Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is somewhat of an old video, but I've been thinking about this lately. I'm having a heck of a time lately debating liberals. I can't count the number of times that I have to ask "what does that even mean?" And it's often a major struggle to get across a simple point of logic, such as the difference between 'equivalent' and 'equal.'
Consider that marijuana seems to be very popular on the left, and there is at least some research suggesting that mj causes brain damage. I'll let you, the reader, put 2+2 together rather than directly make a statement that might get me accused of trolling.
Coulter addresses the mj angle @ about 4:35 on the video:
Quote:
McVeigh, Loughner, a lot of these guys...all big pot smokers...Any doctor will tell you that a lot of people have a predisposition for schizophrenia. Marijuana is one of the things that can set that predisposition off...
I wonder whether it is no coincidence that one of the few remaining coherent and cogent liberal posters on CD these days is also a big time mj legalization opponent. Is it just me, or is that not a rare and vanishing breed?
This is somewhat of an old video, but I've been thinking about this lately. I'm having a heck of a time lately debating liberals. I can't count the number of times that I have to ask "what does that even mean?" And it's often a major struggle to get across a simple point of logic, such as the difference between 'equivalent' and 'equal.'
Yeah, maybe because what you are saying makes no sense...not that the rest of the world "doesn't get it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Consider that marijuana seems to be very popular on the left, and there is at least some research suggesting that mj causes brain damage. I'll let you, the reader, put 2+2 together rather than directly make a statement that might get me accused of trolling.
Like this. You are making an assertion that has been debunked repeatedly, and shown to be untrue, but stick to your guns anyways and insulting those who disagree.
This is somewhat of an old video, but I've been thinking about this lately. I'm having a heck of a time lately debating liberals. I can't count the number of times that I have to ask "what does that even mean?" And it's often a major struggle to get across a simple point of logic, such as the difference between 'equivalent' and 'equal.'
Consider that marijuana seems to be very popular on the left, and there is at least some research suggesting that mj causes brain damage. I'll let you, the reader, put 2+2 together rather than directly make a statement that might get me accused of trolling.
Coulter addresses the mj angle @ about 4:35 on the video:
I wonder whether it is no coincidence that one of the few remaining coherent and cogent liberal posters on CD these days is also a big time mj legalization opponent. Is it just me, or is that not a rare and vanishing breed?
Liberalism is a philosophy based on emotion. It's about fairness and compassion. It isn't about logic or about observing reality. They want to adjust reality to fit their ideology instead of building an ideology out of observations of reality.
We've had the Great Society going for five decades now and spent over ten trillion dollars on it, and the poverty rate has not dropped one iota. Yet the liberals today make the exact same arguments for increasing social pending that the liberals made in 1970.
Women now outnumber men in universities. Amongst the population 30 and under, women make more money than men. In all but the very top positions, women outnumber men in management positions. And yet the leftists make the exact same arguments about a war on women today that they made in 1970.
When the nation got into the Great Depression in the 1930s, the liberals responded by massive government spending. The rest of the nations affected by it which did not implement those programs recovered much faster than America did, and FDR's architect of the New Deal ended up pronouncing it a failure. Yet along comes Obama implementing almost a trillion dollars in government spending to fix the recession for "shovel ready" jobs. And then a few years later admits that perhaps the shovel ready jobs weren't as shovel ready as they thought they were.
It doesn't matter how much fact and logic you use in arguing against someone who isn't interested in fact or logic. Leftists are driven by emotion. Classic example of this in action is when Obama was asked about the laffer curve effect causing higher taxes to generate less revenue and his response was that he would raise the taxes anyway because of fairness. The man is willing to purposely collect less revenue from the very same wealthy individuals he's trying to collect from if it means he can feel better about being "fair". That's all you need to know about the mindset of liberals.
Is the op addressing liberal ideology or marijuana legalization?
Apparently op thinks they are one in the same.
Op also seems to think that pushing for the legalization of marijuana is something that only a user of marijuana would do. The reality is there plenty of reasons to push for marijuana's legalization even if you personally don't smoke weed.
I also don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, that doesn't mean they should be illegal.
Op also seems to think that pushing for the legalization of marijuana is something that only a user of marijuana would do. The reality is there plenty of reasons to push for marijuana's legalization even if you personally don't smoke weed.
I also don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, that doesn't mean they should be illegal.
Where did I say that they are 'one in the same?' Do you deny that there is a strong connection between mj legalization and liberalism. Look at any thread on CD re mj legalization and you'll see that there is a strong push from the left for legalization, even as they defend Bloomberg's ban on large sugary drinks or Michelle's sodium bans.Personally I would legalize it all--heroin, marijuana, sugary drinks, cigarettes, alcohol, and sodium--as long as I am not on the hook as a taxpayer to pay for the health consequences of your choices, which is currently not the case.
It just seems striking to me that so many on the left are obsessed with removing prohibitions on this one substance while supporting restrictions on other substances.
She's insulting to those who actually have a mental illness.
So then I suppose your logic leads you to agree that the Democrats talking about a "war on women" are insulting our soldiers in Afghanistan?
Quote:
This is the kind of people they have to deal with....uninformed and stupid
Just because she doesn't agree with your politics doesn't make her uninformed or stupid, and your calling her that says more negative about your ethics and character than it does about her.
Unless it's the thing about comparing liberals to those who have a mental illness that led to your insults. If that's the case, then are all the Democrats who talk about there being a war on women also uninformed and stupid?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
