DEBATE: if alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijuana be?

1 - Only because you're so desperate to make it so.

2 - Where's the victim in driving while under the influence (DUI)?
You many have responded; but you've never given a reasonable explanation.

3 - Then why are you complaining?

4 - The real loser is usually the first one that tries to call the other side a loser. :)

1. It was absolutely relevant to Taft's silly argument.

2. I already answered that. Why wasn't it reasonable? It seems your only ability to offer a rebuttal, is to stick your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaim "NU-UH"!!

3. No one was talking about whether there should dui mj laws.

4. You are a loser.
 
1. It was absolutely relevant to Taft's silly argument.

2. I already answered that. Why wasn't it reasonable? It seems your only ability to offer a rebuttal, is to stick your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaim "NU-UH"!!

3. No one was talking about whether there should dui mj laws.

4. You are a loser.

1 - Like I said; only because you need it to be. :dunno:

2 - It becomes even more apparent, that I've challenged the preconceived assumptions of a liberal; because they begin repeating my own comments, as theirs. :D
How does driving under the influence (DUI) harm anyone?

3 - When you start saying it's not a crime, then you have. :p

4 - You're repetition is amusing and only goes to reveal your desperation. :chesh:
 
1 - Like I said; only because you need it to be. :dunno:

2 - It becomes even more apparent, that I've challenged the preconceived assumptions of a liberal; because they begin repeating my own comments, as theirs. :D
How does driving under the influence (DUI) harm anyone?

3 - When you start saying it's not a crime, then you have. :p

4 - You're repetition is amusing and only goes to reveal your desperation. :chesh:

1. Only because it clearly was.

2. I already answered your question. I understand you don't have ability to respond.

3. Nope, I was never talking about dui mj laws. This thread was obviously not about that.

4. You never do anything but repeat yourself over and over again. You still have not responded to my original point. You still have not offered a counterargument to my rebuttal of your very weak point on dui. All there is to repeatedly point that out. You are a loser.
 
1. Only because it clearly was.

2. I already answered your question. I understand you don't have ability to respond.

3. Nope, I was never talking about dui mj laws. This thread was obviously not about that.

4. You never do anything but repeat yourself over and over again. You still have not responded to my original point. You still have not offered a counterargument to my rebuttal of your very weak point on dui. All there is to repeatedly point that out. You are a loser.

1 - No it wasn't.

2 - No you didn't and it's apparent that your cognitive skills have a deficit.

3 - You're the one that said it wasn't really a crime, so you were talking about laws. :ggod4u:

4 - Like I said, at least you're amusing. :D
 
1 - "NU-UH"!!.

2 - "NU-UH"!!.

3 - You're the one that said it wasn't really a crime, so you were talking about laws. :ggod4u:

4 - Like I said, at least you're amusing. :D

1, 2. Alright then, junior.

3. We were quite clearly not talking about that law and what I said was not a REAL crime was not dui mj.

4. You are not very amusing. You are boring. A pathetic one and done moron. Your claim that drunk driving is the same has been rebutted and you have failed to respond to that or my original point.
 
1, 2. Alright then, junior.

3. We were quite clearly not talking about that law and what I said was not a REAL crime was not dui mj.

4. You are not very amusing. You are boring. A pathetic one and done moron. Your claim that drunk driving is the same has been rebutted and you have failed to respond to that or my original point.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I love the taste of liberal tears in the morning.
 
Back
Top