🚀 go-pugleaf

Murray Cooper wrote:
> 
> KStahl wrote:
> > Wrong use of the word surrendered. Context is everything. The topic of
> > the "war on drugs" was raised. The one in which the battle is around
> > drug use. In that war there are people who resist the temptation to
> > become a victim of the war and then there are those who just surrender
> > and join the millions of drug abusers. That was the "surrendered" I
> > spoke of. It is only by coincidence that the word "surrendered" also
> > applies to a person turning themselves in when accused of a crime. It
> > was a terse attempt at oblique humor. So oblique that the intent was
> > misunderstood. I'll take half the blame for the misunderstanding if you
> > will do the same.
> 
> I don't accept your tortured definition of "surrender",
> either.  In fact, it's nonsense.  The "war on drugs" is
> not being waged primarily against drug users, although
> plenty of the are victims of the misguided, expensive,
> ineffectual pseudo-"war".  The war is being waged
> primarily against drug producers, distributors and
> retailers, i.e., against the supply chain.
> 
> The intent of the foolish "war on drugs" is to stop the
> distribution and consumption of "illicit" drugs.  In
> that context, a surrender can mean one of two things:
> a) a supplier stops supplying; b) a user stops using.
> The tortured meaning you gave is exactly the opposite
> of b), and is a nonsense meaning.
> 
> The involvement of the fascist loudmouth Limbaugh in
> illegal drugs is just another example of the hypocrisy
> of finger-wagging extremists.  That there's something
> to this is beyond doubt, based on the fascist swine's
> statement to the "folks" about there being more to this
> than they'll want to know.

You are being just a wee bit silly here. If you look at my original
response, it was terse almost to the point of being laconic. I knew
exactly what I was doing.

Probably every adult in the U.S. whose first language is English knows
exactly what is meant by the phrase "damn straight". There is nothing in
that understanding that includes any concept of condemnation to eternal
perdition nor the relative lack of angles in a line. Yet that doesn't
stop anyone from understanding that the phrase is a verbal shortcut for
"Yes, I fully understand and support what you are saying in every
aspect". Thus, when I indicated that Rush had "just surrendered", the
context was correct and the meaning should have been clear. The only
thing I missed is at that point in time there was also the possibility
that Rush could have "surrendered" to the authorities, but that usage is
a bit more esoteric then the one I used given the context of the remarks
to which I was responding. What you are doing is fabricating an argument
based on your own prejudices about the issue of "war on drugs" and
simply disregarding the context of my remark.