Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still disagree that Obama prosecuting drug users has made any "conservative" pro-marijuana. Or that any "conservative" is pro-marijuana.
What would the conservatives be saying if Obama suddenly decided to legalize ganja nationwide, also providing funding through universal health care to get cheap medical reefer.
You wouldn't think so, but the term "conservative" is so bastardized that it isn't worth using anymore. Now days it means;
"I am scared of drugs, gays, and blacks. I like the idea of taxes as long as they are spent on what I want, which is war. War on things that don't actually have a noticeable effect on the world. War on terrorism, a threat to less people than bee stings or accidental choking while asleep. A war on plants and substances, one we can throw tons of money at .. even if we can't keep drugs out of high-security prisons."
It just doesn't hold any connotations of small government or emphasis on freedom anymore. Heck, now days "conservatives" think they have "freedom" from things that they don't like. They literally don't know the meaning of the word.
So yeah, if you were reading a poli-sci book or political philosophy, cannabis legalization would be a conservative issue, by those standards it is a liberal issue as well.
Now liberals and conservatives are just names for nasty stereotypes that, for some reason, lots of people embrace.
What would the conservatives be saying if Obama suddenly decided to legalize ganja nationwide, also providing funding through universal health care to get cheap medical reefer.
They would be against it, "conservatives" (See neo-cons) are already anti-pot and anti-Obama.
I would be against tax-payer funded marijuana, but I would be wholly in support of national legalization.
I was saying that you shouldn't confuse people like myself with "conservatives". A lot of people think I am a conservative because I rip on liberals, a lot of conservatives think I am liberal because I rip on them.
I prefer the term "freedom orientated" for people like me, it is specific. We, like the founding fathers of this country, believe that the ultimate political goal is furthering the cause of human freedom.
They would be against it, "conservatives" (See neo-cons) are already anti-pot and anti-Obama.
I was saying that you shouldn't confuse people like myself with "conservatives". A lot of people think I am a conservative because I rip on liberals, a lot of conservatives think I am liberal because I rip on them.
I prefer the term "freedom orientated" for people like me, it is specific. We, like the founding fathers of this country, believe that the ultimate political goal is furthering the cause of human freedom.
Well in that case, where do I sign up? Although I do think that freedom is just an illusion created by man. To be truly free there would be no government but then the world would live in anarchy thus creating ultimate freedom but destroying humanity.
You would think, but the term is so bastardized that it isn't worth using anymore. Now days it means;
"I am scared of drugs, gays, and blacks. I like the idea of taxes as long as they are spent on what I want, which is war. War on things that don't actually have a noticeable effect on the world. War on terrorism, a threat to less people than bee stings or accidental choking while asleep. A war on plants and substances, one we can throw tons of money at .. even if we can't keep drugs out of high-security prisons."
It just doesn't hold any connotations of small government or emphasis on freedom anymore. Heck, now days "conservatives" think they have "freedom" from things that they don't like. They literally don't know the meaning of the word.
So yeah, if you were reading a poli-sci book or political philosophy, cannabis legalization would be a conservative issue, by those standards it is a liberal issue as well.
Now liberals and conservatives are just names for nasty stereotypes that, for some reason, lots of people embrace.
In short you just described neo-cons to a tee. Which is why the Republican party is NOT the party of small government that they proclaim to be. Furthermore, politics has resorted to that of a sporting event, given the partisan hackery and all of the smack talk! Yeah hooray go team! Can't wait for the 2 main parties to put up 2 equally pitiful candidates to choose from, tell us how voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote, or a vote for the "other guy" as they continue to destroy this country and the ideals that it was founded on!
In short you just described neo-cons to a tee. Which is why the Republican party is NOT the party of small government that they proclaim to be. Furthermore, politics has resorted to that of a sporting event, given the partisan hackery and all of the smack talk! Yeah hooray go team! Can't wait for the 2 main parties to put up 2 equally pitiful candidates to choose from, tell us how voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote, or a vote for the "other guy" as they continue to destroy this country and the ideals that it was founded on!
Republicans are in favor of small government, as long as that government is exclusively run by them and large corporations. They also need to monitor everyone at all times to thwart free thinking.
Republicans are in favor of small government, as long as that government is exclusively run by them and large corporations. They also need to monitor everyone at all times to thwart free thinking.
Both parties do this, and enjoy getting their palms greased by the mega corps, and the elitists. Again, at least the Democrats are more open about their ploy for further expanding the federal government, which is ironic given the lack of transparency with this current administration.
Well in that case, where do I sign up? Although I do think that freedom is just an illusion created by man. To be truly free there would be no government but then the world would live in anarchy thus creating ultimate freedom but destroying humanity.
Yes, the ultimate end of human freedom would eventually be anarchy, but anarchy does NOT mean "without law", it means "without rulers". Human rights is a law system unto itself, that not only limits what the individual can do if it infringes upon another, but it also limits what government can do. What is government other than a group of people who claim legitimacy?
This would not destroy humanity, it would foster it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't wait for the 2 main parties to put up 2 equally pitiful candidates to choose from, tell us how voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote, or a vote for the "other guy" as they continue to destroy this country and the ideals that it was founded on!
