IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me
I can only be told I am stupid by an irrational loud person with no logic behind him but a shitload of prejudice and shitload of directed MUST FIND EVIL studies for so long before reacting.

Especially when they are disproven for the most part.

A bunch of assumptions with no experience or logic. Based on 60 year old propaganda. Once inhaled, insane and insulted forever. That what I'm arguing against here. And I'm arguing against this attitude with MY LIFE ON THE LINE.

This SOB wants to LOCK ME UP. He wants people with guns to show up at my house, take away anything I own, rip me from my family, and put me in a place where the vast number of people have animalistic antagonism towards me, and will end up physically and mentally torturing me for many years.

THIS IS HIS GOAL.

Yet he's stated, very eloquently, that he's associated it an irrational hatred due to his loved ones dying by a "stoned" driver. Stoned on pot. I'd have to read it all again (and I'm not) to find out if there are any other chems involved.

We KNOW that no matter what the assumptions are, DUIs go DOWN in areas where pot smoking goes up. His random event, an outlier, is driving him to support a fascist state.

AND THIS IS THE GUY WHO HATES THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY/ALL CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER HIS LIFE, AND IS WAITING FOR THE REVOLUTION TO HAPPEN.

WHY, SO HE CAN JUST KILL THE POT SMOKERS RATHER THAN PAY TO LOCK THEM UP?

FUCK HIM!

So no, I'll escalate as he does.
Collapse Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 05:41:31 AM EST
Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me
I can only be told I am stupid by an irrational loud person with no logic behind him but a shitload of prejudice and shitload of directed MUST FIND EVIL studies.

Especially when they are disproven for the most part.

A bunch of assumptions with no experience or logic. Based on 60 year old propaganda. Once inhaled, insane and insulted forever. That what'as I'm arguing against here. And I'm arguing against this attitude with MY LIFE ON THE LINE.

This SOB wants to LOCK ME UP. He wants people with guns to show up at my house, take away anything I own, rip me from my family, and put me in a place where the vast number of people have animalistic antagonism towards me, and will end up physically and mentally torturing me for many years.

THIS IS HIS GOAL.

Yet he's stated, very eloquently, that he's associated it an irrational hatred due to his loved ones dying by a "stoned" driver. Stoned on pot. I'd have to read it all again (and I'm not) to find out if there are any other chems involved.

We KNOW that no matter what the assumptions are, DUIs go DOWN in areas where pot smoking goes up. His random event, an outlier, is driving him to support a fascist state.

AND THIS IS THE GUY WHO HATES THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY/ALL CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER HIS LIFE, AND IT WAITING FOR THE REVOLUTION TO HAPPEN.

WHY, SO HE CAN JUST KILL THE POT SMOKERS RATHER THAN PAY TO LOCK THE UP?

FUCK HIM!

So no, I'll escalate as he does.
Expand Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:04:29 AM EST
Collapse Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:41:04 AM EST
Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me
I can only be told I am stupid by an irrational loud person with no logic behind him but a shitload of prejudice and shitload of directed MUST FIND EVIL studies for so long before reacting.

Especially when they are disproven for the most part.

A bunch of assumptions with no experience or logic. Based on 60 year old propaganda. Once inhaled, insane and insulted forever. That what'as I'm arguing against here. And I'm arguing against this attitude with MY LIFE ON THE LINE.

This SOB wants to LOCK ME UP. He wants people with guns to show up at my house, take away anything I own, rip me from my family, and put me in a place where the vast number of people have animalistic antagonism towards me, and will end up physically and mentally torturing me for many years.

THIS IS HIS GOAL.

Yet he's stated, very eloquently, that he's associated it an irrational hatred due to his loved ones dying by a "stoned" driver. Stoned on pot. I'd have to read it all again (and I'm not) to find out if there are any other chems involved.

We KNOW that no matter what the assumptions are, DUIs go DOWN in areas where pot smoking goes up. His random event, an outlier, is driving him to support a fascist state.

AND THIS IS THE GUY WHO HATES THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY/ALL CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER HIS LIFE, AND IS WAITING FOR THE REVOLUTION TO HAPPEN.

WHY, SO HE CAN JUST KILL THE POT SMOKERS RATHER THAN PAY TO LOCK THEM UP?

FUCK HIM!

So no, I'll escalate as he does.
     rc lectures bho - (rcareaga) - (135)
         WH replies can take months - (Another Scott) - (27)
             those 70yo were 25 in 1967, -NT - (boxley) - (26)
                 precisely - (rcareaga) - (22)
                     I would suspect you are correct sir -NT - (boxley)
                     Reminds me of that old ad. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                         just to clarify - (rcareaga) - (18)
                             Bingo - (crazy) - (2)
                                 I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (jb4)
                             Actually, we have discussed it. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                 Every single one of your points is based on illegality - (crazy) - (9)
                                     Read in New Scientist today: - (malraux) - (8)
                                         Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE - (crazy)
                                         Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                             Ad hominem -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                 I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                             Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (malraux) - (3)
                                                 Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     So what? - (crazy)
                                 That would be dumb - (crazy) - (3)
                                     hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                         Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... - (lincoln) - (1)
                                             Watch it - (crazy)
                         Nicely programmed - (crazy)
                 Yeah? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     make up your mind or read what you write :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :) -NT - (Another Scott)
         excellent! -NT - (boxley)
         Well.. if he sees it-- - (Ashton)
         victims of federally legalized pot - (boxley) - (1)
             Awwww - (crazy)
         Very sincere... - (folkert) - (94)
             Or kill someone else. - (mmoffitt) - (93)
                 neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless - (boxley)
                 Where does... - (folkert) - (3)
                     No acknowledgement? - (folkert) - (2)
                         You need to reread your post and my follow up. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Was inferred by the alcohol comment. - (folkert)
                 Remind me: do you drink? -NT - (rcareaga) - (87)
                     Red Herring much? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                         Nope - (rcareaga) - (85)
                             Steeper? Well, perhaps. - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                                 I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees - (rcareaga)
                                 yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody - (boxley) - (82)
                                     [citation needed] -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         Re: [citation needed] - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's not "fluoridation is bad" - (pwhysall)
                                     Red herring. - (Another Scott) - (78)
                                         Assumes facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (77)
                                             Mixing up cause and effect - (drook) - (4)
                                                 So, the chicken came first? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     According to the chicken, the rooster did -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Yabut the rooster didn't care. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 lrpd that sucker -NT - (boxley)
                                             criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry - (rcareaga)
                                             It's a quagmire! -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 No. - (mmoffitt)
                                             "how many years ago was that?" - (rcareaga) - (68)
                                                 That was a good thread. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                                         Probably something long in one of the posts. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                             I think it was me. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Seconded. And I'm glad to see... - (mmoffitt)
                                                 After all that... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     Yup. I chuckled at that. -NT - (rcareaga)
                                                 Holy smokes. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Wow - (crazy) - (59)
                                                     dunno about anyone else but - (boxley) - (6)
                                                         You show the female response - (crazy) - (5)
                                                             not nesting, invigourated -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                 Then you are not done. - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                     2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                         Longer delay, more prolactin - (crazy)
                                                             nope -NT - (boxley)
                                                     So why not cut out the middleman? - (Another Scott) - (38)
                                                         Because THC alone is BAD - (crazy) - (17)
                                                             Read that link again. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                                                 Remember, even if you find it - (crazy) - (4)
                                                                     My goals: Rational, sensible policy. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                         Seems the right time for this one - (drook) - (2)
                                                                             Excellent. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Seen that one before... - (folkert)
                                                                 Phhh - (crazy) - (9)
                                                                     Here's a couple. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                         2007 - (crazy)
                                                                         #2: Research CBD - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                             Can't have anyone curing cancer now... - (folkert) - (5)
                                                                                 Hmm... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                     Puhleeze - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                                         Ad hominem. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                             Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                 Pick your poison. - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Please don't assume my words - (crazy)
                                                         Better question: Why? - (drook) - (19)
                                                             Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                 Project much? :-p - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                     Hokay - (crazy)
                                                             Just asking the question. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                 But the laws now prohibit doing the science - (drook) - (14)
                                                                     That's an easier law to change than the others. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                         Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                             Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Your straw man, not mine - (crazy) - (10)
                                                                                 You talking to me? - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                     I didn't say it was your job - (crazy) - (8)
                                                                                         And how would that work, exactly? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                                             Easy - (crazy)
                                                                                             View it from the other side - (drook) - (5)
                                                                                                 Thought experiments are easy. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                     That's a crock - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                                                         Read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                             But the statement is wrong - (crazy)
                                                                                                     Different part of the issue - (drook)
                                                     In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                         Did I expect an actual reponse - (crazy)
                                                         hey during that timeperiod - (boxley)
                                                         You were probably right - (crazy) - (9)
                                                             Oh come on... - (folkert) - (8)
                                                                 Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me - (crazy)
                                                                 Also, interesting - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                     Do as you wish. Matters not to me. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                     You're both coming across as mardy twats - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                                                         twats is a gendered insult -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             Not when I say it, it's not - (pwhysall)
                                                                         kiss kiss -NT - (crazy)
                                                                         You didn't like the Quagmire picture? -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Looks like my letter did the trick - (rcareaga) - (6)
             Woot! -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Ok, I'm done - (crazy) - (4)
                     Finally! - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         hehe - (crazy) - (2)
                             Don't assume you know the future. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Good point - (crazy)
         Another excellent IGM thread! - (Ashton)

Powered by genetically engineered cyber-goats!
116 ms