• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drive to legalize marijuana rolls on in California

They said they won't. That's their stance. I have your conjecture and wishful thinking saying that it's going to change, or I have official federal government stance saying that it won't. Hmmmm. "But government changes it's mind all the time" blah blah blah. Not without outside pressure.

LOL!!! I'm suggesting that "outside pressure" (or at least some form of pressure) may change it. Nice to have you agreeing with me, that the gov't can change it's mind, despite your previous statements, with the application of certain pressures. You see, you're in agreement with me when you evaluate the caveats in play.


The federal government has taken the position as dictated by the Obama administration that it will not stop enforcement of marijuana laws. If a State legalizes marijuana, the federal government is not going to recognize that. That's reality. It's not going to change now, or during Obama's administration with just some States wanting to legalize it.
That's it. That's fact.

sigh

You can't state things as "fact" if they're subject to change in the future. That you keep doing this amazes me, especially when someone could just come along and say, "Yeah, but with significant increase in pressure, it might change". Oh wait, look at this....


Without a significant increase in pressure, it's not going to change.

So.... you state that it IS FACT that the laws won't change, and then directly after stating that as fact, you say that it might change, with significant increase in pressure. Hmmmm.. Sounds like you need to work on your rhetoric skills, and get yourself on the same page. You can't just say that something that might change in the future won't, and that's a fact, and then in the next breath admit that with certain pressure it might change. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, when you do that.


Cry as much as you want, it's not going to change reality.

Poop in your pants as much as you want, the future is uncertain, and therefore not "fact," regardless of your insistency.
 
You are a master at spin and taking things out of context. Try reading things as written. It will not change without significant pressure to change. Everything I have written has been in that light. You take sentences out of paragraphs to make it seem as if I'm saying something I am not. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy debate. We're done here. I do not debate with people lacking integrity.
 
You are a master at spin and taking things out of context. Try reading things as written. It will not change without significant pressure to change. Everything I have written has been in that light.

This is untrue. I can prove that you've not done this, if you're interested in honestly evaluating the evidence that i can show. I'm not going to waste my time though, if you're simply going to look at the facts and then deny them. Plenty of times you said that things would not change, without any sort of caveat at all.


You take sentences out of paragraphs to make it seem as if I'm saying something I am not.

I don't think so, but even so, it should be impossible for me to do this if you were expressing yourself properly. When you list four sentences with things like "That's a fact. That's the way it is. Whether you like it or not, the facts are there." and that sort of thing, you can't add a caveat 3 sentences later and act like that sentence modifies the four declarative ones way at the top. English doesn't work like that, and people can only read what you write, not your mind. You pretending to know people's motives and why they think something may be fine for you, but most people don't do that, and have to go by what is actually written down.


It's intellectually dishonest and lazy debate. We're done here. I do not debate with people lacking integrity.

I couldn't care less if you debate me or not. I know for a fact that you can't demonstrate where i've been intellectually dishonest or a lazy debater. As to your opinion about my integrity, i'd be a lot more worried if you said that i had integrity. From someone of your character, i'd rather receive insults than compliments.
 
Post #51 is an example of your intellectual dishonesty, when you took sentences as standalone when they were part of a paragraph. You then take sentences out of context to make it sound like I was saying something different.
 
Post #51 is an example of your intellectual dishonesty, when you took sentences as standalone when they were part of a paragraph. You then take sentences out of context to make it sound like I was saying something different.


FAIL

In that post i SPECIFICALLY bolded the ending statement of the first segment EXACTLY to keep it in context.


On the second section, you made 6, count 'em 6 statements of positive fact, about what would happen, for sure, as fact, blah, blah, blah. I addressed those 6 statements.

On the third section, i handled your hastily added caveat that negated the incorrectly firm rhetoric that you had just demonstrated.

You're the one saying two OPPOSITE things, and then getting mad when i simply point it out. If you don't want to be called on the mat for saying two opposite things, then don't say opposite things. It's simple. Now make another post about how i'm a big meanie-bo-feenie so that you can feel better about saying to opposite things, yet claiming that certain things are solid fact. And..... go!
 
Back
Top Bottom