Posted on 06/23/2014 12:17:27 PM PDT by Kaslin
My argument is constitutionally based, not "conservatism " based. Do you not get the difference between the Constitution and "conservatism"?
Oh, I understand the difference
That’s good, but then why do you respond to my Constitution-based argument as “a view of conservatism?”
For the jonesin' pro-ganja crowd all other issues, including abortion and 2nd Amendment rights, are but hazy irritants at the edge of a good high.
A Constitution-based argument without any other influence, like morality or conservative is a hollow one.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
I think Rand Paul will “evolve” on abortion in due course, to the libertarian position
I think he’ll probably evolve to the Democrat position, and run as one.
Rand-Booker, Booker-Rand. Seems like a team that would have a lot of appeal out there, don’t it?
Might even get the GOP and Democrat nominations!
Indeed - addressing drug use is up to morality and religion, not government.
Ugh...
Wow. That’s your take?
So its okay to drug up and sex up your kids if your religion and morality says its okay?
Wow, well, as I said before, looks like you're on the side of some kind of despotic rule of man since the Constitution is the rule of law that has made America exceptional in the world.
There's much evidence that without unconstitutional federal interference, the states would have just laws, the best example being state anti-abortion laws being overturned unconstitutionally by the feds.
Looks like you've acquiesced to tyranny "without firing a shot." If that's what "conservatism" is, count me out.
It is amazing to see libertarians calling conservatives who oppose 95% of the federal government a believer in despotic rule.
Then they will turn around and pretend we can all come together on election day, as long it’s their candidate of course. “Can’t we all get along?” they will ask.
So if one opposes drugs and open borders and supports age of consent laws then one is a tyrant. Libertarians care about so few things, and they are the wrong ones.
They should go and team up with NAMBLA, Occutards and the Democrats because libertardians will fit right in.
But if you acquiesce to the destruction of the Constitution, you'll get a argument from me.
However, if you argue for a strong defense and intelligence community influencing and helping (but not forcing) freedom fighters around the world, instead of "isolationism", you also won't get an argument from me.
It's hard to have a conversation with someone when what you say comes back in broad generalities of partisan politics. You're sweeping generalities will almost certainly not apply to me.
It’s an industry that puts food on the table, pays mortgages, tuition, vacation, and retirement. War apparently pays.
>>He said nothing about kids nor crack, slimeball.
An unnecessary characterization about a respected FReeper.
I replied to the name calling my own way. lolz
I noticed a few deleted posts. /grin
If you criminalize crack and meth, you will still have a war on drugs.
Indeed - addressing drug use is up to morality and religion, not government.
So its okay to drug up and sex up your kids if your religion and morality says its okay?
No, "drug use" doesn't refer to drugging up and sexing up kids ... why would you think it does? The proper role of government is to protect individual rights - which do include the rights of kids to not be drugged or molested, but do not include any fabricated 'right' to dictate the contents of a legally competent adult's bloodstream.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.