Actually fighting “authoritarian” conservatives for drugs is where you started, and then you continued with gays in the military, abortion, gay marriage etc.
The constitution was not written to allow abortion and gay marriage and gays in the military and all the things that we conservatives are fighting you about.
Actually fighting “authoritarian” conservatives for drugs is where you started, and then you continued with gays in the military, abortion, gay marriage etc.
CUT AND PASTE WORDS FROM MY POSTS TO PROVE IT. While you're at it, cut and paste words from my posts to prove where I have promoted drugs, gays in the military, abortion, and where I have sided with leftists. I am especially interested in knowing how my OPPOSING laws that punish people, including the military, for refusing to play along wiht the gay agenda, is "siding with liberalism."
I really truly genuinely want to know if you think "conservatives" should back Federal law that would punish two guys from having a private pretend "wedding", and if you think "conservatives" should back Federal law punishing a baker for baking their cake, and if "conservatives" should back Federal law punishing a private business if it decided to provide spousal benefits to the "wife" of some fruitcake employee. RIGHT NOW Federal Law dictates the opposite. Right now, Federal Law punishes the baker for NOT baking the cake, it punishes the business for NOT extending benefits to so called "spouses" of gays. So how is it siding with liberalism when I advocate GETTING RID OF THOSE LAWS that punish private individuals for refusing to play along with the gay agenda????
I really want to know that, if you think Federal Law ought to outlaw marijuana, a weed that can grow wild in a vacant lot, should it also outlaw alcohol, which is certainly as destructive as pot? And then I would as, why not outlaw sodas and overeating, as gluttony is ALSO forbidden in the bible, as is drunkeness and "witchcraft," as mrsmel's wonderful post makes a good argument is the bible's way of saying "drug abuse." How about "conservatives" using goverment to outlaw and punish envy? Sloth? Covetousness?
WHY DIDN'T THE FOUNDING FATHERS DO THAT? DO YOU THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD RE-WRITE THE CONSTITUITON TO INCLUDE LAW PROHIBITING MORAL WEAKNESSES IF THEY HAD FORESEEN NEVADA, WITH GAMBLING AND PROSTITUTION LEGAL? I really want to know if that's what you think "conservatism" is?
If you had any honor, Ansel, you would actually read my posts putting your anger and emotion aside, and then you would ask the Admin Mod to delete the nearly two dozen posts you have written here that LIBEL ME.
Good point. It was also and very pointedly NOT WRITTEN to "forbid" them, either, as the Founders knew that moral Americans would need no law forbidding them, that left to their own, Americans would shun abortion (it was illegal in most states before Roe v Wade), Americans would shun open homosexuality, Americans would shun blatant drug/alcohol abuse. AND THAT'S JUST WHAT AMERICANS DID.
Liberals, who are a minority in this nation, didn't like it, so what did they do, Ansel? THEY USED GOVERNMENT via judical activism to override the Constitution and then to do what the Founders expressly wrote the Constitution such to prevent them from doing -- they used government to punish what they saw as "immoral" - the left thinks it's "immoral" to shun gays, abortion, and alcoholics/drug addicts who you and I as Christians see as weak and self-indulgent, liberals see as poor victims of some "disease." As I am an alcholic (reformed!) I know something about that. God, Jesus, love -- those are the paths to righteousness.
The government (mainly through judicial fiat) in America for the past 50 years has been the MAIN OBSTRUCTION IN THAT PATH TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. I advocate for limiting that government to where it was before, the way the Constituiton was written; you advocate for replacing that government with more of the same only in a different flavor.