Rand Paul

Rand Paul Gives His Lengthiest Answer Yet About the Drug War

|

This morning on Fox News Sunday Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave his most extensive answer yet on how he feels about U.S. drug laws. The short version: He doesn't endorse legalizing drugs, but he also doesn't want to lock up nonviolent offenders for "extended periods of time." 

Here's the video, followed by the transcript: 

Chris Wallace: Are you more lenient on drug laws, sir?

Rand Paul: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them, but not to incarcerate people for extended period of times. So I'm working with Sen. Leahy and we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals.  

I don't want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don't think it's a good idea. I don't want to promote that, but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their 20s they grow up and get married and quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives.

Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use. And I really think look what would have happened: It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky, they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake.

Chris Wallace: [Laughing] I actually think it would be the last three presidents, but who's counting?

Paul's right to point out that Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush would likely not be presidents had they served time for illicit drug use; right to argue that mandatory minimums are a colossal failure; and right(ish) to demonstrate how social conservatives can support reducing the size of the incarceration state without condoning activities that they and their constituents disapprove of. 

All that said, there's another way to look at Paul's statements on Fox (and at CPAC), and that's in the context of what other Republicans and conservatives are saying. If you compare Paul only to his colleagues in the Senate, yes, he sounds like a pioneer. But if you broaden the comparison to include Republicans outside the Senate, Paul is coming late to this way of thinking. Former drug warriors Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Asa Hutchinson, and Bill Bennet have all come out against incarcerating low-level nonviolent drug offenders. Republican Governors Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota, Nathan Deal of Georgia, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and John Kasich of Ohio have not only come out against imprisoning low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, they've signed legislation that diverts more of those offenders from prison into community supervision programs. Conservative state-level think tanks across the country–from Right on Crime in Texas, to the James Madison Institute in Florida–are pushing for alternative sentencing. Hell, even gay-bashing televangelist Pat Robertson beat Paul to this conclusion

Yet based on Wallace's and Paul's exchange, you'd think Paul is the only Republican in America who doesn't want to put nonviolent drug offenders in prison for half a century. Why does Paul's answer somehow feel like he was edging dangerously close to the third rail? Probably because when it comes to drug policy, the only institution that's further out of step with the rest of America than the U.S. Senate is the cable news industry. 

NEXT: Ben Yount on Illinois' Obamacare Troubles

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. Spit it out, you stuttering bastard.

  1. Weird. Trying again:

    HE’S NOT PERFECT! GET HIM!

    1. Trust me, I’m far angrier at Beltway bozos who describe everything Paul does as “radical,” than I am at Paul.

      1. Mike, to please all the commenters you have to be both incredibly angry at AND incredibly forgiving of everyone even remotely connected to this topic. If you could get that down, you’d be like the ultimate writer.

      2. I know. So am I. I just remember that sort of thing happening with his father.

        It sometimes makes me think that the biggest enemy of libertarians is in fact the libertarians themselves.

        1. Well, the internecine stuff is from people who can’t just accept a small (very small) victory (assuming the bill passes). It’s one thing to criticize a move towards more statism. It’s quite another to claim that the incrementalist step is worthless because we didn’t abolish the DEA in one day.

          1. Yeah we had some libertarian running for something or other last election I think. He wanted to slash the stTe budget 40% or even more in one year. Not criticizing his idea, but good luck getting elected dog catcher on that platform. Half the people here would love to eliminate the government entirely and I certainly thing that would be an improvement over the status quo but ideas don’t mean squat if you don’t have a good portion of the population willing to go along.

            1. State

        2. the biggest enemy of libertarians is in fact the libertarians themselves.

          Yeah, how dare they have principles. I see what you are saying, but that always seem to lead to “You can’t succeed as a libertarian without being un-libertarian.

      3. Honestly, if you listen to the guy, he sounds pretty much like a reasonable, sensible guy. I think it’s a sign of the times that, within the political establishment, sensible and reasonable counts as redical.

    2. Well, I’m disappointed, but I guess it is practical politics still. Or maybe all the pot growers in KY got to him.

  2. If Rand didn’t have to appeal to the religious nuts of this country who don’t understand that most of the Founding Fathers were deists and that immigration is a tenant of free-market economics, among other things, he might be able to make stronger statements concerning the more social aspects of libertarianism. RE: LGBT rights, drug policies, etc.

    1. most of the Founding Fathers were deists

      Absolutely false.

      immigration is a tenant of free-market economics

      I think you mean tenet, not tenant.

      Immigration can be studied by economists, that doesn’t make it part of economics.

      1. I think his point was that restrictions on freedom of movement, where people can work, who business owners can hire, etc. constitute interference with a free market economy. Which is true.

      2. At least some of the FFs were deist. They were sure a lot less religious than the Religious Right.

        1. Some were, but “most” were members of protestant denominations. A few were even catholic.

          1. Dear Zod!

            NOT,

            NOT,

            NOT CATHOLIC!

          2. I think the only one of the FFs who was Catholic was Charles Carroll, though there were certainly many important Catholics in early American history.

            Most, believe it or not, were not dissenters at all but members of the established Anglican church (though not by a large majority). IIRC there were only 4-5 Deist FFs.

            1. Being a member of a church doesn’t really prove what you believe… If in your community going to church is expected, if you want to be viewed as a leader in said community, you go to church. Your personal belief in the nature of God as a personal god or the clock maker, or as simply nature, isn’t expressed by what church you attend but in the privacy of your own heart.

              The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle but there is no doubt that the FF would be surprised by how far modern America has pushed religion out of public life.

        2. Not sure how you can measure “less religious”. What’s the metric unit for religiosity?

          The Framers went to church at least once a week. They spoke constantly of God. Deists are still believers.

          I really hate atheist revisionism where anyone they like in history who was religious has to be a secret atheist. Thomas Jefferson believed in God. So did Issac Newton. So did Albert Einstein, for that matter.

          1. What’s the metric unit for religiosity?

            A Zeke (short for Ezekiel).

          2. Wait, atheists have tried to reclaim Newton? I’m an atheist, and I have no idea how you’d even try to make that claim. Newton got deeply involved in alchemy later in his life and believed that menstrual blood had magical powers.

            I’m not sure how you square that with an atheistic worldview.

            1. Atheists love, deeply deeply love, trying to make people like da Vinci or Newton atheist.

              It’s like how some gay academics will tell you that pretty much every historical figure was gay.

              1. Giordano Bruno comes to mind (burned at the stake for his heretical religious beliefs, not as a “martyr for science” as widely depicted).

              2. Well, Newton wasn’t exactly the ladies man…

              3. “They” do? How collectivist of you. I’m an atheist and I have no such penchant.

              4. Atheists love, deeply deeply love, trying to make people like da Vinci or Newton atheist.

                I’m an atheist, and I couldn’t really care less who else is or isn’t. Nobody’s perfect, and some people I greatly admire are still afflicted with superstition.

                -jcr

                1. Nobody’s perfect, and some people I greatly admire are still afflicted with superstition.

                  You misspelled “faith”.

                  1. You misspelled “faith”.

                    No he didn’t.

                    1. C’mon sloop. You know I ain’t one of them there raging asshole atheists, but I’d strongly argue that the difference between ‘faith’ and ‘superstition’ is infinitesimal.

          3. The Framers went to church at least once a week. They spoke constantly of God. Deists are still believers.

            Some did, some, like Paine didn’t go to church at all, and some were even there everyday because they were clergymen themselves! The Founding Fathers were an eclectic group, just like Americans themselves.

            1. Paine probably was an atheist. He actually got attacked by other people of that generation for his irreligious beliefs.

              The vast majority of the rest of them had some sort of religion though. Jefferson was a deist, everyone from Pennsylvania or Boston was religious because at that point they were essentially religious colonies.

              I’m not sure about Franklin, since he pretty much just worshiped science and poontang.

              1. I’m not sure about Franklin, since he pretty much just worshiped science and poontang.

                False. Poontang worshiped him.

          4. So did Albert Einstein, for that matter.

            Um, no. Unless “the universe” counts as god.

            As for the rest, the atheistic position was much tougher to explain pre-Darwin. Given Jefferson’s attempts to remove miracles from the New Testament, I would say he’d fall into the atheistic camp if he were being raised today. Yes, I am well aware that is entirely speculative.

            Newton could go either way. Most modern physicists are atheists, but they certainly all aren’t.

            But whatever, we’ve got Bruce Lee and Kevin Bacon, so we win.

            1. Newton could not go either way. Isaac Newton was known in his own time, not just as a physicist but as a theologian. He believed that the use of alchemy could bring men closer to God.

              As for Einstein, he considered himself pantheistic. He didn’t believe in a ‘personal God’ but pantheism isn’t the same as atheism.

              Jefferson tried to remove miracles from the Bible, but his views were more in line with Einstein’s than with atheists. He believed that there was some ‘creator’ but that the creator did not work miracles on Earth. That’s hardly an atheistic belief.

              I’m an atheist, but all those guys pretty clearly believed in some sort of God or divine being, even if it wasn’t orthodox Christianity.

              Personally I tend to agree with Virginian, in that many atheists seem obsessed with ‘claiming’ dead, important people as having been atheists all along. Most of the time it just isn’t true.

              1. As for Einstein, he considered himself pantheistic. He didn’t believe in a ‘personal God’ but pantheism isn’t the same as atheism.

                It also isn’t the same as believing in God, which is what I was refuting. And he even wavered about referring to himself as Pantheist, and sometimes called himself agnostic, and sometimes even atheist. But no matter: in no meaningful sense of the word “God” or “god” did Einstein believe in God.

                I don’t disagree with you about what Jefferson was, which is why I specifically said “if he were being raised today.” If he had knowledge of modern physics and biology (not to mention theology), I think he’d be an atheist. Deism was pretty much dead for 200 years before the advent of the internet. And the word “agnostic” wasn’t coined until decades after Jefferson’s death. Modern Jefferson would be unlikely to be a deist.

                Newton…yeah, he had a bit of a kook streak. I’ll agree he probably wouldn’t have been atheist if even if he’d been born today. He’d probably also be a truther.

                But you’re right. There’s no point in claiming dead people as atheists.

                1. But you’re right. There’s no point in claiming dead people as atheists.

                  Exactly. They can’t do you much good while they’re burning in Hell.

                2. Beethoven was a Negro. As were the Olmecs. Whitey stole the music AND the airplanes.

          5. Wait – Albert Einstein believed in god?

            Source, please.

            1. He had bizarre beliefs. He would say things like ‘The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even na?ve.’ But he also said:

              “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind…

              And:

              “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

              Again, he was not in any way an orthodox Christian, but he certainly had spiritual beliefs that can’t really be considered atheistic.

              There are a million quotes of his that can be used to claim he was atheist, and a million that can be used to claim he had some ‘spiritual’ or mystic belief system.

              1. Of course it just may be that some of their religious beliefs evolved over their lifetimes.

                1. This. Why it’s important to one side or the other to count heads makes no sense. People are nowhere near ideal ashiest or religious in practice. Labels suck

                  1. ashiests rule damnit

                  2. And if we’re judging the success of ideology by capitation, the “x-million Christians can’t be wrong” canard makes just as much sense.

                  3. People are nowhere near ideal ashiest or religious in practice.

                    Define “ideal atheist”.

                    1. A dead one. Sorta like commies.

                    2. I’m an atheist, do you think the world would be better if I were dead?

            2. Well, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” kind of implies a god.

          6. What’s the metric unit for religiosity?

            Inversely proportional to IQ?

            I keed, I keed!

        3. Patrick Henry was a rabid Evangelical.

      3. Okay. All the important ones were deists.

        1. James Madison? John Adams? Patrick Henry? I can think of more.

    2. It’s not the religious nuts driving the WoD it’s suburban soccer moms who fancy their little snowflakes over your rights.

      1. It’s a tag team combination tbh

        1. True, but I think the RR is less powerful than many believe and it’s only getting weaker.

          1. Based on Robertson, I think the RR is less powerful than many believe and pushing in the other direction.

            1. ^This. In simple numbers, the soccer moms far outnumber the God squad. Then you throw in the progressives who just love them all that statist control.

            2. FWIW, I think it is the RR that has prevented libertarian ideals from taking root in the Republican party.

              But I’d be willing to bet they are dying faster than they are being replaced. Perhaps when I’m too old to care anymore, we’ll see it.

              1. I think its the neocons.

                I think libertarians can get on with socons much easier than neocons.

          2. Absolutely.

            I was raised in a three-times-per-week Southern Baptist household in rural Arkansas. With the exception of the abortion issue, the pulpit isn’t that loud of a voice in politics.

            The rest of it is almost exclusively groups of parents outraged at the prospect of their baby facing an imperfect world. Some of them may be religious, and that may be how it’s expressed, but it’s all about protecting their babies against big bad wolves, real and imagined, and the real turned into the imagined, and maybe vice-versa, but I’m currently medicating for PTSD, so I’m going to make some enchiladas.

            1. I would agree with this. When I say the RR, I’m talking broadly about politically conservative people who are also religious, a solid majority of whom support the WOD. But I think the bulk of the total opposition, comes from that “We must protect the children!” type thinking that you describe.

              1. Yes. Organized crime, violent street gangs, new more dangerous and contaminated drugs, corruption, overloaded criminal justice systems, and loss of civil liberties all help to protect our children.

                1. I’m not saying I agree with their reasoning or think it’s correct

        2. Soccer-mom tag team mmmmmmmm….

          1. I’m in.

            1. I don’t think he means that kind of tag team. Do athiests believe in a devil’s three-way?

      2. It’s not the religious nuts driving the WoD it’s suburban soccer moms who fancy their little snowflakes over your rights.

        Hmmm, you might want to drive to Utah and revel in the complete freedom from the WoD going on there. Oh, wait, they are extra repressive.

        It’s most of the fundies, and the soccer moms, and other busybodies, including a stripper I met in New Orleans who was all for the WoD because her family was full of drunks and druggies.

    3. In terms of affiliation, about 54% of the Founding Fathers were Episcopalians/Anglicans, 19% Presbyterian, 17% Congregationalist, 4% Quaker, 2% Catholic, 2% Unitarian, and the remainder belonged to assorted Protestant denominations. However, in terms of what they wrote about their own personal beliefs, several founding fathers, including Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin, though members of established denominations, were clearly deists. That said, deists are a far cry from athiests. They believe: (1) There is a God. (2) That God is worthy of worship and ought to be worshiped. (3) We ought to pray to God. (4) There is an absolute morality, and it is basically synonymous with Judeo-Christian morality. What they didn’t believe in was divine revelation, but that reason could reveal these things. As for the person who mentioned Newton – I doubt the athiests have tried to claim him. He wrote bible commentaries for goodness sake, and he himself wanted to be more remembered for his commentary on the prophecies of Daniel more than for his scientific discoveries.

      1. LOL – thank you for finally straightening out the major fantasies part of the thread is littered with.

        No worries, no one else read it, so soon the revisionist history will span ever wider, as once again party and caressing ones own ego trumps truth.

    4. Have you seen the link about Pat Robertson – he fits anyone’s definition of a fundamentalist – indeed, I think he is even more so than many others.

      Meanwhile, the secular-minded people who want to restrict the use of dope, sugary drinks, tobacco, etc. in the name of “public health” strike me as potentially more fanatical than a bunch of God-botherers.

      1. ^^^This. This applies to anyone trying to stuff their agenda down the public throat ‘for its own good’, from the enviros to the pols attempting to ride mass hysteria to seats of power (or at least a gravy train of money)(yes, Al Gore, I’m looking at you)

  3. Well, as my mother used to say, it’s better than getting hit in the eye with a stick.

  4. My innate cynicism makes it sounds like he’s playing it safe and framing it not as a legalization issue but as a incarceration reformation issue to make it more palatable for the conservative base of the party should he run for president in 2016. But I could be wrong. Whatever the case, I think his dad planted the seeds of a larger legalization movement in the GOP and it would be a shame for someone like him to not be on the vanguard of the call to end prohibition.

    1. He’s doing what libertarians have never quite been able to resist doing: leaving out the correct arguments which provoke visceral disgust in his target audience. I’m as guilty of this as anyone, but then again, I’m just bomb throwing, not actually trying to work within the system to change it.

      What Rand said in the interview is absolutely true. Yes, it’s a very modest step forward. But it is a step. And not a step that comes with attached statist strings, ala the whole “no prison, but mandatory treatment” bullshit.

      If Rand gets this bill passed and signed into law, he will have accomplished more for liberty in terms of tangible results then his father ever did.

      1. Although it can be argued that Rand is standing on his father’s shoulders, so Ron gets the credit if it passes too.

        1. Yeah, I love Ron too, but people need to get some fucking perspective on what he actually accomplished. Didn’t he get like one bill passed in 20 years of time in the House? It sure as hell wasn’t the End the Fed bill, because last I checked Ben Bernanke is still breathing.

          Here’s a depressing thought: has there been any federal legislation in the last twenty years that expanded liberty? Or would the Rand-Leahy bill be the first?

          1. The mandatory minimums bill is a stupendous first step. It’s not as good as flat out ending the drug war, but I’ll take what I can get.

          2. Is the success of politicians only measured by the bills that get passed?

            From a libertarian, that seems like a lousy measure.

            1. Well, I thought it went without saying that most of Ron’s bills, if not all, were efforts to repeal bad laws. If repeal bills fail, that’s bad.

              1. If repeal bills fail, that’s bad.

                Not if it builds towards them passing later.

                Some people are there to build the foundation.

                1. But that’s now it works, IMO. They built this Leviathan one piece at a time. We didn’t wake up one morning with an effective tax rate of 50%, more people in prison then any other nation, and the President having drone strike execution powers. It took them a century to get it that way.

                  It will have to be dismantled the same way. Everyone is a conservative, deep down, because everyone fears radical change. Even if the status quo is terrible, they don’t want to radically change it.

                  1. “…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

                    1. Hahaha. You ignorant fool. That stuff was written like over 10 years ago. It’s even older than the Constitution.

                      /Ezra Klein

          3. has there been any federal legislation in the last twenty years that expanded liberty?

            It’s no longer federally mandated that I drive 55 anymore.

            Didn’t he get like one bill passed in 20 years of time

            If only all legislators had that kinda record.

  5. “Paul’s right to point out that Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush would likely not be presidents had they served time for illicit drug use”

    Whereas, if they had been convicted but only given a light sentence, as Paul suggests they should have, they would have been totally fine.

    I love this guy, I do, but I’m getting a little irritated by all the free passes he’s getting. His ideas for the drug war are *slightly* less ridiculous than what we have now, so let’s throw him a party.

    1. Yeah, I don’t get that either. How woud a light sentence have been better for Bush or Obama’s career hopes than a 45 year sentence.

      1. If it were a misdemeanor, I think it would make a difference.

        1. Could Obama have gone to Harvard Law?

          1. I have no clue.

          2. Seeing how there’s online discussions dedicated to applying to law school with a misdemeanor on your record (to the point that Google offered it as an autocomplete option), I’d at least say it’s not an open-and-shut case.

            1. Ending the WOD and making drug use a civil infraction at the state level would be consistent with Paul’s statements. That wouldn’t be a libertarian solution, obviously, but it’d be a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

        2. We have laws that keep you from getting financial aid if you’ve been convicted of a drug crime. Probably wasn’t in effect when Obama went to college, but he’s made it clear that he benefited from financial aid.

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…..o-college/

          1. Ironically, Bush signed that into law, iirc.

          2. What is the more libertarian position?

            a. We’re going to have government giveaways, so under equal protection everyone should be able to get them.

            b. We’re going to have government giveaways, so every single thing that limits the amount of money given away is a good thing.

            Genuinely asking here.

            1. I’d say A. I think it’s more of a market and societal distortion when the government picks favorites. Having some companies pay high taxes and some pay low taxes is the worst possible scenario because the government essentially has the ability to pick winners.

              I’d rather have every corporation pay 30% taxes than have some poor suckers pay 30% and get crushed by businesses that only have to pay 10% due to favorable tax breaks.

              1. Everyone in the same boat is the best option. Stop the divide and conquer.

            2. I would see b) as just being the flip side of special favors for connected people. It’s bad for rule of law and it adds unnecessary categories for government to box people into.

            3. I agree with Irish. The giveaways suck ass, but equal protection under the law is a pillar of libertarianism we can’t allow to crumble.

              Also, expanded giveaways can do nothing but hasten the inevitable demise of Leviathan. And that’s always a good thing.

            4. I agree with the others. Equality before the law is essential.

              The fact is, we are probably going to continue to live with a lot of government welfare in various forms. I think that’s just realistic. Even if the federal budget were cut in half, there would still be a lot more of that sort of thing than a strict libertarian would want. Government picking winners will just make it an even bigger distortion.

              1. OK, but the counter to that is that any kind of cutting of the welfare state is going to start by looking at people collecting checks and deciding who can do without. So seniors with large savings are going to be the first cut from the SS lists.

    2. The argument that it’s the prison sentence that derails you, not being criminalized in the first place, is wrong, and I am addressing it at length in a magazine feature about conservative prison reformers and the drug war. In other words, I promise I’m not giving out any free passes.

      1. I look forward to reading this.

        Riggs, could you encourage your fellow H&R writers to join us groundling here in the comments more often?

        1. Seconded. I alwasy appreciate the writers responding directly to what we have to say (and H&R commenters seem to be fairly generous in supporting Reason foundation, etc). Some of the writers never seem to check out the comments.

          1. I’m not so great about responding myself, but I do trust y’all to call out bullshit and (unfortunately for me) errors.

            I’ll pass the word along. No promises though.

    3. Yeah, it’s not the sentence the does the most damage. It’s the felony. I’ve read some statistic stating how something like 80% jobless rate among felons.

      1. I don’t know, but is that the biggest contributing factor to recidivism among felons?

        1. I would think it’s one of the biggest. Any hope for a normal life and the vast majority of jobs are impossible with a felony record.

      2. Wouldn’t you expect a higher unemployment rate among felons? Seems like common sense to me.

        1. But we’re at a point where victimless crimes are felonies.

          http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..le/2518696

          Illegal oyster harvesting in Texas, and tire burning in Alabama are both felonies.

          1. But what about the children?

            1. They’ll pay more for oysters and have more landfills. For their own good of course.

          2. Read Glenn Reynold’s article ‘Due Process When Everything is a Crime.’ It’s a great example of what you’re talking about. It’s really short and I think you can download it for free online.

            Here’s a quote:

            The result of overcriminalization is that prosecutors no longer need to wait for obvious signs of a crime. Instead of finding Professor Plum dead in the conservatory and launching an investigation, authorities can instead start an investigation of Colonel Mustard as soon as someone has suggested he is a shady character. And since . . . everyone is a criminal if prosecutors look hard enough, they’re guaranteed to find something eventually.

          3. It would be interesting to see the unemployment rate for people convicted of “real” felonies vs people convicted of oyster farming and tire burning.

            1. Oops sorry, didn’t see that before I posted. But seriously, you have to give society at large some credit.

          4. Do you really think the average employer is going to treat a job applicant who illegally harvested oysters the same as one who robbed a convenience store? People who break laws that no one likes have a leg up on those who break laws most people agree with.

            1. If they are trying to get a federal, state or local government job, it won’t matter. If they are trying to get bonding to start a contract business (plumber, electrician, GC, etc), it won’t matter to the bonding company. If they’re trying to get a job as armed security, it won’t matter. If they’re trying to get a job where they may have to obtain a security clearance for a government contract, it won’t matter.

              Yeah, some employers may be sympathetic. But the options are severely limited for someone convicted of a felony regardless of the crime or how long they had to serve.

            2. I haven’t applied for a job in over a decade, but don’t a lot of application forms simply have a yes/no question about convictions? What are the odds that you even get a chance to explain if HR sees the ‘yes?’

            3. Uh, do you really think that’s how job applications work? In this economy, 200 resumes are coming in for every position. I’d argue the first thing they do is throw out everyone with a criminal record, and the second thing they do is throw out everyone without a college degree. I’d be very very surprised if anyone with any kind of felony conviction is getting employment without having personal connections.

            4. It’s not just the perspective of the employer. I imagine that the kind of people who are “real” felons just have a harder time holding down a job.

      3. It’s the felony.

        Even misdemeanor drug laws hurt you later. In PA our M1 misdemeanors (punishable up to 2 years) disqualify you federally for firearm ownership. Not only that, but the licence to carry law has an exception for drug violations. As in you could of spent 6 months in jail for an M2 violation that was violent, or have a couple of DUIs and get an LTCF, but get caught with a weed pipe and your prohibited from EVER getting an LTCF.

        I think the drug hysteria of the 80s led a lot of states making a misdemeanor drug offense as bad as a felony for all intense and porpoises.

        1. I think the drug hysteria of the 80s led a lot of states making a misdemeanor drug offense as bad as a felony for all intense and porpoises.

          I blame Crockett and Tubbs.

          PA is a statist shithole. It’s so ingrained that it’s never even questioned.

          1. Our gun laws are pretty good, if we disregard the drug thing.

            Everything else pretty much sux, and with the influx of people from NY and NJ it’s only gonna get worse.

            1. Aren’t PA’s gun laws often superseded by localities? I thought I saw some shit about Philly cops really fucking with people that were carrying or transporting guns in accordance with state law.

              Your state is also fucked in the head IRT recording of police in public.

              1. The state laws override the local laws, i.e. a town can’t ban guns in a park or something, but philadelphia has an exception by being a “city of the 1st class” (an ironic title to be sure). This means you can’t open carry there without a license, like the rest of the state.

                In addition, philly really doesn’t care what the law is. Even with permits people are harassed and beaten and the permit process in philly is in direct violation of the state law’s shall issue policy.

                That’s why I laugh when people speak of ‘rule of law’. What are you going to do when no one in power follows the law, like in philly?

                Oh, and philly cops make NY cops look like the cops in dunphy’s head.

                1. Yeah, I read a thread on Arfcom about a guy who drew down on a bum with a knife or a screwdriver or something, then got his weapon and his permit taken at the scene, then they charged him for carrying without a permit. Of course then he had to fight it, and he did, and he won, but couldn’t get his gun back. Probably because some cop sold it for tax free cash.

                2. California sounds a lot like Philly.

                  1. Except California has great weather, natural beauty, and many many attractive and sexually open women.

                    Philly has shitty weather, looks like shit, and has a bunch of loud annoying beefy Shorettes.

            2. Our gun laws are pretty good

              Things must have changed in the last 25 years. As I recall PA had some of the worst gun laws in the country.

              1. They’re good only compared to their neighboring states. Seriously, gun owners flee from NJ, NY, sometimes even MD, and think “Hey man PA gun laws are great!” These are like the people who flee from North Korea to China and are sickeningly grateful that while their is still a murderous oppressive regime in power, at least people usually have enough rice to survive the winter.

                1. Figured it was along those lines. The differences between the blue coastal states and the flyover states still astounds me. Most don’t have any idea how bad they have it because they haven’t seen anything else.

                  I was born and raised in PA. My first assignment was in South Dakota. I got my first CCP by going to the sheriff’s office and signing my name on a piece of paper. My first realization that maybe there was something better available.

            3. Given our state constitution says that:

              The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

              The fact that you need a LTCF (license to carry firearms) to openly carry in Philly means that laws are meaningless. How can requiring a permission slip from the state not be questioning the right?

              Other than Philly, obtaining a LTCF is easy, took me all of 15 minutes and $25. However, given our state constitution, still bull fucking shit.

              So yes, compared to MD, OH, NY, NJ, DE our right to arms is infringed much less than those statist hellholes. However, when something isn’t to be infringed, infringing it at all is illegal.

        2. Well, I don’t want any very serious dolphins carrying guns.

    4. Yeah, Jessie, he ought to come out and say let’s end the Drug War tomorrow and have all the suburban soccer moms completely write him and any reform of the status quo off. Great strategy.

  6. On the plus side, he’s not just insinuating that he’d be for full on legalization, only to turn around and simply give the “you fucked up, you trusted me” laughing dismissal after the fact when queried about the subject.

  7. It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don’t get lucky, they don’t have good attorneys and they go to jail for these things and I think it’s a big mistake.

    Check your privilege, Racist Rand!

    1. I don’t understand how these crazy, racist Republicans get away with talking about helping inner city black kids.

      1. It’s a trick, you see, to make us think they aren’t racists.

        1. That’s actually what the people at HuffPo and Kos will say.

          “It’s a trick! HE IS SO RACIST! Devious racist trickery from the racist!”

  8. In my opinion, the number one reason marijuana “takes away your incentive to work and to show up” is because of the persecution they might face were someone to suspect their use. It has very little to do with its actual psycho-somatic effects. While performance of certain tasks may be negatively affected, many other tasks can become more enjoyable. The marijuana can inspire a person to even work on improving their performance of a task in ways they would not have conceived otherwise.

    1. The biggest pothead I know is in his 20s, has a 6 figure salary and has multiple companies constantly fighting over who gets to throw more money at him.

      He also has a funny story about TSA finding pot on him during a patdown at SFO. They lost it, the San Fran cops refused to do anything because he had a prescription and just warned him that if he landed with it, it would be a crime at his destination, so he might want to take care of that before the flight. Pissed TSA off that they didnt haul him away.

      1. The smartest guy I knew in my engineering undergrad was a big pot head. He smoked it responsibly but that was his relax drug. He made his own bongs and everything – and he got straight A’s and has been successful at the firm he was hired at.

        Its fuckin bullshit that people think a person should be put away for years in prison for smoking this harmless plant.

    2. The marijuana can inspire a person to even work on improving their performance of a task in ways they would not have conceived otherwise.

      Is LSD is better?

      The legendary molecular biologist Francis Crick had told his Cambridge fellow, Dick Kemp, that he surprisingly had “perceived the double-helix shape while on LSD.”

      Neurocientist John Cunningham Lilly was the most important figure in the field of electronic brain stimulation. He extensively experimented with LSD and ketamine.

      Kary Banks Mullis was an American biochemist who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for making valuable improvements to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. Mullies once told California Monthly that he “took plenty of LSD”.

      Ralph Abraham is a prominent American mathematician. In an interview with GQ magazine, Abraham discussed how psychedelic insights had helped influence his mathematical theories. He took LSD and other psychedelic drugs.

      1. Sullum has some great anecdotes about LSD in Saying Yes.

    3. When I was a pothead, we’d smoke up on break and then go back to work. No big deal, hell I went through much of my senior year of HS tripping and still graduated with honors.

      Lazy losers are lazy losers, if they happen to be potheads, then they are lazy losers who smoke pot. Not smoking doesn’t modify their innate loserness.

  9. lol what a corrupt, pompous windbag!

    http://www.anoncloak.da.bz

  10. It bothers me that any time the issue of drug laws comes up in the media for some reason there’s always an implicit reference or comparison to LGBT rights. I am a proponent of marijuana leniency, conserving existing strict policies for real hard drugs, and for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I suspect that anti-marijuana activists have devised the quite-effective tactic of linking the two, for the purpose of misleading social conservatives into thinking smoking marijuana is in some way similar to being homosexual (I still fail to see any connection between the two myself). I wish more people, social conservatives and hippies alike, would realize the rich history of the Cannabis species, and that this cultural persecution is based on centuries of both scientific misunderstanding and deliberate economic propaganda.

    1. An awful lot of anti-gay marriage initiatives are also based on centuries of scientific misunderstanding and deliberate propaganda.

      1. All of them.

    2. any time the issue of drug laws comes up in the media for some reason there’s always an implicit reference or comparison to LGBT rights.

      Being on drugs is like being gay! I’ve really never heard a comparison of the two.

      1. I was gonna say. I’ve never really heard gay marriage and marijuana legalization be talked about together in the manner he describes.

        1. C’mon, haven’t we all gone on a bender in Bangkok with some strong Thai herb and woke up the next morning next to Yasmine Lee?

          1. Her dominance over her male counterpart in her work is highly praised by viewers as she makes her man cry.

            How did this make it into a wikipedia page?

    3. It bothers me that any time the issue of drug laws comes up in the media for some reason there’s always an implicit reference or comparison to LGBT rights. I am a proponent of marijuana leniency, conserving existing strict policies for real hard drugs, and for defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

      Well, at least you implicitly acknowledge that you are restricting their rights, which is better than many gay marriage opponents and an important first step.

      1. All state licensed marriage is a restriction of rights. And a violation of the 1A freedom of religion.

        1. And the 14th, as well.

          I pay more in taxes being single.

    4. “I am a proponent of marijuana leniency, conserving existing strict policies for real hard drugs, and for defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”

      Did you take a wrong turn at The Weekly Standard and end up here?

      1. No. He’s a Republican that likes to smoke pot, not a libertarian.

    5. And, of course, you’re eminently qualified to determine which drugs are hard and whose doo-dads a person should like to touch.

      Keep trying

      1. Based on his writing, I’d say he’s intimately familiar with several hard drugs.

  11. By the way, it’s spring and the midwest is currently getting slammed by a blizzard. How’s that “global warming” working out for everybody?

    1. It just started snowing here in Minnesota. There’s a good chance we’ll go the entire month of March without breaking 40 degrees. I’ve “put away” my skate skis three times so far.

      1. It was supposed to snow in Kentucky today, but it stayed a bit warm and we got rain.

        This has been the coldest Smarch I can remember.

        1. It’s supposed to snow tonight. I bought some new spring/summer shirts a couple weeks back. They’re still sitting in the closet.

    2. No, no. Somebody posted on my facebook that the global warming that is now referred to as climate change is causing this cold because climate change is like leaving the freezer door open in the spring.

      There is not a single negative climate statistic which they will not attribute to climate change.

    3. From what the long term models on the weatherunderground say, not at all, at least for the mid west the great lakes and the north east in general. Looks better mid April, we were so spoiled last year.

    4. Weather isn’t climate.

      There will still be cold winters and mild summers even if mean global temperature goes up by 4 degC. You’d have to analyze long-term temperature data to notice global warming on that scale.

      1. “Weather isn’t climate.”

        Yes it is.


        cli?mate
        [klahy-mit] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. ”

        I still don’t understand how people think they can pass that stupidity off.

        1. Get Bailey to explain it. I’d sure love to hear.

  12. I hope I’m right on this, but…

    I think what Rand is tryind to do here, is to take a look at where to get started on ending the WOD, and to take it apart one step at a time, starting with the worst aspects. He knows we can’t kill this thing all in one big push, so we have to start taking it apart one bad piece at a time.

    That being said, I think he is trying way too hard here to pander to the SoCons. I am in particular offended by his statement about how people shouldn’t be allowed to just use MJ because it makes them lazy. It doesn’t even matter if that is true, or not. Alcohol makes some people act in all manner of anti-social ways. That is far too statist like of a statement for Rand to be making. He needs to be careful to not go too far with this silly pandering, or else serious risk of his Libertarian base becoming alienated.

    Overall, I am very disappointed with him right now, not for the first time. But I still support him by virtue of his voting record.

    1. Another thing:

      I think its possible to end the war on drugs without legalizing them.

      I would prefer legalization, but ending the federalization of the crimes and the militarization of local police would be huge, even if drug use remained illegal.

      1. It is also possible to decriminalize and make it a civil infraction on the state or local level.

        Not good, but a damn sight better than what I expect to see in my lifetime.

        1. I think I’ll get to smoke a legal joint before I die. I’m 48.

    2. That is far too statist like of a statement for Rand to be making. He needs to be careful to not go too far with this silly pandering, or else serious risk of his Libertarian base becoming alienated.

      The libertarian ‘base’ matters? Dude, let’s face it, over a century of government schooling, propaganda and relentless, implacable attacks on the free market have left us living in a nation of people who overwhelmingly prefer the certainty of being saddled and bridled and a feed bad of sawdust and oats.

      Rand Paul, like his father, is going to find that coalition building engaged in to build up his power is going to fatally undermine any attempt to use that power towards radical ends. And absent some dramatically radical changes, the USA is going to go the way of its cousin the CCCP.

      1. When did his father engage in serious coalition building? Never.

        coalition building engaged in to build up his power is going to fatally undermine any attempt to use that power towards radical ends.

        You hope for this as it would give you some kind of vindication for your bitter miserliness. I’ve noticed that a lot of posters-usually the anarchos-love political failure.

        1. I’ve noticed that a lot of posters-usually the anarchos-love political failure.

          If by “love” you mean “accept the inevitability of” then you are probably right.

  13. If Paul proposes a bill that gives us more net freedom (e.g., not giving one coin with one hand while pocketing TWO with the other), I will not criticize him for his weak-broth public ideology. Real steps forward are still forward steps. But I worry very much when he gives evidence of either believing or at least pretending to believe in the idea that government owns your adult body and mind enough to restrict your choices in food, drugs, etc. A “reform” that doesn’t strike at the government’s usurpation of personal choice in this area amounts to a “generous” grant of privilage by The Master, which can be revoked at any time. It is the “liberty” granted to someone on military leave, not that which is inherently the right of the citizen. Because the former type of “liberty” can avoid the destruction of lives, more power to Rand Paul in his pursuit of it for all Americans. But I would like him more if he were trying to work himself out of a job, by systematically removing wholesale areas from the purview of government — as the Constitution was written (apparently in vain) to do.

    1. I don’t think a politician could come out and say ‘I am in favor of all drug legalization’ and have any hope with the electorate as currently constituted. Sometimes libertarians get angry because a politician who is relatively libertarian realizes he won’t get anywhere by strictly adhering to the libertarian line.

      If Rand Paul gets this bill passed, he’ll already have done more to advance freedom than his father did, and the reason for that is because he knows how to play the game, and his dad really didn’t.

      1. “If Rand Paul gets this bill passed, he’ll already have done more to advance freedom than his father did, and the reason for that is because he knows how to play the game, and his dad really didn’t.”

        I agree that Rand is more politically skilled than Ron is, but I think you could make the case that it was necessary for a more radical, doctrinaire libertarian like Ron to set the stage and get the word out, so to speak, before guys like Rand could actually accomplish stuff.

        1. I’d agree Ron may have served a very useful purpose in growing the movement and reaching people. I’m speaking more in terms of actually getting laws passed, parliamentary politics, and having actual chances of future electoral gains. Paul the Elder was too unyielding to effect actual change in the halls of Congress.

          I do think that Ron may have had a major impact in that there are now multiple younger guys who are relatively libertarian, like Massie, Amash, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz to a lesser extent.

        2. If Ron can keep the feds from haranguing CO and WA then it’s all worth it.

          1. Sorry, ‘Rand’.

      2. What a politician could perhaps come out and say is, “You’re an adult, and whether you use or abuse it, your body is completely your own property. ALL the decisions about it that, in themselves, affect nobody else, are YOURS to make. It is not the government’s role to force you to deal with your body in any particular way.”

        A politician could come out and say: “Here is what the world was like when drugs — even the worst of them — were completely legal. Here is what people said the world would be like if we didn’t tightly control drugs and make some illegal. And here is what the world is like today. I don’t think our intervention improved matters much, if at all, and especially not in comparision with what it cost, and what we have lost.”

        “So, the Drug War fails on two important counts: principle, and practical effects. We need to end it.”

        Paul could say ALL that and STILL recommend against using drugs as he did in the statement we are discussing. But he doesn’t. He upholds the authority of the State to intervene in this area, while proposing that the State exercise its authority just a bit more benignly. I worry that, whatever little success he may have in the short term, will be rolled back in the long term as the political winds change, unless we can also have true, though perhaps small, incremental, wins on PRINCIPLE.

    2. “grant of privalege by the Master”

      xxx privilege

      I thought we gained the power to edit these posts in recent history, but I don’t see any obvious control to do so today. Hmmm. If there are any other typos, sorry. 🙂

      1. xxx privilege

        You earn that at 18, I believe.

  14. Goddamit Iowa State, why the fuck wouldn’t you foul???

    1. Did they have a foul to give?

      1. No, they were in the bonus, but why would you yield the last shot in a tied game? Plus the kid hit a three, not that it mattered, but if they had fouled they would have gotten the ball back down two points at most.

        1. I’m sorry but that is idiotic logic. You don’t just give the other team a chance to take the lead at the end of a game. In college, kids make less than 50% of their shots. The kid who made that shot is a 29% three point shooter. Those odds are a lot better than your odds of hitting a game winner on the other end.

          1. Yeah, you don’t foul in that situation. Craft is an 80% FT shooter. And I know he struggled from the line earlier, but you have to play the odds.

            If you foul and he makes both shots, you have to hope for a tie with a 50% shot or hope for a win with a sub-30% shot against a team that will be defending the perimeter tightly, because they’ll be willing to give you a better look at a 2 than a 3.

            They played the odds and happened to lose. Of course I’m happy, but if the roles would have been reversed, I wouldn’t be questioning Matta.

          2. You don’t just give the other team a chance to take the lead at the end of the game

            That is precisely what Iowa State did and they lost.

            1. They gave up a 20 foot contested shot to a 28% 3-point shooter that had missed two of his last 4 free throws.

              If I’m a coach, I take those odds.

            2. I should have phrased that better. If you put them on the line, it’s almost a certainty that they’re going to get the lead. If you let them shoot, there’s less than 50% shot of them winning in regulation. Of course that means sometimes you’ll lose. But there isn’t a coach in the country that would put someone (with the possible exception of someone who’s a horrible free throw shooter having a really bad game) on the line at the end of tie game intentionally. My point was that you don’t just concede the lead to the other team in that situation.

  15. Sloopy must have been pretty nervous during the last couple of minutes of the O.S.U. game!

    1. For a moment there, I was afraid that I was going to have to grab the baby and spend the day in town.

      1. I would’ve feared for the lives of baby chickens. And artisanal mayo craftsman.

        1. I didn’t fear for our lives, I just didn’t want Reason to see her daddy cry.

        2. We ended up with 26 chicks out of 32 making it. Not the best attrition rate, but certainly not bad for our first go of things.

          And the Buckeyes won! Fuck you, Charles Barkley, you fat stupid fuck.

          1. I hope you don’t use this sort of language in front of baby Reason. We expect big things from her, and I won’t have you filling her mind with smut like curse words and being a Buckeyes fan.

            1. You do know that Fuck Michigan were her first words? As it should be.

              1. When oh when will we ban Buckeyes fandom in order to protect our children from this horrible scourge?

              2. You do know that Fuck Michigan were will be her first words? As it should be.

                FIFY!

                1. You do know that Fuck Michigan were will be her first words? As it should be.

                  Damn. I was kind of hoping she was just a really intelligent baby.

                2. This is why there are no baby libertarians.

            2. Strangely enough, I go out of my way to not use curse words in front of her or my other two kids. Of course, they hear me once in a while, but most of their exposure to smut is the TV or their school.

              They are all, however, Buckeyes fans.

              And besides, Charles Barkley is a fat stupid fuck, even if he would have kept his mouth shut about that foul basically costing Iowa State that game.

              1. “Strangely enough, I go out of my way to not use curse words in front of her or my other two kids”

                I did that also, not for religious reasons, but because excessive cursing is a positive indicator of an inferior means of expression. In other words, you can’t fucking talk without fucking talking like a stupid fuck

                1. ^^This^^ is fucking smart as shit.

                  1. I’d hire the motherfucking shit out of someone who talked like CampinginyourPark before I’d hire a Buckeyes fan.

                    1. I’m OK with that. We’re a special breed of arrogant asshole and aren’t always a good corporate fit.

                    2. “I’d hire the motherfucking shit out of someone who talked like CampinginyourPark before I’d hire a Buckeyes fan.”

                      LMFAO…no you wouldn’t, unless you were hiring me in the context of never having to hear me tell you that you and your plan are full of shit. There’s a reason I don’t do “meetings”

          2. We attempted to incubate quail to hunt when I was a kid. We started with 80 ish eggs. 30 something hatched. And every single one of the fuckers died within 3 weeks.

            Did much better with pheasants.

      2. I knew they were going to win all along:) They should roll to the final four from here. Oh, and Charles Barkley is an idiot. I’m sure I’ve said that many times before but it really can’t be said enough.

  16. I wonder what Rand would say if asked if he supports ending the federal WOD, but not legalizing them at the state level. When he says he opposes legalization, what level of government is he talking about? Does he think the feds should ignore Colorado and Washington’s new laws, for example?

    1. I can’t imagine he’d be in publicly in favor of ending the war on heroin, cocaine, meth, etc but I can see him saying he’d stop the raids on medical marijuana dispensaries and respecting states’ rights with regard to legalization in Washington and Colorado.

      I’m fine with a baby steps approach towards liberty since its better than the other options.

    2. I think Rand takes the ‘blind-eye and hands-off-the-states’ approach to ending the WOD. Just let the states stop participating. Dismantle federal machinery.

    3. When he says he opposes legalization, what level of government is he talking about?

      This is a trait of the Pauls which has served them well. Essentially, they would placate people who wanted shit outlawed by promising them that they could get that shit outlawed at the state level while making arguments as to why dismantling the federal apparatus was to the outlawing-desirers’ benefit.

      And they were pretty careful in not revealing whether they supported the outlawing in question as a policy.

      Rand appears to be angling for the Presidency and no proponent of full legalization will get within spitting distance of the presidency as things now stance – the Prison/LEO complex will throw considerable money and manpower into stopping his election. If Rand were to want to stay in the Senate, he would be better off pounding the table saying “Legalization now, Legalization tomorrow, Legalization forever!”

      1. It’s a shame really; the Presidency would chew him up and spit him out – the civil service will sabotage any President who attempts to limn their power significantly, meaning that only someone with a very powerful independent power base can pull it off.

        I don’t see Rand Paul having the power base to pull it off since he hasn’t been in the Senate that long.
        It is a waste of time to try to scrutinize these vague positions in an attempt to collapse the wave function as people did when the whole Ron Paul and StormFront episode hit the scene back in 08 and lots of people (including yours truly) spent hours reading and writing on the question of whether or not Ron Paul was some bigot trying to keep Mexicans from entering the U.S. The problem is that the Paul’s are actually far more disciplined when it comes to messaging than most people perceive, and it becomes an exercise in reading tea leaves.

        One must also consider the fact that they are swimming against the tide. Occasionally, as happened with Ron’s bill to audit the Fed, the interests of various factions align, so that they can achieve some legislative victory, but the ‘victory’ will be some bill or action that is a compromise between all those factions where the Paul in question gets maybe 30% of what he was striving for because that was all that was palatable to the coalition partners.

        1. I don’t see Rand Paul having the power base to pull it off since he hasn’t been in the Senate that long.

          From a traditional standpoint, I would probably agree with you. However, this next cycle’s front-runners are arguably Rubio, Paul, Cruz and Ryan. Three freshman and a Congressman from a failed national ticket. And I think it will stay that way because the gOP establishment candidates have been getting beaten soundly and the party is finally realizing a sharp right turn on fiscal issues coupled with a more moderate stance on social issues is the only way to electoral victory on the big stage.

      2. Ron was very clear about that. The Feds have no constitutional authority over drug policy (among others). The states could do as they pleased. Personally, he was against even tobacco and alcohol, but also against any kind of prohibition, on moral as well as practical grounds.

  17. Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use. And I really think look what would have happened: It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don’t get lucky, they don’t have good attorneys and they go to jail for these things and I think it’s a big mistake.

    That awkward moment when racist Rand Paul (according to the people at HuffPo, Daily Kos, and Salon) is more sympathetic towards the mass incarceration of inner city minorities than the first black president.

    1. He just wants another market and labor pool for the Kochtopus.

  18. I’m disappointed and am not holding any hope to be honest. I’m not sure if the mandatory min bill will pass. I doubt we’ll ever get rid of mandatory minimums because too much of the justice system/DOJ relies on it, and the law-n-order vs “soft on crime” perception. If there is reform, it will be a slight reduction, e.g. 20 yrs reduced 15 yrs, where it is still plenty enough to maintain the plea bargain rates.

    If you want real change with the current system, get most of the Senator’s and Congressman’s family members involved. Either get those family members to start facing felonies themselves or for them to find a need for the drugs. Republican South Carolina Senator Bill Mescher introduced a medical marijuana bill several years ago because of his wife’s death and pain, for example.

  19. I fucking hate the incremental approach, but I guess I need to resign myself to it being the only way to increase liberty when it comes to civil liberties.

    It’s just disgusting that we have gotten to a point when fining people instead of incarcerating them for putting something voluntarily into their own body is considered a big win.

    Meh. My Sunday has started off quite well, so I ain’t gonna complain that much.

    1. I think Rand’s not looking directly at incrementalism here.

      I think he’s trying to accomplish a couple of different things:

      1. He wants to pass a minor piece of legislation cosponsored with Patrick Leahy. For Rand politically it’s very significant that he do something legislatively that involves a liberal.

      2. He’s trying to spread despair among the anti-drug conservatives. The ground is shifting so rapidly under their feet at the state level that any little bit of undermining that gets done at the federal level saps their spirit just that little bit more.

  20. I’m a little confused. So Rand was for locking up non-violent offenders for a long time prior to this interview? Because that’s what this article implies.

    1. I…don’t see that.

      1. if you broaden the comparison to include Republicans outside the Senate, Paul is coming late to this way of thinking. Former drug warriors Newt Gingrich, Ed Meese, Asa Hutchinson, and Bill Bennethave all come out againstincarcerating low-level nonviolent drug offenders

        1. From the article

        2. I think this is just a tortured paragraph. (No offense, Mike)

          It can sound either way, depending on how you want to read it. Personally, I think it just means Paul is late in the game as far as declaring the position many from the right have already staked out (Newclear Titties, Meese< Hutchinson, Bennethave, etc). And that it’s also ironic that he’s still viewed as a “rebel” in the Senate on this and many other issues.

  21. Sort of OT:

    Do you guys think that Paul’s being a post-Bush republican is a distinct advantage for him in a presidential general? I mean, the dude was doing LASIK at the time and might not have the baggage that other republicans have.

    Of course the extreme left will try to paint him as a racist-er, evil-er Bush but will the voting public buy it?

    1. Of course many will buy the charges simply because they won’t have the intellectual habits/and knowledgebase to sceptically consider the propaganda.

      Personally, I don’t see how Rand Paul could get the presidency in the face of such determined smearing by the media that are the sole source of information for the vast majority of voters. If he pulls it off, I’ll be pleasantly surprised. Then of course will come the crushing disappointment when he starts to govern and starts to accommodate those who must not be accommodated with. 🙂

      1. Though I think we around here come by our bunker mentality honestly, I really don’t think the general population is as liberal and as influenced by the media as we fear.

        If the media was as powerful as we claim, then Obama’s approval rating wouldn’t be falling like a rock.

        Everybody likes to read into the last election and see it as a victory for Obama and his compliant media, buy I won’t give them that much credit. 2004 showed the power of the office of the president in being reelected. GeeDub barely even campaigned and was reelected despite his horrible job performance. So we must realize that in 2016 the dems won’t have that advantage. I’d be more worried about Rand losing the primary to someone like santorum or huckabee and handing joe biden (or clinton) the presidency for eight years.

        Not that I think the presidency isn’t a good goal for liberty advocating individuals, but I’d be more concerned with filling the houses, state houses, governorships, and local political positions with libertarian leaning pols.

        1. It’s not the population is liberal. It’s a lot more subtle then that. Fish don’t notice the water, and the majority of the people in this country don’t notice the statism. That is the power of the media and the academy: to make State action the default. Which they have done very well. If you talk politics with typical people, it’s not they are stupid or misinformed, though they can be. The real issue is that everyone already assumes the government should be doing something, and they’re just arguing over what the meddling will be.

          Newtown is a prime example. The Left wanted new gun control, the Right wanted more involuntary commitment or more cops. No one with any kind of media market share was arguing that bad things happen, and there isn’t much the government can do to stop it.

          1. Exactly. And because they don’t notice how huge and powerful the United States government is, they blame market collapses or bubbles or failures on ‘the free market’ even though we don’t have one.

          2. The savvy portion of the pro-gun movement was trying to come up with any plausible solution they could think of that could divert us away from gun bans. Had the response from the pro-gun side been saying “oh well, what can you do” we’d probably have UK-style gun control at the federal level by now.

            1. “Had the response from the pro-gun side been saying “oh well, what can you do” we’d probably have UK-style gun control at the federal level by now.”

              This is ridiculous. Especially if you’re just talking about Newtown. In any case, there are ways of phrasing the argument that don’t come off as insensitive. It is blatantly true that bad things happen, and government can’t change that fact.

        2. I’d vote for Stalin before I’d vote for Santorum. Huckabee or Biden would, at least, provide some entertainment value.

          1. Santorum is a great example of a dyed in the wool statist who only gets to call himself a Republican because he’s a social conservative.

            This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.

            – Santorum

            In other words, he’s a tax and spend liberal who happens to not like gay marriage and is anti-abortion. If he were alive 20 years ago, he’d be a New Deal dixiecrat.

            1. Sorry, should be ’50 years ago.’ The Dixiecrats were long gone by 1993.

    2. but will the voting public buy it?

      Yes, the sheep will buy whatever the TEAM doles out via its lapdog, subservient courtiers in the media. TEAM Blue didn’t suffer an ounce of shame in denouncing Mitt Romney, whose only appreciable difference from Barry is that he is entirely white, and TEAM Red declared that they were the party of small government and rights and the constitution, then proceded to nominate and back the guy whose only appreciable difference from Barry is that he is entirely white.

      Insanity reigns in America. An understated and non-violent insanity, but insanity nonetheless.

      1. I think it will be hilarious if Clinton vs. Rand Paul is the 2016 match up, because both of those people are arguably to the right of Mitt Romney. As much as I despise Hillary Clinton, our next president will unquestionably be better than the two buffoons who ran against each other in 2012. Or the two buffoons who ran against each other in 2008. Or the two buffoons who ran against each other in 2004. Or…

        1. I’ll view Hillary Clinton as the “antilibertarian” candidate, should she choose to run. She loves foreign adventurism, going even further to the right that Team Red candidates and loves central planning and HUGE government interference with the market, while supporting massive expansion of social safety net programs. And her record on civil liberties is about as far from libertarian as you can get. Just look at her support of the drone process, Gitmo, the TSA, expanded wiretapping, government snooping on email, phone calls and web browsing, etc.

          She wouldn’t even be an improvement over Obama. She’s a piece of shit.

          1. Her entire governing philosophy summed up in one soundbite:

            What difference, at this point, does it make?

          2. She wouldn’t even be an improvement over Obama.

            Hard to say. Sort of like the difference between a prison warden who’s passed out drunk all day allowing the guards beat you with impunity vs. a prison warden who coldly, calculatingly issues orders for the guards to beat you.

            1. If Obama is ass cancer, she’s dick cancer.

            2. I disagree. I don’t think Clinton could possibly be worse than Obama. She’d be equally bad on civil liberties issues but she wouldn’t be the crazed ‘any spending cuts will kill your children’ crusader that Barack Obama is.

              1. Clinton ran on her husband trying to get a massive health care boondoggle passed that she put together. I’ve never once heard her call for a cut to a government program.

                Like I said, dick cancer.

            3. This is ironic coming from the guy who not only supported Mitt Romney, but went so far as to say that anyone who criticized Romney was a de facto Obama supporter, even if they also criticized Obama.

      2. Do you mean the kind of unerstated non-violent insanity that enters your house in the middle of the night with a battering ram and stun grenade, then starts shooting? Got it.

    3. It’s definitely helpful.

      No one liked the Bush administration by the end, except the pro-OIF and pro-WoT folks who were still in denial. Rand is associated with the only two movements with any energy in the Republican party (SOCONs and Tea Party), and has done so without becoming a marginal or hated figure among most people.

      In some ways, I think he’d be better staying in the Senate and making himself more influential, but I think he has a good shot at the 2016 Presidency if he wants it.

    4. GBN: Romney and Ryan were held responsible at the polls for what Todd Akin said about abortion. Enough of the voting public will buy it to sink him.

  22. That game was a perfect example of a team dying by jacking up one terrible three-pointer after another. Temple should absolutely have won, and they blew it.

  23. If you need a break from basketball, Tiger Woods is on-fire and is in position to win again at Bayhill. Can’t wait for the Masters.

    1. God yes. Was watching TV with a girl, and there was a Masters commercial on. She goes “Eww, why would someone want to watch golf, it’s so boring” I just stared at her and said “not as boring as the shit you watch. I don’t know the ending in advance of a golf tournament.”

    2. You guys should go watch TV or something.

    3. If I were going to tune in to a golf tournament, I’d rather not have to hear constantly about how Eldrick the Slut is doing.

  24. OT:
    Cash rationed in Cyprus to stop run on banks

    Savers at the Laiki bank and Bank of Cyprus will be hit by new cash limits of ?100 and ?120 a day respectively on Monday, at midday GMT, in a measure aimed at stopping a run on the country’s banks.

    The future of the Bank of Cyprus, the island’s largest financial institution, has been called into doubt following emergency talks between the eurozone and the International Monetary Fund on Sunday night.

    Under plans drawn up by the eurozone and IMF, depositors with over ?100,000 in the bank face losses of between 20pc to 25pc, or even higher, of their money, raising questions over its viability and fears of a run on all Cypriot banks.

    1. OK, while no one admits to being the one to originate the idea, an EU commission is promoting the blatant taking as a condition for Cyprus to get the vigorish.
      Do they think continental depositors will just presume it can happen in Cyprus and not elsewhere? If I were a depositor in any of the ‘troubled’ countries, those deposits would be gone first thing Monday morning and if nothing better, they’d be buried in the back yard.

      1. Cyprus blames Germany and the IMF, Germany blames the ECB and the European Commission, and the European Commission says they always wanted to protect the small depositors (i.e. soak the rich/Russians).

        Seems that blaming evil foreigners for the malfeasance of local politicians is universal.

        1. Funny that the Swiss never feel a need to do it and they’re a solvent nation.

          1. Because they demurred from putting their necks into the Franco-German noose known as the EU in the first place.

            1. Certainly explains the solvency.

    2. So they might pivatize the losses as well as the gains? Good for them. Better than the USSA.

  25. The latest ad from Mayor’s Against Gun Violence.

    Is it just me, or does the guy have both his finger on the trigger box and the gun point horizontally at a lawn that has children on it?

    1. Dunno, but he seems to welcome our new insect overlords.

    2. Yeah, he’s got it pointed in a bad direction but it looks like his finger is behind the trigger box. Either way, you don’t point it at anything you’re not prepared to kill. Maybe he’s practicing his Obama-style skeet shooting skills.

      And he’s driving a Government Motors truck as well. What a dick.

      Question: if you were a model/actor, could you ever participate in an ad where you totally disagreed with the politics of it? For $10,000? $100,000?

      1. I’d do it for $100, and make sure my gut was hanging out.

        1. You know, I believe you.

          1. If it was a live broadcast, I’d pick my nose. If paid in advance.

      2. Question: if you were a model/actor, could you ever participate in an ad where you totally disagreed with the politics of it? For $10,000? $100,000?

        I’ve done it before just to get a good grade on a paper or project (or because I was assigned a position), so sure, I’d do it for a good amount of money, some of which I’d use to support my actual position.

        1. I probably would as well, as long as the money was good enough. Hell, it could become a conversation starter with people who would automatically think you agreed with the product/philosophy you were being used to sell.

    3. The children in the video are not in the muzzle’s direction, but he sure doesn’t seem to be concerned with making sure no one is in the muzzle direction. Unless the direction is up or down you should be looking in that direction at the very least.

      1. Don’t ever point your firearm at something you’re not willing to destroy. He’s not even paying attention.

        If he did this in the real world, he would be subject to arrest for brandishing and/or reckless endangerment.

        1. But guys, he says he’s owned a gun all his life. He says it. What reason do we have to believe that this man in a Bloomberg commercial would lie about his history with firearms?

          1. If he’s owned a gun “all his life,” somebody needs to investigate what kind of gun he owned prior to turning 21 and also check and make sure he met the registration requirements of the state he lives in.

            I’m sure Bloomberg could pull a few of his undercover officers out of New Jersey to look in on it.

    4. It bears repeating that a background check would not have stopped Adam Lanza from STEALING the guns from his mother’s home and using them in his crime.

      Unless by “background check” the gungrabbers mean to attaint anyone related to a person with a mental illness or defect.

      1. Unless by “background check” the gungrabbers mean to attaint anyone related to a person with a mental illness or defect.

        In CA, that’s exactly what they mean. FTA:

        [CA DOJ agents] had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.
        “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

        I’ve repeated the point in your first sentence to liberals, to utterly no avail. Nancy Lanza was the wealthy ex-wife of a hedge fund guy. Under any reasonable regulation, she’d still be allowed to own an AR, and trying to keep her son from them would work about as well as trying to keep a teenager away from the car keys or booze.

  26. I think the method RP is using to change public sentiment, not by hammering legal or constitutional arguments, but taking these small and incremental positions that he can argue persuasively, not by lecturing, but pointing out the practical benefits/flaws in our laws is brilliant. Sure, people that agree with the issue spoken on love a fire and brimstone speaker, but it doesn’t change minds. Libertarians, in order to have positive results, need a lot of changed minds.

  27. I fucking hate the incremental approach, but I guess I need to resign myself to it being the only way to increase liberty when it comes to civil liberties.

    Absent libertarian dictatorship (DISOBEY!, incrementalism is pretty much our only hope.

    Considering the loss of freedom has been an incremental ratchet effect over decades, we cannot expect the soccer moms and their bedwetting sugar daddies to suddenly throw off their chains.

  28. Sometimes I think it would be more demoralizing and dispiriting for the hard core drug warriors if marijuana remained illegal, but with a maximum two dollar fine for any violation (simple possession, intent to distribute, sale, anything) than if the drug were fully legalized.

    1. A $2 fine? That kind of thing is reserved for police officers that strike handcuffed suspects multiple times without provocation or cause.

      Are you telling me these stoners deserve the same penalty our heroes in blue deserve? After all, those cops have families to go home to (and tell their violent exploits to).

    1. Don’t know if these are Saddam’s but I think he had chemical weapons, and that opinion has nothing to do with whether the war was a good decision or not.

      1. I agree. I’m as certain he had chemical weapons as I am of the sun coming up tomorrow. We had no business going in there, but he still had the damn things. We just gave him enough time to get them moved to Syria before we invaded.

        1. I thought it was obvious. I mean those Kurds didn’t gas themselves.

          1. The media must think they did, because I never saw it mentioned after no WMD’s showed up early in Gulf War II: Electric Boogaloo.

            1. I always figured that he got rid of them once Bush started waving his dick, but by then it was too late.

    2. Impossible! The UN sent him several letters via Hans Blix telling him how angry they were. Saddam wouldn’t dare.

    3. Sloopy, you are not the only wingnut conspiracy theorist here, no doubt.

      But keep defending Bush and the GOP – it is your calling.

      1. So you’re defending Saddam and his murderous campaign against the Kurds?

        Classy.

        And if you think I’m defending Bush, you’re also delusional.

        1. Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, right after Reagan and Rummy gave him the chemicals.

          There was never any mystery except that in Wingnuttopia.

          1. Ooh, if you could produce the piles of evidence you have for that, you would likely win a Pulitzer and get Rummy charged with war crimes.

            Tell you what, you can start by offering up some proof right here and now.

            1. I like that he called you a conspiracy theorist wingnut right before he claimed Reagan gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein.

              1. I always suspected he had multiple personality disorder, but I never thought he could flip flop like that in 10 minutes. Maybe somebody injected some brain gravy into him at 8:01?

              2. The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq’s “Full, Final and Complete” disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips.

                Wiki and LA Weekly.

                Saddam and Rummy are pictured together celebrating the weapons deal – although the joint target was Iran.

                1. Precursors =/= chemical weapons. And I’d like to see the links to both LA Weekly and the Wiki article. I read on Wikipedia that Stan Van Gundy had a pubic hair to scalp transplant, so I don’t always trust it without solid footnotes.

                  1. It doesn’t even matter if he has links. The part he quoted says that companies were barred from selling these precursors to Iraq because of State Department sanctions. When Reagan removed Iraq from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, companies which were totally unrelated to Reagan then sold some precursors to the Iraqis.

                    Reagan didn’t give them weapons. Alcolac International and Philips gave them some precursors when Reagan removed Iraq from a State Department list.

                    He’s just screaming at a wall and pissing himself again. There’s no dirt here.

                    1. I’m playing the long game here. I asked him for proof and he was gone for an hour. If I ask him for links, he might stay gone for even longer than that.

                  2. Genital to head transplant. That’s pretty kinky.

                    1. You can say that again!

                  3. Genital to head transplant. That’s pretty kinky.

                2. So the Reagan administration (stupidly I’ll admit) took Iraq off a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Then, unrelated companies sold them a chemical precursor that could later be used as part of mustard gas.

                  To you, this means that Reagan and Rumsfeld gave them mustard gas. Your mind works in mysterious ways.

                3. “Wiki and LA Weekly.”

                  Dipshit, go fuck your daddy.
                  Now, Wiki is a compiler, not a source. I realize that “compiler” is three syllables, so I’ll give you some time to work on it; do you need assistance? Do you now understand that Wiki isn’t the source, merely the distributor of data? Have you got that, or do you need to go fuck your daddy?
                  So the source is “LA Weekly”? Do you know what “LA Weekly” is, dipshit? LA Weekly is a throw-away paper that employs no one who would ever be confused with an ‘investigative reporter’.
                  So, dipshit, are you convinced that LA Weekly has scooped, oh, Reason? The NYT? The LAT? Or are you just the dumbest shit currently posting here.
                  Oh, and go fuck your daddy.

          2. Palin’s Buttplug| 3.24.13 @ 8:06PM |#
            “Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988, right after Reagan and Rummy gave him the chemicals.”

            Shipped ’em over there via FedEx, right?
            So, tell us, was that you on the grassy knoll?

    4. Um… I doubt it. These rockets are described as home-made and using chlorine gas. They don’t have nearly the area of effect or deadliness to be considered WMDs.

  29. I didn’t see the interview, but just once, JUST FUCKING ONCE, I would like to see one of these assholes speak plainly about the damage done to the freedom and liberty of every single person in this country by thee drug war.

    1. Basketball is more important. Who cares about millions of people unjustly dead or imprisoned?

        1. I guess so, but for me, multitasking is smoking a cigarette when I’m sitting on the toilet.

  30. OT: watching the basketball game and they’re showing a commercial for the USPS. I mean, what the fuck does an agency that has a monopoly need to pay for commercials for? (Same goes for the National Guard, Army and Air Force cars running around in circles)

    But there’s no fat to cut.*

    *And who saw the Biden hotel bills from Paris and London recently? Holy fucking shit. $500k each?

    1. That’s 5 congressional aides, dude. How the fuck does it cost anybody, anywhere, 500,000 to sleep a night. And, nobody gives a shit, which bothers me even more than this idiot spending the money

      1. A bargain considering Dickless Cheney cost us over $1 trillion with his Iraq War.

        1. The war that Obama keeps on shoveling money into? That war?

          They both suck! Get it through your thick, cro-magnon skull.

          1. The Iraq War ended a couple of years ago, idiot.

            1. I’ll let my brother know that the next time he Skypes me from Baghdad, where he was sent last July and spends every day in uniform in the field. He’ll appreciate it.

            2. Palin’s Buttplug| 3.24.13 @ 8:07PM |#
              “The Iraq War ended a couple of years ago, idiot.”

              You bet! It’s now a “police action”!
              Go fuck your daddy, dipshit.

        2. Palin’s Buttplug| 3.24.13 @ 7:58PM |#
          “A bargain considering Dickless Cheney cost us over $1 trillion with his Iraq War.”

          Compared to the dick you’re sucking and *his* wars? I’m sure it beats BOOOSH’s bill any day.
          Go fuck your daddy, dipshit.

        3. “And, nobody gives a shit, which bothers me even more than this idiot spending the money”

          “A bargain considering Dickless Cheney cost us over $1 trillion with his Iraq War”

          Thanks for proving my point. Dick Cheney is almost dead and whatever the fuck he did has nothing to do with spending $500,000 a night for a god damn hotel room.

      2. Here’s the Paris bill coming in at $585k for one night
        and
        Here’s London for three nights at just under $500k.

        It’s good to be the (vice)-King.

      3. White House press secretary Jay Carney would not reveal how much the president’s day trip to Illinois earlier this month would cost when asked about it by ABC News’ White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.

        “I don’t have a figure on the cost of presidential travel. It is obviously something, as every president deals with because of security and staff, a significant undertaking,” Carney said. “But the president has to travel around the country. He has to travel around the world. That is part of his job.”

        SKYPE MOTHERFUCKER, HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT?

        1. He just has to take all those trips where he attends fund-raisers all day and then has a 10-minute stop at a factory so he can pass the cost of the trip on to the taxpayers.

          I fucking started to hate this bullshit when I started paying attention in the mid 90’s. Clinton was bad at it, Bush was even worse and Obama is beyond absurd.

          I repeat: they all suck.

          1. The fact that Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is in contention to be the next President of the United States fills me with a sense of dread that I will live long enough to see the downfall of the Republic.

            1. Replace “dread” with “glee” and I feel the same way.

        2. He’s not counting the inconvenience and cost of shutting everything down (highways, airports, etc…)and increased local police spending. Most people hope the the US royalty stay away.

    2. The USPS ads terrify me. The USPS imploding could significantly impact my financial well being. Their advertising screams desperation.

      1. How is that? Do you get a cut rate deal on shipping or something? Just curious.

        1. My medical office specializes in federal work comp, mostly postal workers.

          1. Ah. So basically you’re part of the problem then. Thanks, asshole. 😛

            1. Absolutely!

          2. jesse.in.mb| 3.24.13 @ 8:16PM |#
            “My medical office specializes in federal work comp, mostly postal workers.”

            This would include lifting letters heavier than 12oz?

            1. Do it enough times and anything can cause an injury.

              1. Do it enough times and anything can cause an injury.

                This sentence ties in nicely to that deeply disturbing lube conversation we had a few days ago.

                1. How was that even slightly disturbing?

                  1. I’m speaking mostly of the Lube Depot site that SIV linked to.

                    1. Did you drill down into the subsection that I suggested/warned against?

                    2. I made the mistake of clicking on something that turned out to be a video.

                      You live and learn, I guess. You learn lessons like ‘Don’t click on random links on a lube site.’

                    3. That’s a terrible attitude. Where is your sense of adventure Irish?

                    4. It was bludgeoned out of me by the sight of two burly men shooting something called ‘Swing it Bitch Spray’ all over each other.

                    5. I didn’t see that. It sounds like I need to do some more clicking around on that site.

    3. Well, we need to get more recruits. Some people might not know that they can join the military.

  31. Unless by “background check” the gungrabbers mean to attaint anyone related to a person with a mental illness or defect.

    Just wait- anybody who has ever been prescribed an anti-depressant is going to show up on the ‘do not sell” list.
    Or “reckless driving” (10 mph over).
    Or has an unresolved dispute with the IRS.
    Or…

    For the children.

    1. Or has an unresolved dispute with the IRS.

      Then I’m in the clear. I got my back taxes completely cleared up this month! Fuckers screwed me for 5 years on an AMT technicality and refused to even negotiate a settlement. I hope they all burn in hell.

      1. You married a libertarian and have bred to create a possible libertarian Kwisatz Haderach. Those crimes alone are enough to ban you under sensible, rational, common sense, sensibly common, commonly sensible, gun regulations.

  32. Our favorite intestinal obstruction has awakened from his nap, I see.

  33. “But the president has to travel around the country. He has to travel around the world. That is part of his job.”

    But the motherfucker keeps coming back, goddammit!

    1. “But the motherfucker keeps coming back, goddammit!”
      You’re right! Let him off the plane someplace and take off!
      The world will be better off.

      1. That sounds like something they’d do in SOMALIA!

  34. “Paul is coming late to this way of thinking.”

    There’s a chance that he might actually get elected though.

    The Democrats are really good at understanding that their candidates have to bullshit to get elected. A perfect example is Barack Obama’s official stand on gay marriage–which was identical to the position of social conservatives for the first three and a half years of his presidency.

    Rand Paul shouldn’t have to pass any single litmus test for our support. I think I’ve got a good read on who he is and what he’s about–no matter what he has to say to get elected. That’s how Obama got his Progressive ass in the White House, and if the same tactics are necessary to get a small “l” libertarian in there, then Dear Rand Paul, Please feel free to bullshit all you want.

  35. OK, everybody cheer for Creighton in a little bit. If you don’t you’re bad person.

  36. But if you broaden the comparison to include Republicans outside the Senate, Paul is coming late to this way of thinking.

    Either that or he simply wasn’t in the mood to see Chris Wallace suddenly going full Tim “We’d Still Have Slavery!” Russert on cable news TV.

    1. Did you hear Chris Matthews claim Republicans want slavery to come back?

      Is it that kind of America they want to bring back or what? When there were no gays, where blacks were slaves, Mexicans were in Mexico. I mean, is this what they want?

      – Chris Matthews

      Personally I think that there were probably gay people in America back then, so I’m not sure Chris is really up with his history. There were also ALWAYS Mexicans in America from the point that we annexed Texas in 1845. I’m not sure what Chris is getting at.

      1. Pirates and other rowdy seafarers also helped create something that were we to see it now, we would call gay liberation. When John Adams explored the streets, he might have walked past men exposing their penises, the eighteenth-century transatlantic code for men seeking partners of the same sex.

        Thaddeus Russell, A Renegade History of the United States p18

        1. That’s a good book. I’m not a big fan of Russell’s writing style, but the subject matter is something that often doesn’t get much attention.

          1. I had mixed feelings on it, but I really enjoyed the information in it. Also, I give pirates mad props for an intuitive method of getting some man-sex.

            1. Mixed feelings pretty much sums up my thoughts. It was interesting, but it was interesting more in the sense that I hadn’t heard much of the information. The book itself could have been far better, so it felt like kind of a missed opportunity.

              His writing really bugged me. I remember that there was one sentence like ‘This is a prostitute to whom you owe your freedom.’ I laughed for about a minute after I read that.

        2. It’s my code for “I need to piss right now”.

          1. Well, you’re lucky you aren’t an 18th century pirate, because that would have gotten confusing.

  37. I’m not sure what Chris is getting at.

    Oh, I’m pretty sure.

  38. Wow: San Diego State is folding under pressure against Florida GC.

    1. That’s gonna do it for the mighty Mountain West Conference.

      1. Did I tell you I nearly parred the 7th? Well, I would have, but my tee shot….

        1. Weren’t you looking for clubs? Did you get to Golf Galaxy today?

        2. Based on all your comments from yesterday and this one, your biggest problem seems o be off the tee. You may not need an entire set of clubs. You may just need a new driver.

          1. sloopyinca| 3.24.13 @ 9:20PM |#
            “Based on all your comments from yesterday and this one, your biggest problem seems o be off the tee. You may not need an entire set of clubs. You may just need a new driver.”

            To be honest, I don’t play golf; I just find it as boring as basketball.

    2. wow FGCU, wow

      1. Pretty sweet, huh? Now we just need Creighton to win tonight and the world will be right.

      2. And now he gets to go home to this.*

        *I know she’s popped out three kids, but still.

  39. All sensible golfers wear helmets, you know.

    1. The Late P Brooks| 3.24.13 @ 9:21PM |#
      “All sensible golfers wear helmets, you know.”

      I’ll pass that on to those who do play.

  40. Well, the refs just handed one to La salle.

  41. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t want to promote that, but I also don’t want to put people in jail who make a mistake.

    It’s none of your goddamn business, Rand, if people aren’t beavering away quite hard enough to supply your cronies with cash.

    And, either you think people should go to jail over this despite that not being an enumerated power of the feds, or you have to leave them alone. Which is it?

  42. Meanwhile, Europe is a bastion of progressive values

    1. Oh, whatever Pantsfan, the French will riot over anything.

  43. Drugs is an abuse to society. Paul is right at accumulation of overheads at prisons but finding alternative means allowing drugs to float. I have serious reservations on Paul’s statement that every teenager do drugs and in 20ies they leave and lead a happy life…. what a joke! Drugs spoils human temper, promote lawlessness and vanish ethics and if it is not curbed than it will spoil the whole society.

    1. “Drugs is an abuse to society.”

      Obviously

    2. Thanks for visiting us while tripping balls.

  44. In the words of Ann Coulter, what a Libertarian Pussy! Let’s tell it how it is and go for full legalization as put forth by Gary Johnson.

  45. “Hit & Run” has become “The Rand Paul Blog” — who could ever possibly hear enough about Rand Paul?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.