[TheRealVille]

LOL, it's the democrats that get all butthurt and emotional about regulating morality. They claim to be "Christians," yet any mention of God or Jesus is an absolute no-no. Then, they are hell-bent on allowing females to go out, spread their legs, get pregnant, and have the baby chopped to pieces. They have no discipline or any regard for human life, and then want to shove their views down the throats of everybody - all in the name of "tolerance."

They aren't shoving views, they are just allowing the ones that want an abortion to get one, since the supreme court said it is legal. Which btw, was lopsided with republican appointed justices, which I'm sure you have read here before. Democrats don't make, or not make anybody get an abortion, they just want to allow it because it's legal. You don't see the differeance in allowing people to make their own life choices, and people like you that want to make rules that make those choices for people? Democrats let you do your thing, or not, in their tolerance. Your kind don't think people should be able to make their own choices, you want to make laws that keep people from making their own choices. Your people don't want to allow people to smoke weed in the privacy of their home. Yes, you try to legislate morality. If you don't want to smoke, fine, but what gives you the right to tell others that they can't?

[Ballers]

I never get stoned. Smokers on this board have stated as such, on this very thread. Why not live your life, mind your business, and let me and others live theirs? :Thumbs: Your little lame sign proves my point. People like you think you have the right to judge, and consider what's right, for what other people to do in their lives. If it's fine by you, why not shut up about it, and not offer an opinion on whether you think it's lame or not?

Well I thought this was a message board and I was entitled too my opinion.
Guess that was all a dream.
This reminds me a lot of a convo zaga_fan had with a dog once.

[TheRealVille]

Well I thought this was a message board and I was entitled too my opinion.
Guess that was all a dream.
This reminds me a lot of a convo zaga_fan had with a dog once.

You were interjecting a false opinion, though. All smokers don't get stoned, or even stay high all the time. It's very obvious you don't have a clue, about which you are trying to give an opinion. You didn't answer my question. Do you drink alcohol?

[Ballers]

You were interjecting a false opinion, though. All smokers don't get stoned, or even stay high all the time. It's very obvious you don't have a clue, about which you are trying to give an opinion. You didn't answer my question. Do you drink alcohol?

I have yes, and it's completely legal.
And I don't get out on the road or anything like that.
I am more of "like a beer with my steak dinner" kinda guy.

[Ballers]

Now answer my question, do you smoke weed?

[TheRealVille]

I have yes, and it's completely legal.
And I don't get out on the road or anything like that.
I am more of "like a beer with my steak dinner" kinda guy.

What if someone interjected their opinion that they "didn't care if you wanted to be a drunk/alcoholic, but it was lame? If you want to lay around drunk,and be an alcoholic, that's your business." Even though you say that you don't drive drunk, and don't drink a whole lot. You did exactly that above with the weed smokers. BTW, it being legal or not should have no bearing on whether you think it's ok for someone to smoke in the privacy of their home, if you think you should be allowed to drink.

Now answer my question, do you smoke weed?

I haven't smoked in quite awhile, and I never get "stoned" as you say, when I do. Contrary to what people on here, that don't have clure btw, most pot only smokers don't stay high all the time, and don't get stoned when they do smoke. You all have been told this time and again.

[WideRight05]

They aren't shoving views, they are just allowing the ones that want an abortion to get one, since the supreme court said it is legal. Which btw, was lopsided with republican appointed justices, which I'm sure you have read here before. Democrats don't make, or not make anybody get an abortion, they just want to allow it because it's legal. You don't see the differeance in allowing people to make their own life choices, and people like you that want to make rules that make those choices for people? Democrats let you do your thing, or not, in their tolerance. Your kind don't think people should be able to make their own choices, you want to make laws that keep people from making their own choices. Your people don't want to allow people to smoke weed in the privacy of their home. Yes, you try to legislate morality. If you don't want to smoke, fine, but what gives you the right to tell others that they can't?

They aren't shoving views? Liberals have no problem with trying to force everybody to support gay marriage, to support abortion, etc. Then Obamacare is controversially passed "so we can see what's in it," and the liberals want to try to force churches to offer contraception? It's perfectly okay to do that, yet they have problems with people praying in public, with people reading their Bible at a public place. All while supporting muslims expressing their faith publicly.

Once again, you avoid the content of my post. See, this is the problem with people like you. You have no personal accountability or discipline and it's no wonder that most of the people who vote toward the liberal side are working jobs making no more than $10/hour and then expect the successful to have to foot the bill for taxes. If a girl goes out, gets knocked up, and wants to chop the baby to pieces then it's perfectly okay, in your eyes. It doesn't matter that she creates a life because of her lack of responsibility, and then "chops up" that life because she doesn't have the personal accountability to step up and take care of the baby. The only people that are pro-choice are alive.

[Hoot Gibson]

They aren't shoving views, they are just allowing the ones that want an abortion to get one, since the supreme court said it is legal.

Yes, Democrats impose their views on Americans to a far greater extent than Republicans. Abortion advocates push for legislation like Obamacare, which not only dictate how Americans spend their own money, also require employers to provide services to employees that violate their own religious beliefs.

Which btw, was lopsided with republican appointed justices, which I'm sure you have read here before. Democrats don't make, or not make anybody get an abortion, they just want to allow it because it's legal.

Those who oppose abortion do so on the basis that unborn children are humans who cannot speak for themselves. The do not see abortion as a victimless crime. There is no moral difference in not making people get abortions and forcing them to pay for somebody else's abortion.

You don't see the differeance in allowing people to make their own life choices, and people like you that want to make rules that make those choices for people? Democrats let you do your thing, or not, in their tolerance. Your kind don't think people should be able to make their own choices, you want to make laws that keep people from making their own choices.

What right is more fundamental than the right of people to spend the money that they earn on what they choose? It is not enough for Democrats to have everybody pay the same share of their earnings on federal income taxes, they seek to maximize the number of Democratic voters who pay no taxes while forcing those earning more to pay virtually all federal income taxes. What is tolerant about trying to stick successful people with the cell phone bills of those too lazy to work?

Your people don't want to allow people to smoke weed in the privacy of their home. Yes, you try to legislate morality. If you don't want to smoke, fine, but what gives you the right to tell others that they can't?

Do you support higher taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from smoking? Do you support laws that prohibit people from smoking in restaurants or forcing owners to designate non-smoking areas? What about seat belt laws? Zoning laws? How about campaign finance laws, which limit the amount of money that an individual can donate to a candidate whose views he supports? Should the government have the authority to restrict the guns that a person can purchase for self defense?

What about the freedom of people and businesses to freely enter into contracts with other individuals and companies? How can you oppose right to work laws and claim that Republicans are the party that seeks to control personal behavior? What is more fundamental than a person's right to work for anybody willing to hire them to do so?

You are very selective about which laws you oppose on the basis that they infringe on individual freedom. Democrats are responsible for far more, and far more reaching laws and regulations that deprive individuals of basic human rights than Republicans are - and Republicans have been the source of too many laws and regulations themselves.

Virtually all of the reasons for supporting the legalization of drug use for adults apply to the repeal of thousands of laws and regulations championed by liberal do-gooders who get off on depriving the rest of us of basic human rights in the name of the state.

[Ballers]

Well that sucks Ville, maybe you should start an "Alcohol awareness" thread..
Last time I checked this one is about the legalization of weed in another state.

SMH..

[Ballers]

LOL.. what a dummy.
So you are telling me you don't smoke to get stoned nor does the rest of the people that smoke it?
Then please enlighten me, why does most of the population that smokes it, smoke it?

[TheRealVille]

LOL.. what a dummy.
So you are telling me you don't smoke to get stoned nor does the rest of the people that smoke it?
Then please enlighten me, why does most of the population that smokes it, smoke it?

Right, I didn't smoke to get stoned. Do you always drink to get drunk? It's just like you and your alcohol. You say you don't drink a whole lot, when I smoked, I didn't smoke a whole lot. Everything can be taken to extremes. A lot of pot only smokers do exactly like you do with your beer, just enough to level out, and get a buzz. Just like you don't have to get belligerent drunk on alcohol, you don't have to get stoned, or completely wasted on weed. There is middle ground.

[Ballers]

I didn't really understand where you was going with it..
But good point I guess.

[TheRealThing]

Right, I didn't smoke to get stoned. Do you always drink to get drunk? It's just like you and your alcohol. You say you don't drink a whole lot, when I smoked, I didn't smoke a whole lot. Everything can be taken to extremes. A lot of pot only smokers do exactly like you do with your beer, just enough to level out, and get a buzz. Just like you don't have to get belligerent drunk on alcohol, you don't have to get stoned, or completely wasted on weed. There is middle ground.

Well now, the middle grounders are not going to be the problem, now are they? Even predictably moderate drinkers go too far more often than you're letting on. And we need to understand something here. A buzz is a big deal. One is too impaired to drive or anything other than sit around making a big deal about something as stupid as a bug flying by, or diving into the nacho bowl.

[MiddlesboroAlumni]

LOL

Oh why is it, RealVille, that you pick on people and can't respond when they have made their comeback?

You very much amuse me. Do you even stand for anything?

[TheRealVille]

LOL

Oh why is it, RealVille, that you pick on people and can't respond when they have made their comeback?

You very much amuse me. Do you even stand for anything?

I just don't respond to a lot of nonsense., especially if the nonsense has been said more than once. Most of the time you can't respond to TRT because tries to take you to church on BGR. And his opinion, like the one above doesn't even really warrant a response because it is so ignorant.

[MiddlesboroAlumni]

I just don't respond to a lot of nonsense., especially if the nonsense has been said more than once. Most of the time you can't respond to TRT because tries to take you to church on BGR. And his opinion, like the one above doesn't even really warrant a response because it is so ignorant.

I'm talking about the many times that Hoot has taken you to school for example.

And we respond to your opinions, RV. They're many times ignorant but we still feel they warrant a response. :betterthanexpected:

[TheRealThing]

I just don't respond to a lot of nonsense., especially if the nonsense has been said more than once. Most of the time you can't respond to TRT because tries to take you to church on BGR. And his opinion, like the one above doesn't even really warrant a response because it is so ignorant.

I like to 'source' the wisdom of the ages once in a while. One day we will see who is ignorant, or in your case, wilfully ignorant. I certainly make no appologies for having placed my trust in the One who died that day on the cross, thusly granting me and any other who would choose to accept Him as Savior, unmerited eternal life with Him. One minute you're saying my politics drive my religion, which, though errantly worded I understand the slam. When it gets down to it, that's all you really have, an attitude of feeling superior even in the face of withering incoming and a total lack of inhibition when it comes to insults. The next, as in this case, you accuse me of being a bible thumper.

When it comes to which route to take and on whom to rely on for ultimate wisdom between the Lord and the DNC, I hope you can excuse me for deferring to God, who had to but speak the universe into existence.

[TheRealVille]

I like to 'source' the wisdom of the ages once in a while. One day we will see who is ignorant, or in your case, wilfully ignorant. I certainly make no appologies for having placed my trust in the One who died that day on the cross, thusly granting me and any other who would choose to accept Him as Savior, unmerited eternal life with Him. One minute you're saying my politics drive my religion, which, though errantly worded I understand the slam. When it gets down to it, that's all you really have, an attitude of feeling superior even in the face of withering incoming and a total lack of inhibition when it comes to insults. The next, as in this case, you accuse me of being a bible thumper.

When it comes to which route to take and on whom to rely on for ultimate wisdom between the Lord and the DNC, I hope you can excuse me for deferring to God, who had to but speak the universe into existence.

That's all well and good, and fine, that you reference that book to get your viewpoint, but all of us don't.

[nky]

Kentucky should pass a similar bill. "Toker Tourism" sounds like a money maker to me

[TheRealThing]

That's all well and good, and fine, that you reference that book to get your viewpoint, but all of us don't.

Frankly, the point was that "that book" is as applicable in our day as it ever was, my own viewpoint not withstanding. God's Word wouldn't be much of a guide if it became passe, prophesy for example, is just the future (our view) written in historical terms (His view). Not one of God's prophetic texts have ever been shown to be false, on the contrary, thousands have been thus far proven to be 100% correct. Therefore my viewpoints are bolstered by the truths contained in "that book".

As to your assertions of the past that the scriptures are not valid, I really don't think you speak for anybody but yourself in that matter, much less for whoever you think "all of us" are. In any case, when those of any government including that of the United States, takes it upon themselves to pass laws that directly contradict God's Word, we, all of us, as a nation are from that point onward on a path that can only lead to His judgement upon our land. It is incumbent on the ones that know better to speak out.

[TheRealVille]

Frankly, the point was that "that book" is as applicable in our day as it ever was, my own viewpoint not withstanding. God's Word wouldn't be much of a guide if it became passe, prophesy for example, is just the future (our view) written in historical terms (His view). Not one of God's prophetic texts have ever been shown to be false, on the contrary, thousands have been thus far proven to be 100% correct. Therefore my viewpoints are bolstered by the truths contained in "that book".

As to your assertions of the past that the scriptures are not valid, I really don't think you speak for anybody but yourself in that matter, much less for whoever you think "all of us" are. In any case, when those of any government including that of the United States, takes it upon themselves to pass laws that directly contradict God's Word, we, all of us, as a nation are from that point onward on a path that can only lead to His judgement upon our land. It is incumbent on the ones that know better to speak out.

Voters that don't abide by that book, which btw, is growing more and more all the time. If you are afraid of god's wrath, I'd suggest you find a place to live that goes by the bible as it's rule of law. I know I would, if I were that afraid of his wrath. But, I totally agree with your right to worship whoever you want. I also agree with my right not to.

[TheRealVille]

I'm talking about the many times that Hoot has taken you to school for example.

And we respond to your opinions, RV. They're many times ignorant but we still feel they warrant a response. :betterthanexpected:

You have posted exactly 7 times in the political forum, and I have answered everyone directed to me. BTW, you aren't even on the radar in the politics section. You are one notch below WR05. Anything either of you say, and I'm going to include you, even though you don't rank, is nothing but being parrots of the "big 3" here. Grow an opinion of your own, and you might warrant some responses.

[WideRight05]

You have posted exactly 7 times in the political forum, and I have answered everyone directed to me. BTW, you aren't even on the radar in the politics section. You are one notch below WR05. Anything either of you say, and I'm going to include you, even though you don't rank, is nothing but being parrots of the "big 3" here. Grow an opinion of your own, and you might warrant some responses.

First off, again - he can post here if he wants! Just like you, Vector, and 4 Real, regardless of his opinion - he has the right to post here and there is no rule that says you have to make a certain amount of posts per day. Again, that is just you getting mad because of him owning you.

Now that you've had the gall to call ME out, I used to contemplate long, detailed posts when I first started in the political forum - such as my ones related to religion. Anymore, it's useless. You take one little quote from a post and blow it way out of proportion instead of trying to discuss based on the argument as a whole. Either that, or a smartass response like the ones to Middlesboro Alumni. I don't take you seriously, hence the reason I mainly conform to posts of your elementary level when I am posting with you. The stupid threads I make about Christmas, short posts with no backing, etc. stand a better shot when in a discussion with you. I am not going to post the long, detailed posts, especially since we have TRT, Hoot, Seger, HRV, NKY, Dusty, among others who do an excellent job of posting detail on their arguments instead of just trying to think of whatever comes out of the part of the body where the sun don't shine.

Now, as to the "big 3" - they don't use completely random, biased sources, and use logic with their arguments. And have you not seen this thread? There are some differences among them on the marijuana issues! But yet, you see them making solid arguments and keeping it civil. And if you think I'm saying this just because of our similar beliefs, think again. I have one friend in particular that talks about politics with me all the time - complete opposite view of me on most issues. Yet almost every time we hang out we talk politics, and it leads to some enjoyable discussions when you are with somebody that knows what they are talking about (more than me, TBH) and can talk sensibly about the issues.

A famous quote is to "never argue with an idiot, because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." I feel like that by typing this that you may have just done that, but it's worth it when you are calling me out like you are. LOL, I don't need you to tell me where I stand on this forum. You out of all people. I would love to be able to discuss and debate the issues, but I don't think a logical discussion with you is halfway possible.

[MiddlesboroAlumni]

You have posted exactly 7 times in the political forum, and I have answered everyone directed to me. BTW, you aren't even on the radar in the politics section. You are one notch below WR05. Anything either of you say, and I'm going to include you, even though you don't rank, is nothing but being parrots of the "big 3" here. Grow an opinion of your own, and you might warrant some responses.

Glad to see you have researched my post history.

I need to post frequently to be able to post in the political forum? Do I need to be a political regular to be able to strike conversation in here? Let me tell you what, RV. The "big 3" has no influence on what I say or think. I have read this forum the entire time I've been a member of this site (not every day like you, but off and on for the last three or so years). I enjoy it. Is there something wrong with that? I will post on this forum any time I please and I may just call you out every time as I have thus far. Do you think because you hang around the politics forum all day and every day means that you are respected???? To put it in eastern Kentucky terms, that don't mean jack, sonny. Do you think people that post here frequently or read this forum respect you?? Do you think you have some kind of entitlement?

I have called your number several times because you seem to be the one who would get the most riled up (look what happened). It's all in good fun. I don't take back anything I said. And if you blubber out something else I don't like, I wont hesitate to speak what I think.

On the radar in the politics section..I don't rank?..............are you kidding me?

If you don't like it, just do what you do best, ignore it.

:Thumbs:

[TheRealVille]

Glad to see you have researched my post history.

I need to post frequently to be able to post in the political forum? Do I need to be a political regular to be able to strike conversation in here? Let me tell you what, RV. The "big 3" has no influence on what I say or think. I have read this forum the entire time I've been a member of this site (not every day like you, but off and on for the last three or so years). I enjoy it. Is there something wrong with that? I will post on this forum any time I please and I may just call you out every time as I have thus far. Do you think because you hang around the politics forum all day and every day means that you are respected???? To put it in eastern Kentucky terms, that don't mean jack, sonny. Do you think people that post here frequently or read this forum respect you?? Do you think you have some kind of entitlement?

I have called your number several times because you seem to be the one who would get the most riled up (look what happened). It's all in good fun. I don't take back anything I said. And if you blubber out something else I don't like, I wont hesitate to speak what I think.

On the radar in the politics section..I don't rank?..............are you kidding me?

If you don't like it, just do what you do best, ignore it.

:Thumbs:

You were the one that said, "we respond to your opions." I was just pointing that you haven't responded to anything I've ever said, except for a few posts the last couple of days.


Next bold: Like I said, you don't even rank.

[MiddlesboroAlumni]

You were the one that said, "we respond to your opions." I was just pointing that you haven't responded to anything I've ever said, except for a few posts the last couple of days.


Next bold: Like I said, you don't even rank.

Who's ranking posters? Do we have a top ten political member poll that I don't know about? How do you rank the political posters on here, RV? Are you in control of this?

:please:

[TheRealVille]

Who's ranking posters? Do we have a top ten political member poll that I don't know about? How do you rank the political posters on here, RV? Are you in control of this?

:please:

You started on me in your very first post to me. I can act very civil, and discuss things, but not the way you called me in your first post to me. I can act very civil, but I am a total smartass to people that treat me as such. We can start this all over and do it civil, or we can act like some of the other posters make me act. It's your call.

[TheRealVille]

^Any friend I've got in the world will tell you that there's no bigger smartass in the world, if you force me, nor a more faithful friend in the world if I'm treated in a friendly manner.

[MiddlesboroAlumni]

^Any friend I've got in the world will tell you that there's no bigger smartass in the world, if you force me, nor a more faithful friend in the world if I'm treated in a friendly manner.

Well, this is no fun. We have something in common. :biggrin:

It depends on what kind of mood I'm in, really. I was only seeking amusement. Doesn't mean I wasn't sincere in what I said, though.

[TheRealVille]

Well, this is no fun. We have something in common. :biggrin:

It depends on what kind of mood I'm in, really. I was only seeking amusement. Doesn't mean I wasn't sincere in what I said, though.

:Thumbs: