And trying to help those who are sick?

That's not fair.

Some Libertarian he is. Not much liberty there.

As far back as 1996, i saw the libertarian party prez debate. There were either 6 or 7 candidates and all but one talked about banning abortion.

I clearly remember two of them saying "there is no women's right to choose". It was 18 years ago, so i don't recall the names of these lunatic fringers but 5 of 6 or 6 of 7 of their candidates for president made those statements.

In addition, i believe it was 2004, (pretty sure it was the Kerry year), i watched the same debate for that year. A similar proportion did it again on abortion and half of the guys up there were just promoting a consumption tax! Libertarians promoting a new tax! Really?

People used to say "L's" were repukes who wanted to smoke pot. Now they don't even want that.

They are just further marginalized and at least as batshit crazy as the rest of the radical right.

Fucking hypocrite.

...and so will pursue his neo-Confederate dreams.

... other than a dickhead? What else would you expect from a staunch defender (sic) of Libertarian values?

"stand with rand "

while he busts your pot-smokin' ass

since they can't play Candy Crush anymore in the House chambers.

He is starting to build a track record of abandoning the less than a handful of positions that would separate him from the establishment in any meaningful way and this one might be the crown jewel of his phoniness that folks that might think he is something different than the rest of the Reich wing.

Hell, it is often said a Libertarian is a Republican who smokes weed, well he can't even get that right. Take his angle away there and he is just another boring and out of touch regressive with bad hair.

It's a rug.

http://politikewl.blogspot.com/2010/05/rand-pauls-toupee-voted-worst-in.html

Y'see, KamaAina, the Republicans told their business supporters they'd repeal Obamacare so many times, the business supporters believed them and didn't prepare for the law's implementation. And now that it's clear there's no fucking way the law will actually be repealed, the president gave the Republicans' business supporters a little extra time to comply with the law. The GOP doesn't like that, because their next way to repeal the law (besides the daily Obamacare repeal bill they were gonna file anyway) is to let the law put three-quarters of America out of work, which will cause people to vote straight-ticket Republican in November, which will allow the Republicans to impeach the (insert favorite racist name for the president) and get rid of Obamacare that way.

The thing is, if the Republicans would have bothered spending even one-tenth as much effort on job creation or debt reduction that they spent on getting rid of a law people are starting to like, there would be so many jobs in the US everyone'd need to have two if we wanted to use them all up. That wouldn't be acceptable because people only vote Republican when things are bad.

He is just another right wing tool.

There are no libertarians. At least not among those who run for office under that banner. I won't repeat my observations here, but they're up above.

That's just a tag they use to separate themselves from the bible thumping radical right.

Just another space filled with a moran that hates people.

It's what's for breakfast in Libertarianville

because he wants to run for prezzie and he knows, in order to get the votes of the most backward ass people in the nation, he and his fellow Republicans have to act like backwardass people... but it's not an act, as we know.

Obama cannot force states to uphold federal law when the state's law allows for more individual liberty.

But Rand Paul doesn't really give a shit about individual liberty - all he cares about is making the divide between rich and poor larger, an economic policy that aligns with his racist attitudes toward issues such as marijuana legalization.

Mitch McConnell is backing hemp legislation to line the pockets of his pals (esp. the head of the KY agricultural commission), and Paul is playing the other side of the vote by going after those "liberals" in western states.

Since it is evident that marijuana has medical value (and, at this time the FDA is fast-tracking a study of marijuana in relation to Dravet's syndrome epilepsy) and since it is evident that marijuana is no more addictive than coffee - you have to wonder why Republicans want to double down on the side of stupid on this issue... it can't just be the old white "get off my lawn" voter... maybe it has something to do with the for-profit prison corporations and their successful efforts to remove black and Latino young men from the voter roles and the general population.

Republicans haven't had a good idea since Eisenhower.

"Republicans haven't had a good idea since Eisenhower."

Nixon-created EPA at least, but besides that, you're spot on.

I'm seriously not trying to bash Kentuckians as a whole, though, TBH(My apologies in advance). However, with historical context in mind, the South was the region that got the "total cannabis prohibition" thing started. Before that, whatever few laws existed were mainly trivial and designed just to discourage use. It was in Texas where the "Drug War" took off about a century ago this year.

with the Liar?

Oh speaking of the dumbshit..

""

(remember the uproar when some sheriff's said they wouldn't enforce them) and paul and others were for ignoring the federal government then.

Now it is all flip flopped.

Sometimes for state's rights, other times against.

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2014, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

That was a STATE law where a few law enforcement officials in the STATE said they wouldn't enforce the law.

It had NOTHING to do with the federal government.

Why don't you get your STORY STRAIGHT, Straight Story?

My first thought is that it's probably an infringement on the separation of powers because it's one co-equal branch asking another co-equal branch to force the third co-equal branch to do something. I don't see the court trying to order a president to take positive action because the likelihood of Andrew Jackson response is so high. I also don't think the court is competent, as a general rule, to interfere in squabbles between the political branches. The court is equal to them, not superior.

My second thought, after reading the text, is that the bill looks suspiciously like the legislative veto the court nuked 30 years ago. It allows one chamber to pass a resolution allowing itself to sue the president, department head, or any other "officer or employee" of the federal government for a declaratory judgment. Legally, it looks like they would run afoul of bicameralism and presentment, though I could be wrong. Practically, the US Marshals are responsible for enforcing federal court decisions. They're part of the executive branch. I'd pay real money to see that particular circus.

I don't think the president should have the power to decide not to enforce certain laws.

Consider what laws a Republican president might choose to not enforce.

"I don't think the president should have the power to decide not to enforce certain laws. "

...I don't think he has a leg to stand on. How many times did groups call on the President to use executive authority to disregard DOMA? There's also this:

Holder Says State Attorneys General Don’t Have to Defend Gay Marriage Bans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024559002

Forget everything else Paul has ever said or done. In fact, forget Paul entirely.

Do you think that, regardless of who is saying it, "the president should not be able to decide not to enforce certain laws" is a fair point?

Incidentally, not having to defend the constitutionality of laws in court is a very different kettle of fish to not enforcing them, I think - I think Holder was probably right on that one, although I don't know the details.

"That may well be true, but it doesn't contradict what I said. Do you think that, regardless of who is saying it, 'the president should not be able to decide not to enforce certain laws' is a fair point?"

...Paul is not only being a hypocrite, but he's also asking the President to ignore laws passed by states.

He is saying to the President crack down on states that have legalized weed. The administration has the authority to define policy in that area.

Eric Holder Just ANNOUNCED A MAJOR SHIFT On U.S. Marijuana Policy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024381108

Obama administration issue new banking rules for marijuana businesses
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024501968

making the will of the People strongly and repeatedly clear in long standing well functioning laws, the power being exerted belongs to the people, the President is merely acknowledging the desires of the people. Millions and millions of Americans have voted to legalize Medical and now recreational cannabis. It's 'of by and for the people' not 'of by and for some self interested government employees who refuse progress to preserve their income.
The President did not decide this, the people decided it.

Any law (or regulation) he didn't like, he just didn't enforce it. This type of "executive discretion" is pretty well established in practice at least. It's been happening a long time under several Presidents of both parties.

The Law states in no uncertain terms that 501c's are not to be used for political purposes, yet it seems like that is all they are being used for now-a-days.

him as such. He's a REPUBLICAN. Elected and advertised as a Republican. He does not advocate drug law reform. Yes, he says Medical Marijuana should be up to the States, which means he thinks they should be able to say no to medicines people need. For perspective, Dana Rorbacher, insane California Republican House member has been an activist in favor of Medical Marijuana. He has spoken at rallies, it is personal for him, he advocates for it. He's still a right wing Republican that only Republicans would vote for.
The centrist Press needs to stop insisting that Rand Paul is something other than a Republican from Kentucky in any way, shape or form.
He is opposed to abortion rights, opposed to marriage equality, opposed to legalized marijuana, he's a Republican, a whole Republican and nothing but a Republican.

in particular is shocking even for these clowns.

Their constituents should be so happy with the libertarian fire-brands and defenders of State's Rights they voted for...

...and I also thought they were FOR states' rights.

Silly me. Of course, in this case, it is purely an anti-Obama stance.

But then, we should expect nothing less from Ayn Paul.

Rand Paul is from the Tea Bagger branch of the Libertarian Party.

I say leave it in the air until after the election.

off wack in other areas. But Rand Paul has no more in common than his father than the slimy Evan Bayh has with is his most honorable father Birch - or Mitt has with George.

Well, of course that says it all, doesn't it?