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.

[Responsibility2nd]

~snort~

Go figure.

[hope]

Dude wants to be legit!

[mikec256]

I respect him more voting for Paul than for O.

[goodnesswins]

Paul probably takes more votes away from the DEMS than from the GOP...

[Maverick68]

True dat....or something.

[bgill]

Birds of a feather.

[USNBandit]

Snoop seems to be a single issue voter........

[patlin]

One can't actually achieve the result of a smaller federal govt which will result in getting our nation back on sound fiscal footing unless one is willing to put the constitution back in its box and give back to the states what is rightfully theirs to regulate.

Paul is the only one standing up for our founding constitutional principles while all the other so-called conservatives cry, bring on more more laws, let me legislate morality for for you, whine, whine, whine! I need to enact more laws!!!

Do not we have more than enough laws already? Enough with the nonsense. It's time to get back to “COMMON SENSE”!

[Aevery_Freeman]

True Dat!

De issue be Freedom, Dawg!

Well, that and the weed.

(see tagline)

[Aevery_Freeman]

In many circles, conservatives are view as bed-meddlers - and not without cause.

[Responsibility2nd]

You, Snoop Dog and Ron Paul see eye-to-eye on the issues of the day.

Good to know.

IBTZ.

[FrdmLvr]

It’s a big scam — the rats are telling other rats to register as Republicans and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

[mamelukesabre]

Virtually no one who votes ron paul in the primary is going to vote repubican in the general.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Snoop has a history as one of the more scatological/violent rappers, and that’s not mentioned here. Maybe the ganja has calmed him down a bit in recent days. That would be enough for me to want to see it added back to the pharmacopoeia. Hey better he be in a pot haze and mellow, man, than to be in a vile and vicious rage all the time.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

They even have a snazzy website to promote their scam:

Blue Republican

Anyone who believes that Snoopy Shizzle Shiznit, Bill Maher, Oliver Stone or any other celebrity leftist tool will be voting for anyone other than Barry Soetoro is a world-class fool.

[patlin]

Depends on what your definition of “eye to eye” means and my guess is that my definition is “NOT” the same as yours. Just as Clinton had his own definition of what “is” “IS”, conservatives who think morality can be legislated via federal laws have their own meaning of what “eye to eye” means.

[MEGoody]

. . .let me legislate morality for for you

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

[energized]

And I should care about what Snoop Dogg thinks because...?

[patlin]

There is a difference between defining morality and making it unlawful in that there is a difference between teaching morality and legislating morality.

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, this area is specifically designated to the states where the state constitutions vary on the level of morality in which the people of the states granted to state legislatures. YHVH’s moral instructions (Torah) were not instituted for govt of men, but rather societies of YHVH where morality is taught in the home 1st through the teaching of Moses because homes without Moses know nothing of moral instruction. Oh, Wait! That is the teaching of modern Christendom, that Moses was done away with. And sheeple wonder why the govt is so big... They haven't figured out yet who is really in charge. [Dt 28]

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

[HiTech RedNeck]

A clever and classic retort — however does one really think that government needs to be involved in orchestrating every possible moral judgment of mankind?

[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.