en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/693725 Comments by hansenkd http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344918159 Seriously, you're still arguing your offensive point? Race is not a choice. Smoking weed is a choice. You consider it "unjust" that you are forbidden to inhale a harmful substance and damage your testicles. I do not consider it unjust. So it's a matter of definition. Since I don't agree that it's unjust, why even continue the argument? There's also the little matter of common sense. It's subjective and intangible, but comparing your "right" to get high with somebody's right not to be profiled or denied jobs based on the color of his or her skin is patently offensive. And you REALLY stumbled by equating discrimination to "hurt feelings." Wow. You just continue to say offensive things. I'm not going to continue to argue something so obvious anymore. Any person of color who has ever been discriminated against should be offended by your argument that your choice to light up is in any way comparable to an inborn trait that cannot be changed. The "class" argument is a red herring too, since you fail to specify whether "class" is choice-based or inborn. Sun, 22 Apr 2012 13:39:09 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344918159 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344673061 Yeah, yeah. Anybody who doesn't think that smoking weed is a god-given right would elicit the same comment. Anybody who opposes a shameful display of idiocy is a troll. Given the sheer volume of your pro-stoner posts, "attention seeker" would be pretty apropos to you, wouldn't it? Yawn. Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:27:42 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344673061 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344672290 OK, since you insist on being obtuse. Laws against racial equality hurt many people. Laws against recreational use of a harmful substance hurt nobody--unless you consider it harmful that you can't get stoned. And THAT, my friend, is self-evident. Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:25:54 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344672290 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344500596 "Schooled" is a matter of perception. You were caught in a lie about your own words and are using weasel words to wiggle yourself out of it. It's very clear what you meant. "little doubt you would have commented much the same then too." That's more than an "implication." That's a flat-out accusation. You are a piece of work. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:37:53 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344500596 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344497874 Something that rests upon substance abuse being a "civil liberty," but whatever. "I made no claim on which people support what." Another lie. You said "little doubt you would have commented much the same then, too." You are really digging a deep hole for yourself with your extraordinarily faulty "logic." Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:32:38 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344497874 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344494856 No, I didn't make it up, I quoted you: "You missed the 60s when the comments were in support of all the "sad" law-breaking occurring in the South ... though little doubt you would have commented much the same then, too." Please, pray tell how else that can be interpreted. I'm on pins and needles waiting for it... Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:26:30 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344494856 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344492469 Interesting. You say something inexcusable, then instead of attempting to justify it, you flat-out lie about what you said and then appeal to "logic" in an attempt to say that you didn't say what you said. Can't see how that tactic will win any debate, but it's a typical response when somebody is called out on saying something outrageous...but I didn't REALLY say it... Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:22:01 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344492469 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344489070 "You missed the 60s when the comments were in support of all the "sad" law-breaking occurring in the South ... though little doubt you would have commented much the same then, too." There are your words. Their meaning is very clear. The implication is that people who oppose pot now would support segregation then. There's no other way to read it. So you lied about what you said. And water won't mess up your testicles by ingesting it. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:15:40 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344489070 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344485655 You said that people opposing pot now would have supported segregation then. That is presumptuous and offensive, and there's no way to justify it. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 22:08:58 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344485655 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344477315 Wow, this really needs to be spelled out for you? Fighting for racial equality is not the same as fighting for the right to abuse a harmful substance. That IS pretty self-explanatory, and for you to equate them is a slander and an insult to those who fought for racial equality. Absolutely unbelievable! Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:52:43 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344477315 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344476225 What an asinine thing to say! Again, we're equating racial equality with abuse of a harmful substance. Incredible. To say that anybody who opposes abuse of a harmful substance now would have supported racial inequality then is offensive slander. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:50:37 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344476225 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344456124 Comments in support of law-breaking gain major pluses. Comments in favor of not breaking the law get major minuses. Sad commentary on the population of our fair city. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 21:08:24 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344456124 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344246312 Yeah...and they went out of their way to fire him. What's your point? Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:33:57 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344246312 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344245328 Seriously? That's an absurd comparison and you know it. Comparing a fight for equality with a fight to use a harmful substance in a non-medicinal way? Wow. That's just...wow. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:31:53 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344245328 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344235092 Yeah, and? Why would I disagree with that? Idiocy is idiocy. It's the added layer of illegality here that contributes an added layer of stupidity. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:10:48 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344235092 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344230549 The fiasco is in response to a fiasco. That means that the loser stoners who conceived of the initial fiasco of putting the stupidity of Boulder on display for all the world to see are the ones who are responsible for costing this institution of higher learning all this money and for devaluing the degrees earned from said institution. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:01:33 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344230549 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344229769 On the contrary, it is you who belong in an institution because it is a fact, not an opinion, that inhaling an illegal mind-altering substance that will wreck your reproductive organs in a brash, in-your-face way is an action that only a certifiable idiot would perform. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 14:00:01 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment344229769 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment343958454 If it is absolutely essential to your existence to display to the world just how phenomenally stupid you actually are (and that's all 4/20 really is--it's not about "rights" or "unjust laws," it's about a bunch of entitled losers who have nothing better to do and are desperate to trumpet their stupidity to the world), then there are legal ways to do it. Stand on your head on the Pearl Street Mall and sing "I'm Called Little Buttercup" or something. Sat, 21 Apr 2012 05:01:32 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment343958454 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment343660263 I'd scratch anything from your prospective career list when that Google search pulls up that unfortunate photo of you that somebody posted on Facebook. As I said, CU is protecting you. Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:11:03 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment343660263 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment343657200 I'm sorry. I should have said it would destroy your ovaries, RIPAmerica. How sexist of me. Fri, 20 Apr 2012 20:06:05 +0000 http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_20441285#IDComment343657200