Posted on 03/24/2013 1:07:20 PM PDT by JohnPDuncan
Sen. Rand Paul said Sunday that President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush could have "conceivably been put in jail” for their drug use, ruining their lives and impacting their getting elected to office.
"Look, the last two presidents could have conceivably been put in jail for their drug use and I really think - look what would've happened, it would've ruined their lives. They got lucky. But a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky and they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for some of these things and I think it's a big mistake,” the Kentucky Republican said on Fox’s “Fox News Sunday.”
"Actually, I think it would be the last three presidents, but who's counting?" host Chris Wallace said with a laugh, referring to former President Bill Clinton.
"There you go," Paul said.
"But he didn't inhale," Wallace quipped.
Paul said that he doesn’t support people using marijuana but said he also doesn’t necessarily support putting them in jail for extended periods of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
As for the issue of national defense, I'm well aware of the constitutional limits on the terms for defense spending and the role of the state militias vis-a-vis the federal army.
Romans 13 tells me that the primary purpose of government is to bear the sword to restrain wickedness. I can show you examples of how that belief worked out in New England dating back long before the Constitution. If I were more familiar with Southern history I probably could say the same about Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia.
How we are to use the military and law enforcement is a legitimate question, but support for the military and law enforcement should be “givens” for conservatives.
Ron Paul is a nut. He's proved that with decades of idiocies. We'll see what Rand Paul turns out to be.
Ron Paul nonsense is not a recipe for winning elections.
He’s falling for the fantasy that people are in jail for the drug use when the reality is that they end up in jail over other crimes with drugs being an associated crime.
It turns out that criminals like to do drugs - at least as much as the next person - maybe even more. So guess what - there are a lot of drug users in prison. But no, Joe Citizen is not rotting away in prison because he chose to fire up a joint one day.
I suspect that what you see as "advocating amorality" is in fact a focus on personal freedom. I haven't seen a single FReeper post, "Do drugs! Visit a prostitute!" I have seen them say that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is not the proper object of government force.
How is Ron Paul a nut? I’ll tell you what’s nutty... growing government, running deficits, expanding entitlement programs, lying and invading countries that have never attacked America thus bankrupting us and leaving us weak.
That’s a lot more nutty than anything Ron Paul has done and he was just a congressman lets not forget who opposed virtually everything i’ve described and what I described was the presidency of George W. Bush who’s policies Obama is continuing admittedly in turbo charge mode but it’s the same nonetheless.
” Ron Paul nonsense is not a recipe for winning elections. “
And Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a real template of success!
It only led to a crushing defeat in 2006 and led to Obamacare:
Philip Klein: Iraq War made Obamacare possible
http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-iraq-war-made-obamacare-possible/article/2524926
I am a conservative who does not support a standing military, like the Founders. So what does that make me in your eyes?
I do not support the concept of a standing army.
There are people in prison for 55 years due to a sting operation and selling a bit of dope while being possession of a firearm. The law forces the judge to hand out the automatic 25 year mandatory minimum.
Yes, that’s right. It does happen and there are cases of people being given hefty sentences for non-violent crimes.
The Founders lived in an environment where the Atlantic Ocean was a pretty good protection from foreign invasions, and several month's time would be available to prepare a defense once hostilities broke out. For Indian attacks, the state militias were not only sufficient but also more effective in most cases.
While we had a small standing federal Army for much of our early history, we did have a standing federal Army, and later on a permanent federal Navy, for most of our history. The United States Military Academy at West Point was established for a reason.
If you want to debate the appropriate size of a standing federal Army and Navy, or the relative size of the active duty and reserve components, or the appropriate relationship between the federal active duty forces and the state controlled National Guard, fine. Those are legitimate questions, though I believe World War II showed beyond the slightest question that America's long history of being woefully unprepared for major wars did not serve us well and was unrealistic in the age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and the huge standing armies of the former Soviet Union.
But if you want to argue that standing armies are unconstitutional, you can't get that even from the earliest days of the American Republic. We learned our lesson in the ramp-up to the War of 1812.
I, for one, am not interested in seeing a foreign Army attack Washington DC, burn the Capitol, the White House, and virtually every government building except the home of the Marine Corps Commandant, as actually happened during that war. There are consequences to failure to prepare militarily for an enemy attack. Those consequences will be far worse today than they were in the early 1800s.
I agree with almost all of your post, except that I am not willing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt. At the age of 50, what he’s saying should be taken at face value, as he should have already formulated his convictions and values. Imho.
I’m not advocating solely for legal prostitution but government restriction. Let me put it this way, someone on the right uses moral legislation to keep adults from frequenting prostitutes.. then his liberal counterpart uses this precedent to keep adults from buying soda...
Now they are trying to pass legislation which will keep businesses from being able to hire free interns.. this is between two consenting adults but lib legislators are saying its exploitative, which is BS.. So wouldn’t it be hypocritical for me to be against legalized prostitution.
Also, why are the religious on the right so apt to use government as a tool of force? This is a liberal tactic people...
I oppose the war on drugs as much as anyone (apparently, we didn’t learn anything from Prohibition), but Rand picked bad examples to make his point. We’d be much better off had Bush and Obama both been in a prison cell instead of in the Oval Office.
I do not mind a Navy to patrol the waters, that has always been accepted. What the Founders warned against was a professional and standing army which we have now.
I do not support it and I do not support their missions which are often ill defined and in the case of Iraq based on lies. We have already been in Afghanistan and Iraq for 10+ years, these are the longest ‘wars’ in US history.
As for the people in the military themselves, they’re there for a paycheck and yes, they’re brave and good people but they should object and not kill other humans in these ill defined adventures overseas. Sorry, I find it hard to buy into the propaganda.
So libs say it's exploitation to not pay an intern, while socons say it's exploitation to pay a bedmate.
Remember when Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”
Unfortunately, to many in the GOP, deficits DON'T matter as long as they're being created by Republicans. Obama's stimulus package was just the logical outcome of TARP, which started under Bush's watch with the administration's full approval and cooperation. Yet many "conservative" talking heads had to wait for TARP to be taken over by a Democratic administration before they could summon up the courage to say anything against it.
Well it SHOULD matter and we must loudly make the case and not allow history to be re-written.
I am not known for being either naive or optimistic about things, and expect that you're probably right about Rand Paul.
However, people have been known to change once they actually get into office, and sometimes those changes are good. Experience and “time in the chair” does count. Most people do learn something in new jobs.
Ron Paul spent an entire career in the Congress accomplishing very little other than being a gadfly. Rand Paul may or may not want to repeat his father's career of being politically irrelevant.
We'll find out soon enough.
Ron Paul spent an entire career in the Congress accomplishing very little other than being a gadfly. Rand Paul may or may not want to repeat his father's career of being politically irrelevant.
We'll find out soon enough.
*******************************
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I have to say that I am more cynical than you. It has been my observation that very often, once a politician is in office, he or she will more likely do whatever it takes to be re-elected. For that reason, it is my contention that any change that occurs is for the worse.
But as you said, we will find out soon enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.