Posted on 03/26/2014 9:58:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
You tried to change the subject, and resorted to personal attacks when I wanted to stay on topic.
Like I said, your politics are obvious.
To: tacticalogic
To quote what is making you react like a vampire to sunlight.
“”We need candidates who oppose those at all levels, state, federal, in city contracts, in County government, at every level.””
I like knowing what your politics are, and I have learned that.
161 posted on 3/26/2014 5:20:03 PM by ansel12
You won’t discuss the original intent of the Constitution as it pertains to drug laws, and you’ll attack and lie about anyone who tries to. You don’t want to have that conversation, and you don’t want anyone else having it either.
I just took a look at a thread of you in 2004, related to gay marriage and social issues.
I understand now why you do not want to have to reveal your position on the issues you listed in your post 16 on this thread, nor reveal why you oppose electing conservative politicians.
I just said I understand your political position on conservatism and electing conservative politicians, that’s all.
When one is dealing with libertarians, it is almost impossible to get honest responses.
My posts on this thread were pretty straight forward and simple, routine, conservative stuff, it shouldn’t cause the kind of reaction that you have had when seeing them.
Same here.
There's nothing "conservative" about abusing subverting the Constitution and the republic in pursuit of a pet social agenda, and then denying and trying to cover up the unintended consequences.
Kid...I wish. I’m one of those propagandized oldsters myself, but like you say, it didn’t take. But we’re in a small minority.
I can't say I understand yours at all. You appear to want what the liberals want. Not to live as a citizen of a republic, but as a subject of benevolent rulers who will give you whatever you want with the stroke of a pen.
That’s totally what an egalitarian post-modernist would say.
<><><><><
LOL. You got me.
Let's flip your so-called 'personal liberty' on it's head.
Because some ex-cons can't be trusted with a gun, you would deny all of them access to a firearm.
Similarly, because some people can't handle a particular drug, everyone should be denied access.
IOW, you want to ban the 'thing' because you believe that it is the 'thing' that drives the behavior of the person.
I'm just the opposite. I believe we should hold people responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter to me if someone uses alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. in the privacy of their own homes as long as their use causes no harm to someone else. If this use causes harm, then they should be held personally responsible for the harm they cause.
If someone drives while intoxicated on alcohol and kills someone else, the person killed no more or less dead than if the driver was intoxicated on marijuana, heroin, barbiturates, or cough syrup.
You believe that by passing a law against a 'thing' you will control society's behavior to an extent that these laws will reduce the danger caused by a 'person'.
This is the exact same attitude shown by the Prohibitionists who championed the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment. They believed that by banning alcohol from society, society would become a better place to live. In reality, it became a worse place to live. Not only did it give rise to organized crime, but the government also expanded its sphere of power and influence.
What you fail to recognize is that your controls will not prevent or reduce harm on society because, like the criminal who wants a gun to rob or kill, people will get the 'thing' they want regardless of what the laws say.
Like gun control laws, drug control laws only penalize otherwise law-abiding citizens who know how to use a 'thing' responsibly.
How can you not know my “political position on conservatism and electing conservative politicians”, you know it.
To: tacticalogic
To: gdani
*””But when it’s something they are against - marijuana, assisted suicide, gay marriage, etc - they become the Fed Govt’s biggest cheerleaders.””*
If it needs to be under federal authority then we need to get an amendment. If they think we can abuse the Commerce Clause without unintended consequences they’re pissing into the wind.
16 posted on 3/26/2014 10:15:02 AM by tacticalogic
To: tacticalogic
Remember that abortion and gay marriage in the military and for federal employees, and in immigration, and homosexuals in the military, are all federal.
We need to select candidates who are against liberalism at all levels, from city hall to the state, to the Senate and Presidency, whether negotiating with a County union, or state legislation on gay marriage or abortion, or marriage recognition and abortion in the military, and not let them exist as leaders who support the left’s causes, by pretending that they are forced to support the left’s agenda.
27 posted on 3/26/2014 10:29:15 AM by ansel12
Where is this “subverting the constitution” just because it upsets your agenda of social liberalism?
To: tacticalogic
Remember that abortion and gay marriage in the military and for federal employees, and in immigration, and homosexuals in the military, are all federal.
We need to select candidates who are against liberalism at all levels, from city hall to the state, to the Senate and Presidency, whether negotiating with a County union, or state legislation on gay marriage or abortion, or marriage recognition and abortion in the military, and not let them exist as leaders who support the left’s causes, by pretending that they are forced to support the left’s agenda.
27 posted on 3/26/2014 10:29:15 AM by ansel12
I assumed you posted that to me originally because you disagreed with the assessment that federal drug laws as they currently exist are an unconstitutional abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Now I'm starting to think you might be just plain rude, and feel the need to inject your opinions about homosexuals into other people's conversations that have nothing to do with that.
You just make things up.
You posted post 16 and I posted post 27 to you, there wasn’t any confusion, and now after all this time and seeing those posts repeatedly post 193 for instance, you decide to pretend you were confused.
Your posts ramble and contradict, and conflict with each other, you just make up stuff out of the blue, it’s no wonder you are so misguided politically.
Just look at your post 16 and my post 27 and quit pretending that you are not afraid to respond honestly to my post 27.
You detest this because it confronts your liberalism.
“”Remember that abortion and gay marriage in the military and for federal employees, and in immigration, and homosexuals in the military, are all federal.
We need to select candidates who are against liberalism at all levels, from city hall to the state, to the Senate and Presidency, whether negotiating with a County union, or state legislation on gay marriage or abortion, or marriage recognition and abortion in the military, and not let them exist as leaders who support the left’s causes, by pretending that they are forced to support the left’s agenda.””
I'm not afraid to, I just don't care.
I was discussing the drug laws and the Commerce Clause. Then you come along with that. Okay, you're anti-gay agenda and anti-abortion. We all are here. That doesn't make you special and entitle you to have everyone stop whatever it is they're doing an pay attention to you every time you feel like opening your mouth.
What is obvious is that only drugs and liberalism interest you, that is why you will rant endlessly on promoting drugs, and use the constitution to promote drugs and legalization, but what is obvious is that that is the sum total of your interest in the constitution. it’s usefulness to you to promote your leftwing agenda.
You did offer support to “assisted suicide, gay marriage, etc - they become the Fed Govt’s biggest cheerleaders.” in post 16,
but you refuse to defend that position, because you know that it will reveal just how totally devoted to the left your use of the constitution and politics is.
Pot is an illegal drug in most places. The only way to buy an illegal drug, is in the black market, from a criminal drug dealer. Criminal drug dealers often also sell other “harder” drugs. Such criminal drug dealers have an interest in getting you hooked on those harder drugs. The only “gateway”, is in front of your drug dealer's house.
Where pot has been legalized, you can buy it from a law-abiding business person (just as you can buy aspirin from many legal businesses). You are not exposing yourself to a criminal, with an interest in up-selling you to a harder, addictive drug.
Only in your retarded, delusional, twisted little excuse for a mind.
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.