Ironic: Defending Bundy and Opposing Non-Violent Drug Offenders

ClosedCaption

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2010
53,233
6,719
In several threads its been said from Bundy defenders that the state is making regular people criminals when they have silly ass laws on the books. So they defend Bundy who was breaking the law (and making a profit?) and scream lock 'em up to people who broke drug laws and are non violent.

What gives here?
 
The dichotomy has nothing to do with the actual merits of either issue. If Bushii were potus, they'd sing the exact opposite tune.
 
So you are seriously comparing taking care of cattle with the narcotics trade?
 
So you are seriously comparing taking care of cattle with the narcotics trade?

You always manage to put an unbelieveable spin on things. No Avatar I am actually comparing Mad Cow to Cheech and Chong.

Bye stupid
 
So you are seriously comparing taking care of cattle with the narcotics trade?

he tries tobe clever but it always backfires. Basically he is comparing both, which is rediculous, but my question is, if these people are so innocuous, why do theyneed the president to help em out?
 
In several threads its been said from Bundy defenders that the state is making regular people criminals when they have silly ass laws on the books. So they defend Bundy who was breaking the law (and making a profit?) and scream lock 'em up to people who broke drug laws and are non violent.

What gives here?

Funny, I was thinking it is absurd to support clemency for drug offenders and simultaneously insist that the government is justified in apply draconian laws to Bundy. If only there was someone who actually thought the government was wrong in both cases.

Wait, there is, me.
 
Then there are those of who feel the whole Bundy thing could have been handled in a way that wasn't so obviously aimed at intimidating ALL Americans. At the same time believing that drug users ought not be prosecuted. The dealers could be easily put out of business by simply providing anyone unlimited supplies of their drug of choice with no stigma attached. Those who could handle it responsibly would do so. Most would do themselves in, quickly minimizing the problem.
 
In several threads its been said from Bundy defenders that the state is making regular people criminals when they have silly ass laws on the books. So they defend Bundy who was breaking the law (and making a profit?) and scream lock 'em up to people who broke drug laws and are non violent.

What gives here?

Aren't you being just as hypocritical, only in reverse?
 

Forum List

Back
Top