Issues of Rand Paul

[Salty]

Paul's stand on two issues:

"Regarding marijuana, he said it’s “a huge mistake” for nonviolent offenders to serve jail terms because it not only exacerbates the situation with overcrowded lockups but also punishes younger Americans for what many consider a societal norm."

Regarding same-sex marriage, Paul said the issue belongs to the states.

“Marriage has been a state issue for hundreds and hundreds of years,” he said. “I don’t want the government promoting something I don’t believe in, but I also don’t mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue.”

 

[church mouse guy]

The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 said that the federal government could outlaw polygamy amongst Mormons so I disagree that the federal government has not had a say in marriage.

 

[poncho]

Shame on Rand for calling a failed policy a failed policy and putting states right ahead of questionable federal authority.

What is he thinking? Just goes to show he ain't the average republican fedcoat today's republicrats prefer I guess.

 

[Salty]

Shame on Rand for calling a failed policy a failed policy and putting states right ahead of questionable federal authority.

What is he thinking? Just goes to show he ain't the average republican fedcoat today's republicrats prefer I guess.

Since I am a little dense Poncho, Please correct me if I am wrong:

1) You believe that homosexual marriage should be legal in the United States
2) You believe that marijuana should be decriminalized in the United States

 

[poncho]

Since I am a little dense Poncho, Please correct me if I am wrong:

1) You believe that homosexual marriage should be legal in the United States
2) You believe that marijuana should be decriminalized in the United States

1) I believe the matter should be left up to the states. My belief in whether homosexual marriage should be legal or not is irrelevant.

2) I believe a failed policy should be called a failed policy and should be abandoned in favor of a policy that has more promise of success and that costs way less in terms of money and harm it causes society. Again my belief in whether or not marijuana should be decriminalized is irrelevant.

3) I believe that's just plain old common sense. When a policy has proven to be of more harm than good it's a failed policy and alternative policies should be considered.

But then I've noticed your average conservative has abandoned common sense long ago. Most would rather watch millions of people go on suffering under a long failed policy than admit they are wrong. Some will even go so far as to stamp their feet and go off on anyone that tries to reason with them using facts and evidence that proves the "war on drugs" is a total and complete failure.

Let's face it Salty conservatives want to keep drugs illegal because it makes them feel good about themselves not because it helps keep people off drugs because the prohibition of drugs hasn't done that at all. But it has created more violence and criminal activity that has you all begging for even more police powers and stricter punishments for "offenders".

 

[Salty]

I ask a very simple question - and it is not answered. So simple - all I needed was a yes or no.

Further explanation is acceptable, but first answer the question. It would not surprise me if Poncho is one the advisor's to Presidential candidates during the debates. One reason, I have stopped watching them is candidates normally do not answer the question - they sidestep the issues.

 

[poncho]

I ask a very simple question - and it is not answered. So simple - all I needed was a yes or no.

Further explanation is acceptable, but first answer the question. It would not surprise me if Poncho is one the advisor's to Presidential candidates during the debates. One reason, I have stopped watching them is candidates normally do not answer the question - they sidestep the issues.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet Salty? Yes or no? Simple enough question right?

Here's the deal, you stop asking rigged questions and I'll give yes or no answers.

You set a trap and I evaded it. Get over it. And the worst part is it wasn't even that good of a trap. I expected more from you buddy. I spoke to the issues when you wanted to trick me into to talking about what I believe in instead. Who's really side stepping the issues here?

What are the issues according to Salty again? Let's see . . . individual rights vs what makes conservatives feel good about themselves or better than someone else, and a long failed policy vs what makes conservatives feel good about themselves or better than someone else. Right?

 

[Salty]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet Salty? Yes or no? Simple enough question right??

Yes, that is a rigged question

But, my questions were not rigged

What are the issues according to Salty again? Let's see . . . individual rights vs what makes conservatives feel good about themselves or better than someone else, and a long failed policy vs what makes conservatives feel good about themselves or better than someone else. Right?

Its too bad that you cannot see things clearly, then you might really understand where I stand on the issues.

Salty?

PS Since the Ponch doesn't know who to answer simple questions - I open it up the floor to anyone else that would like to answer

 

[poncho]

Yes, that is a rigged question

But, my questions were not rigged



Its too bad that you cannot see things clearly, then you might really understand where I stand on the issues.

Salty?

PS Since the Ponch doesn't know who to answer simple questions - I open it up the floor to anyone else that would like to answer

Your "questions" were more allegations against me personally than questions Salty, you know it and now you know I know it. I'm pretty sure others know it too.

You want to discuss the issues then discuss the issues instead of trying in vain to frame accusations as questions. You ain't fooling anybody here, not even yourself. But I guess you have to try huh?

By all means lets discuss the issues, the real issues and leave our personal differences out of it. And let's use facts instead of emotions to make our arguments for a change. Facts, you remember them don't ya? Facts like the "war on drugs" is a total failure that has caused more harm than good. Facts like since the start of the "war on drugs" drug use and availability of drugs has increased instead of decreased. Facts like since the "war on drugs" started gang violence and government corruption has increased instead of decreased.

Facts like you'd rather see the violence and corruption go on and on and on instead of admitting what everyone knew since the Valentine's Day massacre.

Prohibition doesn't work and never will. You know it, we all know it but I admit it and and say we should try another approach instead of continuing a failed policy that has increased crime and violence and wastes 80 some billion dollars a years doing it.

 

[Salty]

Your "questions" were more allegations against me personally than questions Salty, you know it and now you know I know it. I'm pretty sure others know it too. .

They were? and why put quotes around questions?
So who else thinks those questions were allegations against Ponch? [/QUOTE]

1) I believe the matter should be left up to the states. My belief in whether homosexual marriage should be legal or not is irrelevant. ...

First - What States or Commonwealths do in this matter very well can affect the Federal Govt.

Second, I could just see Poncho asking a candidate a question and receiving the answer of "My belief in whether undocumented immigrants should be given citizenship or not is irrelevant."

No, we want to know where a person stands on an issue!

I remember years ago the Conservative Party of West Virginia was interviewing a candidate for the WV House of Delegates. We asked him a question about the Death Penalty - and after rephrasing a couple of times - he kept dancing around the issue. He did not get our endorsement. Yes, we want to know where a person stands on an issue!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So who else thinks those questions were allegations against Ponch?

They were a little bit...even if you didn't intend them to be.

First - What States or Commonwealths do in this matter very well can affect the Federal Govt.

It can and does.

Second, I could just see Poncho asking a candidate a question and receiving the answer of "My belief in whether undocumented immigrants should be given citizenship or not is irrelevant."

I can't....Because Ponch obviously seems to understand the enumerations of powers and the limits of Federal power enough to know that Immigration IS a Federal issue, whereas Marriage laws are NOT.

No, we want to know where a person stands on an issue!

It depends on what office he is running for. Paul is speaking as a FEDERAL politician. As such, his clear statment that say, Marriage, is not an issue for him to adjudicate on is indeed relevant. It may be desirous to ask them what they personally believe...but it wouldn't be any of their business to attempt to pass laws pertaining to the subject.

I remember years ago the Conservative Party of West Virginia was interviewing a candidate for the WV House of Delegates. We asked him a question about the Death Penalty - and after rephrasing a couple of times - he kept dancing around the issue. He did not get our endorsement. Yes, we want to know where a person stands on an issue!

The state of West Virginia has the power to deprive a convicted criminal of "life and limb". Therefore, he should answer the question succinctly. Similarly, so does the Federal Government in the prosecution of uniquely Federal Crimes such as Treason etc...

However, a Federal Politician is well within reason to say that an issue is one uniquely for the States to decide, and that therefore the Federal Government should "butt-out" of the issue.

 

[Oldtimer]

However, a Federal Politician is well within reason to say that an issue is one uniquely for the States to decide, and that therefore the Federal Government should "butt-out" of the issue.

That's it in a nutshell.

Few Federal politicians concede that states have the right to decide anything.

Much of the blame for this resides within the states themselves. State governments gave away their representation in the Senate. States took the fed's money, with strings attached, and made themselves dependent on this welfare. Thus making the 10th Amendment null and void for all practical purposes.

:thumbsup: to any Federal Politician who acknowledges there is a 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.