If I represent any faction it's the law and order conservative one. And they favor cutting off welfare. So let's not mischaracterize my position in order to make an argument.
I'm making my argument by pointing out your position; -- not "mischaracturizing" it.
--- 'Social benefit programs' give you prohibitionists the excuse needed for more control over society. - Which is the main agenda.
Nice spin on your normal agitprop tho... [paulsen supports] socialist style prohibitions on most any-damn-thing.
--- Coupled with constantly supporting 'majority rule' schemes...
Anyone that committed to 'controlling society' is suspect in my estimation .
paulsen: I'll end the suspense -- I'm anti-welfare.
How bout if the people so rule? What's to stop out of control welfare schemes in a State where paulsen says the US Constitution can be ignored?
How the citizens of some state vote to rule themselves doesn't affect me or my philosophy.
Anti-constitutional prohibitions affect all of us.
I'm pro-gun, but if the people of California vote to prohibit certain weapons, who am I to criticize?
There you go, proving you're a pro-gun prohibitionist.
If they vote to provide free education and free welfare to their citizens, why is this any skin off my nose?
There you go, proving you're a pro- welfare socialist.
As long as their decisions don't affect me, they can do whatever their state constitution allows.
Anti-constitutional state enactments affect all of citizens of the USA.
(That's the definition of federalism, by the way, the type of government our Founding Fathers established. If you had forgotton.)
Our US Constitution is our supreme law. [if you had forgotton] -- Read Art VI.
I've got my hands full in Illinois, for crying out loud.
The people of Illinois, and California, and a number of other states all have there "hands full" due to majority rule zealots who ignore our Constitution..
The Texas sodomy law was deemed an "anti-constitutional state enactment" -- were you affected by that?