🚀 go-pugleaf

On 06-10-2003 17:22, in article
aNfgb.159$dn6.46@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Murray Cooper"
<chuck@up.chuck> wrote:

> KStahl wrote:
> 
>> Eric Johnson wrote:
>> 
>>> On 06-10-2003 06:01, in article 3F80E902.E7974B3C@yahoo.com, "KStahl"
>>> <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 05-10-2003 17:04, in article 3F803308.31AFD2D4@yahoo.com, "KStahl"
>>>>> <ktsahl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "Peter H. Proctor" wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ironic,   that Rush has been caught up in that most socialist of
>>>>>>> gummit programs,  the War on Drugs...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Except that perhaps he didn't give up a fight - just surrendered.
>>>>> 
>>>>> He hasn't surrendered.
>>>> 
>>>> You know this from first hand, personal experience? I caveated my
>>>> statement with "perhaps", you are attempting to state a fact for which
>>>> you have no empirical support. Big difference.
>>> 
>>> If he had "surrendered, " which would mean turning himself in. This would be
>>> all over the news if it had taken place.
>>> 
>>> And as Dr. Proctor has said, lack of evidence is evidence in itself.
>>> 
>>> EJ
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
I agree that statement was tailor-made to draw all kinds of sexy
speculation, but I remain to be convinced.

EJ