Drug Policy

What Sort of Lunatic Thinks a Crime Requires a Victim?

|

Commonsense Ten, a Democratic political action committee, is running a TV ad that criticizes Rand Paul, the Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, for being soft on drugs. This theme echoes criticism from Paul's Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, whose campaign produced a similar ad. The American Prospect's Adam Serwer calls such attacks "the sort of thing one really hates seeing from the left," adding, "I guess knowing that a 'libertarian' is running for Senate, Democrats are back to being drug warriors." Did they ever stop? Serwer is more on target when he writes, "The basic problem with criminal-justice reform is that both parties are very used to being the same kind of stupid about crime-related issues."

The new ad, like Conway's, includes an excerpt from a panel discussion on Kentucky Educational Television in November 2008, when Paul was chairman of Kentucky Taxpayers United. During a discussion about gambling toward the end of the show, Paul says:

I'm against legislating morality…I'm for having laws against things that are violent crimes, but things that are nonviolent shouldn't be against the law.

The ads use the part where Paul says "things that are nonviolent shouldn't be against the law." This formulation is imprecise, since I'm sure Paul does not think it should be legal to pick people's pockets or burglarize their homes. But in context, it's clear he's referring to laws that criminalize consensual activities, and this is exactly what both Conway and Commonsense Ten find objectionable. "Like other libertarians," says the Commonsense Ten ad, "he says drug laws are 'too harsh.'" Defending his ad, in which a sheriff calls Paul's view "crazy," Conway says, "Rand Paul said that nonviolent crimes, including prostitution and selling drugs, are not crimes." What a lunatic!

NEXT: Reason.tv: Boondoggle in the Motor City - Detroit's Train to Nowhere

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We can’t have people running around consenting to things that third parties disapprove of. It’s unamerican.

    1. +10
      I always want to respond to your comments but they usually don’t leave much room for improvement. Try to be a little less witty so I can play.

  2. I bet that doesn’t hurt him one bit.

    1. I think you are right.

      People say he has to appeal to the conservatives to win in KY, but I dont think the “he’s a libertarian” attack ads have hurt him at all.

      I remember during primary season driving from Owensboro to Bowling Green and then thru some rural areas outside BG. The Paul:Grayson sign ratio in those very rural, very GOP areas was about infinity:0.

      Rural KYians may be very conservative but they are more live and let live than some think.

      Suburban/Urban GOP is a different story.

      1. Absolutely. It is the god damned suburban parents that are ruining this country. Everyone thinks it is the people from rural areas who are backwards. Hell no. It is the suburbanites in their minivans who are responsible for most of the stupid shit going on in this country.

        1. I say, old boy, I’m a suburbanite who owns a minivan.

          1. Then you are on my list. When the revolution comes, expect a very severe self criticism session.

            1. Oh, snap. No you di-int!

              1. The enemy of the suburbs is my enemy.

        2. Actually, it is more the soccer moms than the suburban men who are the more statist, IMO.

          1. True, most suburban men are beta males who kowtow to the state instead of trying to wield its power.

      2. Yeah, rural Kentucky is actually legendary for its weed farmers. There’s a long-standing tradition in that area of both commercial hemp and psychoactive cannabis cultivation. Major grow country.

        1. Isn’t that where the famous John Lee Petemore lived?

        2. You and me, my friend, are headed for an epic road trip.

      3. Hell, considering the history of KY/TN/WV/NC mountain country as moonshine country, there’s a lot that don’t really care for what the Revenuers think. And a bunch of those people have been Republican ever since the Civil War because they hated their state government more than the feds (ever since the state governments wanted them to go to war for the slaveholders.)

        The bluegrass, Haggard, Cash, Waylon and Willie listening parts of the country are less of a problem than suburbia.

        1. This is an interesting article that kind of touches on that point. Basically looking at how the “hippie” movement was co-opted by the Left. The hippies and the people you are talking about have a lot in common. At the same time, the suburbanite Republicans and the Manhattan New Leftists have more in common than they want to admit.

          http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie…..epage=true

        2. Fucking Waylon and Willie is the shit. And I don’t even like country music.

  3. Didn’t we already say Democrats are shit on the WoD?

    1. Everyone but us is shit on the WoD.

      1. And we like to shit on the WoD.

      2. Black-Bloc anarchists?

        At least it’s an ethos

    2. As I posted on another thread:

      I think the cost-benefit relationship breaks down kind of like this for Democrats: generally, pro-legalization folks tend to be core Democratic voters; since MJ is not a make-or-break issue for most of them, and they’re going to vote Dem regardless, there’s little to be gained for Democratic pols in supporting legalization. On the other hand, when it comes to the blue collar, socially conservative independents, people who the Dems need to attract in order to build majorities, a lot of them are anti-legalization: so there is an incentive to oppose legalization. Plus, opposing MJ is a good (and fairly low-cost) way of showing that you are not a doctrinaire liberal, and are open to certain conservative influences. That is why, I think, very few Democrat politicians (other than those from places like Berkeley) support MJ legalization

  4. Liberals are anti-choice and pro-force. If Republicans started supporting abortion rights, liberals would launch ads calling them anti-life abortionist baby killers.

    1. “”Liberals are anti-choice and pro-force.””

      Then why would the right be an opposing team? Both are pro-force, and anti-choice. It just depends on the topic.

      1. Maybe, but Liberals keep showing that opposing Republicans is more important to them than any of their few redeeming pro-freedom positions.

        1. And vice-versa.

  5. Democrats have supported bans on salt, transfat, sugary drinks, etc. and have been ardent supporters of the 21-year-old minimum drinking age. They’ve banned smoking.

    Of course they want to ban recreational pharmaceuticals.

    1. Some refer to the WoD as the WoSD (War on Some Drugs). I think, in the case of dems, its the War on Small Drugs.

      Of course they favor the bigger war too.

      1. I prefer War on Citizens who use drugs.

        1. Isn’t it the War on People not Connected Enough to Get out Of Trouble with Drugs?

          WoPNCEtGOoTwD?

          1. “He didn’t know the right people. That’s all a police record means in this lousy country.”

          2. No way! They would alter their position to a stance with a catchier acronym.

          3. WoNFDAAD (War on Non-Food and Drug Administration Approved Drugs) is too long of an acronym.

            Of course, you can try WoDGHFOHTTY (War on Drugs the Government Hasn’t Figured Out How To Tax) or my personal favorite WoDTFSMBTSE (War on Drugs That Frighten Soccer Moms, Bible Thumpers, and Social Engineers)

        2. It’s not a war on drugs. It’s a war on personal freedom, that’s what it is. Keep that in mind at all times, thank you.

          1. The War on Freedom. Accurate, pithy, easy to remember. I wonder why they don’t use this label for their various “wars”?

          2. There is no God but us, and Bill Hicks was our prophet.

            1. We’re gonna miss him. He sure could yell.

            2. My favorite was when he said “I would probably quit smoking if I wasn’t so afraid of becoming one of you nonsmokers”(paraphrased)

      2. Wrongway Conway’s wife works for Big Whiskey. So half of his household’s income is derived from shilling for some drugs.

        I would love for some of those elected government employees that were in Conway’s “Paul loves criminals” ad to be honest about how many domestic disputes their departments respond to that are fueled by alcohol and how many are fueled by marijuana. Maybe if they were smoking a joint, the wife beaters wouldn’t be so violent.

        1. “Big whisky” sounds great (except that glorified sugar-water that comes out of Kentucky or Tennessee isn’t real whisky (ducks).

          1. Clearly, you are insane.

            1. I’ll admit it can make a good marinade. But comparing bourbon and scotch is like comparing Hersheys and Guylian.

              1. Scotch? I friggin’ hate Scotch. And I’m half-Scottish.

                1. You must be a self-hating Scot, then.

                  1. No. My people left and improved on scotch by making bourbon and Tennessee whiskey.

                    All of the smart British folk left the island long ago.

              2. There is very good bourbon. The mass market stuff isn’t so great.

  6. Prostitution and selling drugs are not crimes. And fuck the people to death who think it should be.

    1. But don’t charge them for the fucking.

      1. Crime or Fee?

  7. I’ll bet Paul supports puppy gassing, too.

  8. $ 1.4 trillion deficits. Business as usual.

    Live and let live for consenting adults…that’s CRAZY !

  9. Well, you can certainly have a crime without a victim — for instance, conspiring to kill someone and getting caught before you get around to it. Or driving recklessly without actually hitting anyone. Just to be pedantic.

    1. No blood, no foul

  10. The desperation of the Democrats is nothing if not entertaining. Think of the arguments they are making. The CofC is taking “foreign money”. Meg Wittman once gave a job to a Chinese guy and hired a Mexican to clean her house. Rand Paul wants to legalize drugs. There is no sacred cow they are not willing to throw overboard. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    1. Overboard, or under the bus?

      1. HEY HEY HEY look what time I posted that! HEY HEY!

      2. Have you ever tried to get a Sacred Cow to go under the bus?

        1. They don’t go willingly.

          1. They don’t go willingly but a high rate of speed will get the sacred cow under the bus.

            The trick is not getting the bus airborne in the process.

    2. I’m not sure it’s a liberal principle to be ok with foriegn campaign contributions. As for the Whitman thing I think they are targeting her hypocrisy: here is a woman who advocates “drug-war style raids” on employers of illegal immigrants who is an employee of illegal immigrants.

      Conway’s behavior is even easier to figure out: he’s a conservative Democrat.

      http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Jack_Conway.htm

      1. Employer of illegal immigrants, that is…

      2. I’m not sure it’s a liberal principle to be ok with foriegn campaign contributions.

        Sure it is, so long as it’s going to a Democrat.

      3. They are fine with foreign contributions as long as they are washed through a Buddhist temple or paid by a Chinese spy renting a room in the White House.

        Conway is far from conservative. He has supported Obama from the start. He is a big believer in government.

        1. Conservative=not supporting Obama?

          Wow, that really is a party of no…

          1. Conservative is not synonymous with Republican.

      4. Obama specifically stopped tracing money given to him on his website so no one could tell if it was foreign. For him to now complain about the CofC having foreign offices and using the money raised when even the NYT admits there is no evidence of that brings hypocrisy to a new level.

        And as far as the Wittman thing goes, if you support something, you have no right to complain about other people doing it.

        And Conway voted for Obamacare. Anyone who did that forfeits the right to claim to be anything but a hard left liberal.

        1. “Obama specifically stopped tracing money given to him on his website so no one could tell if it was foreign.”

          Citation, please?

          “And as far as the Wittman thing goes, if you support something, you have no right to complain about other people doing it.”

          What? Even if the other people who are doing it oppose it? So you can’t point out another person’s hypocrisy on a subject that you favor the person’s behavior? Besides, one can be for easing immigration restrictions and still be against employing illegal immigrants while that is still the law.

          “And Conway voted for Obamacare.”

          WTF? I know you’ve got some wacky views on Congress (once claiming Congress=the Senate), but the last time I checked the KY AG does not get a vote in Congress…

          1. “Citation, please?”

            Malkin did a recap two days ago.

          2. “Citation, please?”

            MIchelle Malkin posted a recap two days ago.

            I’d post the link, but the spam filter doesn’t like it. Bounce over to her site, and search for “Newly nativist Democrats and their own foreign funny money”.

          3. Citation, please?

            Here

      5. Conway’s behavior is even easier to figure out: he’s a conservative Democrat.

        I thought that he was being described as the more liberal of the two Democrats in the primary. Of course, that may still be true.

        MNG, you do realize that if this line of attack is seen to work, then Democrats (and Republicans) all over the country will refuse to change on the War on Drugs, and will become bigger Drug Warriors in response?

        Conversely, if Rand Paul wins despite this, it will give a huge dose of courage to politicians who want to talk about reform.

        In any case, since you call Conway a conservative Dem, would you favor Rand over Conway here?

        1. I actually prefer the libertarian to the conservative in this race, and most of the time for that matter.

          I don’t think we have to worry about Democrats everywhwere following this strategy, only when they are appealing to conservatives like Conway is will that be an appealing prospect.

          1. Um, DiFi did it in CA against Tom Campbell in 2000. Is California also very conservative?

      6. Re: MNG,

        As for the Whitman thing I think they are targeting her hypocrisy: here is a woman who advocates “drug-war style raids” on employers of illegal immigrants who is an employee of illegal immigrants.

        I agree with you, even though I believe she did not know her nanny was an undocumented alien. It is precisely the very same mentality she now espouses that placed her in the spot in the first place, whether she’s inocent or not – it imposed an undue burden on HER and HER HUSBAND, unwittingly, to prove a negative: that she had NO WAY of knowing, NO CLUE, NO HINT, that her nanny was in the US working illegally. It also shows how incidious immigration and labor laws happen to be, as a very valuable, trusted and well regarded worker had to
        be let go because of her “status.”

        Conway’s behavior is even easier to figure out: he’s a conservative Democrat.

        And he packs a bolt-action to prove it.

        1. Well, she’s a fucking hypocrite. She needs to reverse her position immediately.

    3. They want to privatize public schools! And end social security!

      It’s only a matter of time before the Dems start accusing team Red of not “supporting the troops.”

  11. I cringe when I hear the cliche, “Government shouldn’t legislate morality”. Morality is the rationale for all laws. Murder, rape, theft, etc. are all fundamentally moral issues; things one OUGHT not do.

    A better phrasing should be “Government should not legislate against acts that do not aggress upon the rights of others”.

    1. No, all of those things have a demonstrable harm to people who did not ask to be harmed.

      1. No, all of those things have a demonstrable harm to people who did not ask to be harmed.

        And how is that not under morality? Without the moral assertion that one OUGHT not be harmed by others, then what justification would one have of outlawing such acts?

        Without morality, why would harming others be a no-no?

        1. It’s a much more objective sort of “morality” though. Victimization is necessarily immoral. Consensual consumption, not so much.

          1. It’s a much more objective sort of “morality” though. Victimization is necessarily immoral. Consensual consumption, not so much.

            Regardless, the justifications of law are moral propositions: one OUGHT or OUGHT NOT be allowed to do X. Trying to claim that morality and legislation are seperate is fundamentally wrong.

            1. Yeah, that’s technically true. A better way to say it would be “”Government shouldn’t legislate personal morality”. But for me it’s always been one of those you-get-my-drift things. I hear ya though.

        2. The defining characteristic is that they deliminate liberty from license. While the concepts of liberty and license may arise out of moral philosphy, my personal behavior can be immoral without taking license. Morality alone, mine or society’s in general is neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for legislation.

          1. The defining characteristic is that they deliminate liberty from license. While the concepts of liberty and license may arise out of moral philosphy, my personal behavior can be immoral without taking license. Morality alone, mine or society’s in general is neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for legislation.

            You’re not escaping the moral proposition, whether you discuss “license” or “liberty”. Without a rationalization of why one OUGHT or OUGHT NOT be allowed the “liberty” or “license” of some act, what are you left with? Even saying: “Studies show that driving without a seatbelt increases fatalities by X%. Therefore, all should be required to wear seatbelts”, presumes a moral foundation, because one has to be able to explain why fatalities are bad. Respect for individual life is a moral claim.

            ALL laws have a moral component. The distinction libertarians should make is that legislation should be constrained to acts that impose harm on others.

    2. If you can somehow shorten that phrase to seven words or less, I’ll use it instead.

      1. “Governmentshouldn’t legislateagainst acts that don’t aggressupon therightsofothers”

      2. GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T TREAT ETHICS AS MORALITY.

      3. “Only coercion and fraud should be illegal.”

        “Don’t legislate against victimless acts.”

    3. I agree. I’m sure the saying was invented with perfectly good intent, and I agree with the intent. But the inaccuracy in the phrase just provides one more layer of crap you have to argue thru when talking to somebody who doesn’t already agree.

      Reminds me of the phrase “states rights”. Besides being stuck to the tarbaby of “rasicsm”, usually talking about limited and enumerated powers cuts more to the heart of the matter.

    4. You’re right in a way. Political philosophy branches from ethics. So politics is based on ethics. But I think it’s wrong to say that those things are against the law just because they are immoral. I think they’re against the law because they are force and force negates morality. The freedom to disagree on morality doesn’t exist if I also have the freedom to force you to obey my morality. The purpose of government is to extract force from the marketplace of ideas and of commerce.

      1. You’re right in a way. Political philosophy branches from ethics. So politics is based on ethics. But I think it’s wrong to say that those things are against the law just because they are immoral. I think they’re against the law because they are force and force negates morality. The freedom to disagree on morality doesn’t exist if I also have the freedom to force you to obey my morality. The purpose of government is to extract force from the marketplace of ideas and of commerce.

        This is an interesting take, though I am not inclined to believe that people look at such acts of force as simply negations of choice, but outright immoral actions. I personally don’t consider it an imposition on myself that the law reduces my choice to murder.

        Though, doesn’t this also presume a moral claim: one should not force others to obey, at least, certain moral propositions?

        1. “…I am not inclined to believe that people look at such acts of force as simply negations of choice, but outright immoral actions.”

          “Though, doesn’t this also presume a moral claim: one should not force others to obey, at least, certain moral propositions?”

          I think they’re both. I just don’t think the argument for the banning of force from American society was that these things are so immoral that they have to be banned. Locke’s focus was that each man should free to pursue his own moral virtue even if it goes against everyone else’s idea of morality. The threat of force makes disagreement dangerous, whether the threat comes from peers or rulers.
          Force is immoral but it also does something that no other immoral act does- it obliterates morality.

          “I don’t consider it an imposition on myself that the law reduces my choice to murder.”

          Me neither.

  12. Kentucky is not a jelly. It’s Ky., not KY. The sexual lubricant abbreviation is for applying to postcards and letters sent by the USPS.

    1. I tried some Kentucky jelly once. It tasted terrible. But it made my toast much easier to eat.

      1. Y..2..k- what the hell you selling buddy, chicken or sex jelly?

    2. I think it’s K-Y, the jelly.

  13. I’m sure Paul does not think it should be legal to pick people’s pockets or burglarize their homes.

    Those are violent crimes.

  14. “Kentucky is not a jelly.”

    Then why is it so sticky?

      1. “Roommates” my ass.

  15. Well, these ads do raise the stakes a bit. If Rand Paul loses, every politician out there will assume it was because of being “soft on drugs,” thanks to these ads being so prominent.

    It will set back the cause of Republicans or Democrats moving in an anti-WoD way for years.

    So I have to wonder if for some Democrats, like MNG, winning this way would almost be worse than losing?

  16. I think Rand Paul should run that ad, verbatim.

    The whole point would be the bit at the end, of course, where he comes on and says “I’m Rand Paul, and I approve this message”, causing terminal brainlock amongst Tribe Blue.

    And, of course, when they come back at him and tell him to stop running their ad, copyright, blah blah, they just make themselves look like even bigger idiots, and bring scads of free publicity to Rand.

    C’mon, Rand Paul staffers, I know you check this site. Do it!

    1. Sadly, betting on an intelligent voter is the best way to lose an election.

  17. Fucking news. Are you going to make me fall back in love with Randy?

    1. Fuck TPM. They’re like Wonkette, with less humor.

    2. You know you’re reading the work of a liberal when an opponent’s words are merely cherry-picked and presented without any thoughts or criticism, and the reader is supposed to be automatically outraged.

  18. The ads use the part where Paul says “things that are nonviolent shouldn’t be against the law.” This formulation is imprecise, since I’m sure Paul does not think it should be legal to pick people’s pockets or burglarize their homes.

    Excuse me . . . HOW is it that taking property that does not belong to you is to be construed as “NON-VIOLENT”?

    Non violent “crimes” are clearly those made-up crimes like prostitution or sodomy or gambling or smoking that have NO victims and involve activities with consenting adults in a voluntary way.

    1. I walk into your garage, pick up your toolbox, and walk out with it. Where is the violence?

      1. The idea is that your property is an extension of you. As in, libertarianism at its core means that you own yourself. It’s not a huge leap to go from infringing upon your body–your property–as an expression of violence to pilfering your sweet ass Makita–also your property–as a further expression of violence.

        1. If you take the Makita from my hand, I agree we have “violence” of one degree or another.

          If you take the Makita from my workbench while I am standing there but I do nothing, I can see the argument of “violence” by intimidation, but I think even that is a stretch for the way people generally understand that term.

          If you take the Makita from my workbench while I am in the house getting some ice tea, I don’t think we have “violence” in the way that word is commonly understood. Now, if we want to create a framework wherein taking my stuff without my knowledge is deemed to be the same as taking it by actual physical altercation, that’s fine, but that’s also a very idiosyncratic usage of the word.

          1. Any assault on the property of another is violent.

            1. You might as well say “Any assault on the property of another is purple.” If that’s how you want to define “purple” that’s fine, but it takes a little more than a bald assertion to make it convincing.

              1. Another way to look at it is that you worked for X amount of time and/or you had to do Y amount of work in order to purchase that tool box. If someone walks into your open garage, and walks out with your toolbox, without even encountering another person the thief has, by translation, stolen X amount of your life and wasted Y amount of your work. This is why stealing is wrong on its face. It’s not so much that the person is not physically hurt during the crime, but do to the thief’s action, the effort of the past which he can never get back under the same circumstances(Youth, luck, economic climate, inflation, same model of tool box not available anymore) is scattered on the winds of time. Moreover, much like the broken window fallacy, you now have to waste time(a portion of your life) to purchase another, most likely different, toolbox. If literally negating life expended is not violence, then start stealing toolboxes for the hell of it.

                Not to co-opt a liberal meme, but in the real world(Patent Pending), people lock their doors and own guns. And if they don’t, they shouldn’t be surprised when their shit keeps disappearing because the same people who stole their toolboxes, are of the same type that have co-opted the government in order to confiscate a third of your life. Regardless, if you have to bust open the garage door to get at something you have just destroyed property. However, if you get blown away in the act, you have just paid for your vandalism and aspirations of toolbox thievery with your life.

                If you are trying to make an argument, however thinly veiled, to justify pirating music, movies and what not? I don’t think it’s any surprise that with the advent of freely acquired media, a noticeable decline in quality has occurred. Moreover, I’ve seen plenty of D list bands who can’t even afford equipment despite having 1 million + Facebook friends and that type of crap. Methinks most of their friends aren’t really their friends. A possible solution to this, would be to disseminate virus laden versions (said to be created by fake hackers in order to avoid legal reprisal) of the media online and once the reckoning of computer failures echoes like a shotgun blast in a garage, some people might think twice about downloading Katy Perry’s next shit-filled album (An Aside: IF YOU DON’T LIKE THEIR MUSIC WHY EVEN BOTHER DOWNLOADING IT YOU CUNTS?). Regardless, if they actually make a Monopoly movie, it will be that much harder to argue with the piracy justification of “Hollywood just produces shit, so why should we pay for it”.

                1. Oh, I agree that stealing is wrong on its face. I just don’t agree that all stealing is violent as, apparently, Old Mexican does.


                  1. vi?o?lent
                    ? ?/?va??l?nt/ Show Spelled[vahy-uh-luhnt] Show IPA
                    ?adjective
                    1.
                    acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
                    2.
                    caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
                    3.
                    intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
                    4.
                    roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
                    5.
                    furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.
                    6.
                    of, pertaining to, or constituting a distortion of meaning or fact.

                    I would say 2 applies to any type of theft.

      2. Re: Night Elf Mohawk,

        I walk into your garage, pick up your toolbox, and walk out with it. Where is the violence?

        You:

        a) Trespassed into my property without permission – that is a violent act: you VIOLATED MY SPACE.

        b) You took something that does not belong to you – YOU VIOLATED MY RIGHT TO MY PROPERTY.

        What else do you need?

        Idiot.

        1. I would classify that as force but I don’t think violence fits very well.

        2. What else do you need?

          Well, an actual demonstration of how actual violence occurred would be good.

          If I “pay” for something at your store with a check I know will be rejected I took property that did not belong to me because I didn’t pay for it. By your definition of “violence” I have thereby committed an act of violence, right?

          Now, however illegitimate my actions would be, to call them “violent” is to enter the Humpty Dumpty world of word definitions.

        3. Can’t we just call tresspasssing tresspassing and be axiomaitcally against that too? That seems a lot better to me that twisting the meaning of the word “violence” just to avoid having one more axiom in the system.

    2. Excuse me . . . HOW is it that taking property that does not belong to you is to be construed as “NON-VIOLENT”?

      Violent typically refers to those acts which impose physical harm or restraint on the individual. I would not qualify theft as a “violent” crime.

      Non violent “crimes” are clearly those made-up crimes like prostitution or sodomy or gambling or smoking that have NO victims and involve activities with consenting adults in a voluntary way.

      I distinguish these acts as “victimless crimes”, rather than “non-violent”, even though the latter is true.

  19. Everyone but us is shit on the WoD.
    Eh, some Greens are occasionally better than tweedledee/dum.
    In an odd twist the candidate for IL5 also supports ‘concealed carry’.
    Wait, WHAT?!?

    1. Everyone “supports” the second now-a-days, unless they are in a gerymandered safe keftist district.

  20. Commonsense Ten, a Democratic political action committee, is running a TV ad that criticizes Rand Paul, the Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, for being soft on drugs.

    “We’re for civil liberties! No, we’re not! Yes, we are! No, we’re not! Yes, we . . .”

    I believe this is called “schizophrenia.” Seems to run rampant on the Dem ranks…

  21. Defending his ad, in which a sheriff calls Paul’s view “crazy,” Conway says, “Rand Paul said that nonviolent crimes, including prostitution and selling drugs, are not crimes.”

    The tax-fed jack-booted goons of the State will always regard any resaonable view that diminishes their power to subdue and frighten the population as “crazy.”

    No surprise there . . .

    1. “This guy’s bonkers! He doesn’t think I should be allowed to taze people for eating trans-fats either! He’s a loose cannon and he should be tazed before someone gets hurt.”

  22. More lunacy please!

  23. I assure you that “common sense…” is not “…responsible for the content of this advertizing”

  24. I was voting for Paul but now that I know he is a reefer head I’m afraid

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.