Ain't it ironic same cons who whine'bout a nanny state want drug prohibition

[Karl the Heathen]

and wanna regulate private lives?
Not the best spelling, that I reckon. Blame the characters limit, I had to cram it in.
Nice neighborhood? I used to live downtown Seattle, boy.

 

[The Taxpayer]

Drug prohibition saves crime and lives - "cons" pay for police protection through taxes and the rehabilitation of all the criminals.

 

[The Taxpayer]

Drug prohibition saves crime and lives - "cons" pay for police protection through taxes and the rehabilitation of all the criminals.

 

[mom of 3 and done!]

Where did you get your facts? So not true.

 

[connect the dots]

obviously you ain't living in a bad neighborhood

 

[bert]

Ironic...but not common.

 

[Patches O'Houlihan]

Funny that you inherently claim the left doesn't want to regulate private lives while you support a healthcare bill that regulates private lives on a scale never before seen in America and clearly unconstitutional. You're funny.

 

[Thank You]

Drug prohibition is too vague. The only drug that has a legit case to be legalized is weed , the rest is way to dangerous to let it be used in the open.

It would be ironic if a drug user kills you in a car crash.

 

[Pro Con]

I am a fiscally conservative Republican. I don't care what you do in your bedroom but I do care that the government you've saddled me with wants to make my personal decisions for me.

For example, I prefer to choose my charities and I generally pick one that says thank you once in a while instead of behaving as if I owe it to them.

I mostly side with my libertarian/Libertarian friends, but I'm working from within the Republican Party, like Ron Paul, because it's the only place from which to accomplish something for fiscal conservatives.

 

[Asquared]

And hypocritical. But what else do you expect from a Neo-conservative?

 

[Jake]

Boy, hearing you talk like that, you certainly sound intelligent (sarcasm).

 

[Syllogistic Libertarian]

Not ironic, but definitely hypocritical. That isn't surprising though. Both conservatives and liberals want to restrict freedom, the only difference is in exactly which freedoms they want to restrict. Conservatives don't want people to be drug addicted baby murdering scumbags, liberals don't want people to be exploitative polluting murderers of the economically disadvantaged. Either way I'm losing freedom to decide for myself how I want to live and what I want to do with my money.

Libertarians and anarchists are consistent in their defense of freedom and a desire to eradicate government intrusion into our private lives. If anyone else is, I haven't see any evidence.

 

[Syllogistic Libertarian]

Not ironic, but definitely hypocritical. That isn't surprising though. Both conservatives and liberals want to restrict freedom, the only difference is in exactly which freedoms they want to restrict. Conservatives don't want people to be drug addicted baby murdering scumbags, liberals don't want people to be exploitative polluting murderers of the economically disadvantaged. Either way I'm losing freedom to decide for myself how I want to live and what I want to do with my money.

Libertarians and anarchists are consistent in their defense of freedom and a desire to eradicate government intrusion into our private lives. If anyone else is, I haven't see any evidence.

 

[Brent H]

There's a difference between giving people handouts and making laws. The former is unconstitutional, the latter perfectly reasonable.

I support gay union, though. I will not see it be called marriage, that is a holy joining of a man and a women, but if the STATE wants to legalize it, that's within their rights.