theories, ideals, and opinions no one is truely right. I know you'd like to believe you are, but you're not. Neither am I. I've got my opinions, you've got yours. We're not going to ever agree so why get carpal tunnel syndrome trying to prove a point that the other one doesn't want to hear. I must say I'm a little disappointed at some of the seemingly below the belt and, as I stated before, somewhat passive aggessive knocks you attempted to take at me personally. Not sure how my opinion on someone neither of us has ever met got so personal to you (at least enough that yousunk below a standard of maturity I remember you having long ago) but I suppose that's the entire nature of all politics when two people don't want to budge. Besides, it's a moot point anyhow. I'll congratulate you on a good debate and just say that while I can't say I agree with you on many things I take no personal offense to that and hope you won't either. As for your opinions about me being naive...you're welcome to it but I assure you you're quite wrong. I will say, however, it's been a long time since I've seen a thread as lively as this one on this board in a long time. Interesting.

As for Dark 5.0's post...care to enlighten us on who/what that was about Dark? I got lost there.