That guy never varies his song, he is always pushing liberalism. Now he want (sic) legal dope.
Because I wanted to stake out a position that "legal dope" is not necessarily a liberal position but a libertarian position and it should be a conservative position (at least on the federal level). In other words, I do not want to passively accede to definitions of liberalism, conservatism or libertarianism which I do not believe are true.
To that end, I try to draw our attention to the fundamental precepts which inspired conservatism rather than simply making ad hominem about how dreadful libertarians are.
In other words, name calling does not advance our understanding very far. One could as easily call the founding fathers libertarians as the Warren court.
