Snoop Dogg endorses Ron Paul, for Shizzle?

Reuters ^ | 01/30/2012 | Tim Kenneally

[Responsibility2nd]

LOS ANGELES, Jan 30 (TheWrap.com) - Snoop Dogg, throwing his weight behind Ron Paul? Politics really does make strange bedfellows -- or at least smoking buddies.

The rapper and marijuana enthusiast appeared to grant his endorsement to GOP candidate Paul on his Facebook page late Monday, posting a picture of Paul with the headline "Smoke Weed Everyday." Snoop Dogg -- born Calvin Broadus -- included the message "Because I said so" with his post.

Broadus -- whose most recent marijuana-related arrest occurred earlier this month, at the Texas border town of Sierra Blanca -- is presumably drawn to Paul due to the libertarian-leaning candidate's stance on drugs. Paul, an advocate of smaller federal government, was a co-sponsor of the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, and supports the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008.

[Marcella]

Hi, so you are a Paul supporter?

[ejonesie22]

Ya think?

[Marcella]

It’s interesting to know whom one supports.

[ejonesie22]

Indeed. Though some are rather obvious even when not trying to be.

Seems to be rampant with the Paul types...

[patlin]

I didn't say that. I put no faith in man. What I said was Paul is the only true constitutional conservative in the lot at this time and the only one who will truly work to put the constitution back into its box by giving authority back to the states that the federal govt usurped as well as work to bring the military back into its constitutional box which has been neglected for decades which is to secure our nation & borders, not those of foreigners. And please do not take this out of context. True constitutional conservatives are NOT isolationists, but rather do not interfere in foreign nations unless that foreign nation specifically requests us to do so through proper channels, which is by going through Congress 1st where the representation of “We the People” decide if the war/intervention is constitutional or not and if it is an immediate threat to our borders.

[jmc813]

Can you name one law that is not based on some moral judgment?

Gun laws.

[MEGoody]

Gun laws.

On the contrary. Gun laws are always based on someone's moral determination as to whether restrictions on gun ownership are a good thing or not.

[MEGoody]

however does one really think that government needs to be involved in orchestrating every possible moral judgment of mankind?

Even answering that calls for making a moral determination. From my perspective, the answer is a resounding no. But that doesn't change the fact that all laws are about someone's morals.

[MEGoody]

I never said I was against laws, I said I am against the federal govt legislating in this area as according to the federal constitution

I didn't say you made that statement. I merely asked for an example of a law that is not based on a moral judgment.

My guess is you haven't spent much time actually studying the US constitution and the limits of the federal govt therein have you?

What has that got to do with my challenge to provide one example of a law not based on someone's moral determination? Even the constitution is based on that. No need to get defensive just because you can't answer my question.

[Yaelle]

Admin mod, “fo’” is spelled wrong in the title.

[ErnBatavia]

the Texas border town of Sierra Blanca

We drove through that Border Patrol checkpoint where they stop each and every vehicle.....proceeding east, we saw the huge BP facility; tons of their trademark green and white vehicles.