Marijuana and the definition of conservative

[kaz]

Those "you live among" is not really an accurate way to determine the views of an entire state, that's really flawed actually.

Anyway, sorry Democrats have always been more in favor of gay marriage than the wingnuts. Just look at this board as an example.

not for S.Cal it aint....its pretty accurate.....N.Cal is like a different state....

The two sides of the same state having their little bitch fest means nothing to me.

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

You're asking where the Republican party is in California? Seriously? The State where the elections are between two Democrats because they finish first and second?

Have you ever been to California?

OMG, really?

There is a Republican party in California and they are especially bad at being competitive. They didn't endorse marijuana legalization in 2016, the California Democratic Party did. Which party is the conservative one?

Yep, you're not going to let it go that we're both on your side on this. Democrats are really strange people. Sure, there's your overt stupidity, but it's more than that

I'm not debating your views. I'm debating the notion that conservatives have been for legalization traditionally. Please stop sidetracking, idiot.

Great. But neither of us argued that they were. Thanks for clarifying your shade of stupid though

Really? I'm actually not debating you, you're just being a pain in the ass.

EMH said:
There is no question that the post 1998 GOP, controlled by Zionist "RINOs" who pander to incredibly stupid pro Israel Christians, are overwhelmingly against marijuana in public. Prior to 1998, there were more pre 1998 republicans musing it over, discussing the math, trying to design policy to help America instead of harm...

So, Reagan was before 1998 where did he stand? How about George H.W. Bush?

There truly was never a real conservative movement to legalize marijuana even if William F. Buckley said something once.

He was CRITICIZING conservatives for not being against the drug war, not saying they were against the drug war.

You're a special kind of stupid.

That your meltdown continued to grow and grow while you AGREED with both of us was one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen on the board

Well, I'm bringing him back down to earth on the pre 1998 conservatives as well. OK? Last I checked Reagan couldn't remember his own name by 98.

Well, he was 87. Biden doesn't remember his own name now and he's only 78

 

[HappyJoy]

Those "you live among" is not really an accurate way to determine the views of an entire state, that's really flawed actually.

Anyway, sorry Democrats have always been more in favor of gay marriage than the wingnuts. Just look at this board as an example.

not for S.Cal it aint....its pretty accurate.....N.Cal is like a different state....

The two sides of the same state having their little bitch fest means nothing to me.

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

You're asking where the Republican party is in California? Seriously? The State where the elections are between two Democrats because they finish first and second?

Have you ever been to California?

OMG, really?

There is a Republican party in California and they are especially bad at being competitive. They didn't endorse marijuana legalization in 2016, the California Democratic Party did. Which party is the conservative one?

Yep, you're not going to let it go that we're both on your side on this. Democrats are really strange people. Sure, there's your overt stupidity, but it's more than that

I'm not debating your views. I'm debating the notion that conservatives have been for legalization traditionally. Please stop sidetracking, idiot.

Great. But neither of us argued that they were. Thanks for clarifying your shade of stupid though

Really? I'm actually not debating you, you're just being a pain in the ass.

EMH said:
There is no question that the post 1998 GOP, controlled by Zionist "RINOs" who pander to incredibly stupid pro Israel Christians, are overwhelmingly against marijuana in public. Prior to 1998, there were more pre 1998 republicans musing it over, discussing the math, trying to design policy to help America instead of harm...

So, Reagan was before 1998 where did he stand? How about George H.W. Bush?

There truly was never a real conservative movement to legalize marijuana even if William F. Buckley said something once.

He was CRITICIZING conservatives for not being against the drug war, not saying they were against the drug war.

You're a special kind of stupid.

That your meltdown continued to grow and grow while you AGREED with both of us was one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen on the board

Well, I'm bringing him back down to earth on the pre 1998 conservatives as well. OK? Last I checked Reagan couldn't remember his own name by 98.

Well, he was 87. Biden doesn't remember his own name now and he's only 78

Why are you changing the subject? Reagan, had his heyday before 1998. Focus.

 

[kaz]

Those "you live among" is not really an accurate way to determine the views of an entire state, that's really flawed actually.

Anyway, sorry Democrats have always been more in favor of gay marriage than the wingnuts. Just look at this board as an example.

not for S.Cal it aint....its pretty accurate.....N.Cal is like a different state....

The two sides of the same state having their little bitch fest means nothing to me.

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

You're asking where the Republican party is in California? Seriously? The State where the elections are between two Democrats because they finish first and second?

Have you ever been to California?

OMG, really?

There is a Republican party in California and they are especially bad at being competitive. They didn't endorse marijuana legalization in 2016, the California Democratic Party did. Which party is the conservative one?

Yep, you're not going to let it go that we're both on your side on this. Democrats are really strange people. Sure, there's your overt stupidity, but it's more than that

I'm not debating your views. I'm debating the notion that conservatives have been for legalization traditionally. Please stop sidetracking, idiot.

Great. But neither of us argued that they were. Thanks for clarifying your shade of stupid though

Really? I'm actually not debating you, you're just being a pain in the ass.

EMH said:
There is no question that the post 1998 GOP, controlled by Zionist "RINOs" who pander to incredibly stupid pro Israel Christians, are overwhelmingly against marijuana in public. Prior to 1998, there were more pre 1998 republicans musing it over, discussing the math, trying to design policy to help America instead of harm...

So, Reagan was before 1998 where did he stand? How about George H.W. Bush?

There truly was never a real conservative movement to legalize marijuana even if William F. Buckley said something once.

He was CRITICIZING conservatives for not being against the drug war, not saying they were against the drug war.

You're a special kind of stupid.

That your meltdown continued to grow and grow while you AGREED with both of us was one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen on the board

Well, I'm bringing him back down to earth on the pre 1998 conservatives as well. OK? Last I checked Reagan couldn't remember his own name by 98.

Well, he was 87. Biden doesn't remember his own name now and he's only 78

Why are you changing the subject? Reagan, had his heyday before 1998. Focus.

I changed the subject because you did. You seriously aren't a bright guy

 

[Harry Dresden]

A conservative, at least when that word had a real definition, meant being inherently against expanding government power and authority. Conservatism embraces freedom and privacy, and only real threat to others would justify changing and supporting increasing government at the expense of freedom and privacy.

You work a full day. You come home

You have a beer

Or

You have a bong hit


Neither activity would in any way bother a conservative. But here we are with self proclaimed "conservatives" embracing increased government power and authority at the expense of freedom and privacy over ... A plant.

Nice.


The origin of marijuana prohibition is a case study of the truth of conservatism, that big government should not be trusted, and that those in government will lie and spread fear and panic to keep themselves in power. The head of prohibition knew prohibition was going to be repealed (because the church going sub human morons who pushed it had no clue what they were doing, and in the end the American people figured out that al Capone was worse than alcohol). So this guy created a new issue, a new cause, to keep his job and title and budget etc. marijuana was the target. Using American taxdollars, this uber greedy kleptocratic traitor funded the making of mass misinfo about marijuana, most famously the movie Reefer Madness, which many morons still believe. In reality, by pushing marijuana underground, we enriched and empowered criminal elements here and abroad, and packed our prisons with people who are not a threat to society.

The war on marijuana is the epitome of BIG GOVERNMENT using lies, falsehoods, propaganda, and the law to do unreal harm to America and abroad for the sole purpose of enriching and empowering liars in government.

Nobody who opposes total marijuana legalization is in any way a conservative.

The pot haters are classic morons with bird brains filled with falsehoods who want big government to rescue them from the bogeyman.....

Neat. It's funny how liberals have usually been more open to marijuana legalization.

What about the right to marry the one you love without the government telling you that it's icky? Traditionally where have conservatives stood on that?

What about the right to marry the one you love without the government telling you that it's icky?
that was voted down twice in California.....and yes lots of liberals voted it down......

Over a decade ago. Gay marriage is supported by most Californians.

Maybe try living in the here and now.

is it?.....how long have you lived there?.....

If you're referring to California I have a lot of friends and family there but anecdotal stories aren't going to get you anywhere.

It's long been known that gay marriage has approval in California, even way back in 2013.

Poll Finds Record Support for Same-Sex Marriage in California

The same week the Obama administration filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a new Field Poll was r…

fivethirtyeight.com

View attachment 510880

Not exactly shocking when you consider most of the country is just fine with gay marriage.

yea lots of friends....how many?....so you are just going by some ones opinion that you know......we were told back during those propositions that the state democrats were for gay marriage back then,gee look what happened with those propositions.......you are just another who lives many miles away going by what someone tells you about California....there are lots of Mexicans in California,especially the men, who are not that comfortable with gays....S.Cal is very different than N.Cal....and please dont tell me that someone took a poll of the Hispanics in S.Cal....you get their true attitudes by actually knowing many....

I grew up there, idiot.

Why would someone just take a poll of Hispanics when looking for the totality of public opinion on gay marriage? No wonder you don't trust polls, you don't even understand them.

Gay marriage has popular support in California and across the country, deal with it.

who cares if you grew up there ....when did you leave and was it northern or southern cal.....and no i trust what i see and hear with those i live among over some dumbass poll...and after 50 years living in the middle of Hispanics.....the men dont care for "maricons"....and i voted for gay marriage twice....it aint my fault if your wonderful party did not do the same back then....so deal with that asswipe....

Those "you live among" is not really an accurate way to determine the views of an entire state, that's really flawed actually.

Anyway, sorry Democrats have always been more in favor of gay marriage than the wingnuts. Just look at this board as an example.

not for S.Cal it aint....its pretty accurate.....N.Cal is like a different state....

The two sides of the same state having their little bitch fest means nothing to me.

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

i can care less were they were.....

 

[HappyJoy]

Those "you live among" is not really an accurate way to determine the views of an entire state, that's really flawed actually.

Anyway, sorry Democrats have always been more in favor of gay marriage than the wingnuts. Just look at this board as an example.

not for S.Cal it aint....its pretty accurate.....N.Cal is like a different state....

The two sides of the same state having their little bitch fest means nothing to me.

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

You're asking where the Republican party is in California? Seriously? The State where the elections are between two Democrats because they finish first and second?

Have you ever been to California?

OMG, really?

There is a Republican party in California and they are especially bad at being competitive. They didn't endorse marijuana legalization in 2016, the California Democratic Party did. Which party is the conservative one?

Yep, you're not going to let it go that we're both on your side on this. Democrats are really strange people. Sure, there's your overt stupidity, but it's more than that

I'm not debating your views. I'm debating the notion that conservatives have been for legalization traditionally. Please stop sidetracking, idiot.

Great. But neither of us argued that they were. Thanks for clarifying your shade of stupid though

Really? I'm actually not debating you, you're just being a pain in the ass.

EMH said:
There is no question that the post 1998 GOP, controlled by Zionist "RINOs" who pander to incredibly stupid pro Israel Christians, are overwhelmingly against marijuana in public. Prior to 1998, there were more pre 1998 republicans musing it over, discussing the math, trying to design policy to help America instead of harm...

So, Reagan was before 1998 where did he stand? How about George H.W. Bush?

There truly was never a real conservative movement to legalize marijuana even if William F. Buckley said something once.

He was CRITICIZING conservatives for not being against the drug war, not saying they were against the drug war.

You're a special kind of stupid.

That your meltdown continued to grow and grow while you AGREED with both of us was one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen on the board

Well, I'm bringing him back down to earth on the pre 1998 conservatives as well. OK? Last I checked Reagan couldn't remember his own name by 98.

Well, he was 87. Biden doesn't remember his own name now and he's only 78

Why are you changing the subject? Reagan, had his heyday before 1998. Focus.

I changed the subject because you did. You seriously aren't a bright guy

I didn't. EMH brought up pre 1998 Republicans so, I named some. You brought up Biden. I have no idea why.

 

[kaz]

Those "you live among" is not really an accurate way to determine the views of an entire state, that's really flawed actually.

Anyway, sorry Democrats have always been more in favor of gay marriage than the wingnuts. Just look at this board as an example.

not for S.Cal it aint....its pretty accurate.....N.Cal is like a different state....

The two sides of the same state having their little bitch fest means nothing to me.

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

You're asking where the Republican party is in California? Seriously? The State where the elections are between two Democrats because they finish first and second?

Have you ever been to California?

OMG, really?

There is a Republican party in California and they are especially bad at being competitive. They didn't endorse marijuana legalization in 2016, the California Democratic Party did. Which party is the conservative one?

Yep, you're not going to let it go that we're both on your side on this. Democrats are really strange people. Sure, there's your overt stupidity, but it's more than that

I'm not debating your views. I'm debating the notion that conservatives have been for legalization traditionally. Please stop sidetracking, idiot.

Great. But neither of us argued that they were. Thanks for clarifying your shade of stupid though

Really? I'm actually not debating you, you're just being a pain in the ass.

EMH said:
There is no question that the post 1998 GOP, controlled by Zionist "RINOs" who pander to incredibly stupid pro Israel Christians, are overwhelmingly against marijuana in public. Prior to 1998, there were more pre 1998 republicans musing it over, discussing the math, trying to design policy to help America instead of harm...

So, Reagan was before 1998 where did he stand? How about George H.W. Bush?

There truly was never a real conservative movement to legalize marijuana even if William F. Buckley said something once.

He was CRITICIZING conservatives for not being against the drug war, not saying they were against the drug war.

You're a special kind of stupid.

That your meltdown continued to grow and grow while you AGREED with both of us was one of the most hysterical things I've ever seen on the board

Well, I'm bringing him back down to earth on the pre 1998 conservatives as well. OK? Last I checked Reagan couldn't remember his own name by 98.

Well, he was 87. Biden doesn't remember his own name now and he's only 78

Why are you changing the subject? Reagan, had his heyday before 1998. Focus.

I changed the subject because you did. You seriously aren't a bright guy

I didn't. EMH brought up pre 1998 Republicans so, I named some. You brought up Biden. I have no idea why.

And you'll never know since you've clearly demonstrated that your going back and re-reading things you missed isn't an option.

I don't believe EMH ever made the argument before or after 1998 that Republicans opposed the war on drugs. You're going to have to take that bit up with him. Already told you numerous times that he and I agreed that we oppose the war on drugs and we agree that the Republicans are wrong when they supported it.

Are you going to melt down again while you agree with that? That was funny

 

[zaangalewa]

How does making marijuana illegal protect our most productive, law-abiding citizens? ...

Legal made marijuana kills their children.

So does snow skiing and swimming pools; do we make those illegal, too? In fact, so does high-school football. Let's ban that. ...

You have absolutelly not any idea what you try to speak about, isn't it? That's what marijuana is doing with you.

• Impaired memory.
• Problems with thinking and problem-solving.
• Lung inflammation, infection, and chronic pulmonary issues.
• Heart attack.
• Severe nausea and vomiting.
• Depression and anxiety.
• Psychotic features, such as delusions and hallucinations.
• Dependence and withdrawal symptoms.
• Addiction.

You have only one chance: Fight! Stop it! Now! Do not use drugs! Never! Under no circumstances!

Amazing how Michael phelps won all those gold medals....

Michael Phelps? You think Michael Phelbs never learned from the mistakes he made when he was young boy and drove drunken car and made an idiotic photo with a so called "bong"?

The pot haters and the global warmers are very much alike....

Sure. Realists who don't run away in front of real problems.

Filled with fear and falsehoods to be parroted over and over...

The psych profession must have a term for it. When a moron is filled with fear over lies, said moron spazzes and endlessly parrots the lies, denying hard proof the lies are lies.....

Delusional sub human marijuana/co2 hating syndrome

???

Who not fears drugs also not not fears hell. Hell is the place where everyone is happy - as long as the devil gives drugs for free.

Hell gives drugs for free = w and the "conservative" post 1998 republicans socializing senior drugs so you can get your opium OxyContin for free!!

Parroting church and media = no truth in birdbrain

Be happy. The packing density of neurons in the brain of a bird is by the way higher than in the brain of a mammal like you. So perhaps you should listen what the parrot of Captain Hook says to you.

 

[Harry Dresden]

How does making marijuana illegal protect our most productive, law-abiding citizens? ...

Legal made marijuana kills their children.

So does snow skiing and swimming pools; do we make those illegal, too? In fact, so does high-school football. Let's ban that. ...

You have absolutelly not any idea what you try to speak about, isn't it? That's what marijuana is doing with you.

• Impaired memory.
• Problems with thinking and problem-solving.
• Lung inflammation, infection, and chronic pulmonary issues.
• Heart attack.
• Severe nausea and vomiting.
• Depression and anxiety.
• Psychotic features, such as delusions and hallucinations.
• Dependence and withdrawal symptoms.
• Addiction.

You have only one chance: Fight! Stop it! Now! Do not use drugs! Never! Under no circumstances!

Amazing how Michael phelps won all those gold medals....

Michael Phelps? You think Michael Phelbs never learned from the mistakes he made when he was young boy and drove drunken car and made an idiotic photo with a so called "bong"?

The pot haters and the global warmers are very much alike....

Sure. Realists who don't run away in front of real problems.

Filled with fear and falsehoods to be parroted over and over...

The psych profession must have a term for it. When a moron is filled with fear over lies, said moron spazzes and endlessly parrots the lies, denying hard proof the lies are lies.....

Delusional sub human marijuana/co2 hating syndrome

???

Who not fears drugs also not not fears hell. Hell is the place where everyone is happy - as long as the devil gives drugs for free.

Hell gives drugs for free = w and the "conservative" post 1998 republicans socializing senior drugs so you can get your opium OxyContin for free!!

Parroting church and media = no truth in birdbrain

Be happy. The packing density of neurons in the brain of a bird is by the way higher than in the brain of a mammal like you. So perhaps you should listen what the parrot of Captain Hook says to you.

but we have something those birds dont have.....hands with opposable thumbs......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fiscal conservatism is finanical restraint

Actually not – it’s rightwing hypocrisy.

Conservatives exhibit no ‘fiscal restraint’ when it comes to unnecessary, wasteful military spending, corporate/agri-welfare, and reckless, irresponsible tax cuts that explode the deficit.

 

[kaz]

Fiscal conservatism is finanical restraint

Actually not – it’s rightwing hypocrisy.

Conservatives exhibit no ‘fiscal restraint’ when it comes to unnecessary, wasteful military spending, corporate/agri-welfare, and reckless, irresponsible tax cuts that explode the deficit.

You're intentionally conflating Republican with conservative and you don't know what you are talking about. They aren't the same thing. Republicans haven't run a conservative for president since Reagan. Conservative isn't just a word, it means something.

Just like Democrats haven't run a liberal since Kennedy. You are all leftists

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Social conservatism refers to morality laws

Social conservatism refers to more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty:

Seeking to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

Seeking to violate the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans.

Social conservatism is authoritarian, seeking to compel conformity and punish dissent.

And yet again: the right’s hostility to decriminalizing marijuana is one of many examples of that authoritarianism.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Democratic Party endorsed prop. 64. Where was the California Republican party?

In Florida, medical marijuana came about only after a referendum to amend the state’s constitution – a measure aggressively opposed by the Florida Republican Party.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fiscal conservatism is finanical restraint

Actually not – it’s rightwing hypocrisy.

Conservatives exhibit no ‘fiscal restraint’ when it comes to unnecessary, wasteful military spending, corporate/agri-welfare, and reckless, irresponsible tax cuts that explode the deficit.

You're intentionally conflating Republican with conservative and you don't know what you are talking about. They aren't the same thing. Republicans haven't run a conservative for president since Reagan. Conservative isn't just a word, it means something.

Just like Democrats haven't run a liberal since Kennedy. You are all leftists

Just stating the truth and facts – conservatives show no ‘restraint’ when it comes to wasteful, unnecessary military spending.

Conservatives show no ‘restraint’ when it comes to reckless, irresponsible tax cuts.

 

[woodwork201]

So does snow skiing and swimming pools; do we make those illegal, too? In fact, so does high-school football. Let's ban that. ...

You have absolutelly not any idea what you try to speak about, isn't it? That's what marijuana is doing with you.

• Impaired memory.
• Problems with thinking and problem-solving.
• Lung inflammation, infection, and chronic pulmonary issues.
• Heart attack.
• Severe nausea and vomiting.
• Depression and anxiety.
• Psychotic features, such as delusions and hallucinations.
• Dependence and withdrawal symptoms.
• Addiction.

You have only one chance: Fight! Stop it! Now! Do not use drugs! Never! Under no circumstances!

I'm just going to assume that what appears to be idiocy in your reply might be that English is not your native language. Otherwise, you're proof that thinking problems aren't unique to pot smokers.

 

[woodwork201]

There are two kinds of men in the world ----- those who have a crush on Linda Ronstadt and those who have never heard of her. ----- Willie Nelson -----

Absolutely true statement.

 

[OKTexas]

What's the constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban the use of marijuana?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

And if I grow my own and do not trade it?

This proves you're not a conservative. That the government abuses the Commerce Clause to justify virtually any regulation it wants does not make it constitutional.

But you misunderstand the Commerce Clause and the meaning of Commerce in 1789. Commerce was the act of trading, not the production or manufacturing.
[/QUOTE]


Well child, if you had been around this forum more than a minute, you'd know I disagree with most of the supreme court precedents on the commerce clause. But until the congress and/or the States decide to rein in the court via Article 5, it is what it is.

.

 

[woodwork201]

Fiscal conservatism is finanical restraint

Social conservatism refers to morality laws

You're confusing them. You can be both or one and not the other

That's bull crap.

And social conservatism isn't about morality laws, it's about personal responsibility and accountability.

If you don't care about the government spending trillions they don't have as long as they're forcing people to live their lives the way you think they should live them then you are not a conservative; you're a socialist-style authoritarian.

If you believe that the government should spend money responsibly and wisely, conservatively, but bail should be eliminated and the borders should be open and let's give everyone a minimum cash allowance, then you are not conservative.

Specialized conservatism is to conservatism as "some of my best friends are _ _ _ _" is to racism. If you have to do either then you really aren't what you say you are.

 

[BlindBoo]

Asides that it one of the most difficult things to stop smoking is Cannabis much more toxic as it ever was before in history, because of the high concentration of THC in the genetically modified plants, which are used today.

Let me say bull shit. If there was genetically modify seeds out there we'd know it! If there is, I want some.

Poor guy. THC is damned dangerous - and the concentration today is much higher today then it ever had been in history before. And there are combinations for example togetjer with legal alcohol or other legal subtances, which are much more dangerous. And there are much more drugs. Alcohol and drugs cost health and happiness.

The only genetic modifications are from Gregor Mendel.

The myth started because of the dirt weed they tested with in the 70's was low quality. All that changed in the mid to late 80's

The Seed Bank Catalog #03 1987

The last catalog from the Seed Bank and shows "1986/1987 Edition" but was postmarked in Sept 1985. Possibly it was because they were accelerated for their time. :hubba:

www.marijuanapassion.com

Not true. The kief content of plants from the Kush valley have always been around 20%. What? You mean people are mixing THC and alcohol? Gee that was so unheard of in my day!

Better living through chemistry!

 

[woodwork201]

What's the constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban the use of marijuana?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

And if I grow my own and do not trade it?

This proves you're not a conservative. That the government abuses the Commerce Clause to justify virtually any regulation it wants does not make it constitutional.

But you misunderstand the Commerce Clause and the meaning of Commerce in 1789. Commerce was the act of trading, not the production or manufacturing.

Well child, if you had been around this forum more than a minute, you'd know I disagree with most of the supreme court precedents on the commerce clause. But until the congress and/or the States decide to rein in the court via Article 5, it is what it is.

.
[/QUOTE]

Well, child - I'm 66 years old so don't child me. I don't care that you disagree with the Supreme Court precedence on the Commerce Clause and, apparently, neither do you because you claimed it empowers them to regulate things that are not in commerce just because they say so.

So you're not a conservative, you're an authoritarian. When the Court does or says something you don't like (guns for instance) you cry out about how unconstitutional it is but when they do something you do like, using the very same misreading of the Constitution, you support them because it enforces your will on other people. Like most faux-conservatives, you're a fraud.

The Constitution says and means what it says. It doesn't matter what the Court says or doesn't say. Government may have the physical might to force compliance with unconstitutional tyranny but it doesn't make it right or constitutional. The reason they get away with it is because political cowards like yourself just accept whatever the Court says when it suits your own view of morality.

Conservatives are always conservatives. They're not situationally conservative. Conservatives may hate that people put substances into their own bodies but would die defending their right to do it. You're not a conservative.

 

[woodwork201]

The war on drugs was only one of Reagan's mistakes. His middle east policy was another bust. We should have stayed out of Lebanon and if we were there the State department should not have had the power to make the military decisions they made that got all those soldiers killed. Reagan called the 3 for 1 deal with Tip ONeil the biggest mistake of his presidency. It was

Reagan was an absolutely great, conservative, president. The problem is that for much of his presidency he was not functioning as president and the RINO, deep-state intelligence community, Bush 41, along with Reagan's RINO staff, were functionally president because of Reagan's senility. That wasn't Reagan's fault; senility comes, or will come, to most of us. But his staff should have followed his vision but followed their own RINO vision instead.