Rand Paul

TIME Puts Rand Paul on the Cover (and Sarah Palin's Endorsement of Him Inside)

|

Granted, it's one of seven covers

TIME

And here's Palin's ode to Paul

When the Tea Party movement wanted to send a message to the Senate in 2010, it elected a clear-sighted eye doctor from the Bluegrass State. In a D.C. too often defined by the venal equivocations of a permanent political class more interested in consolidating its own power than in upholding the Constitution or defending the common good, Senator Rand Paul is a voice of reason awakening the public to what must be done to restore our prosperity and preserve the blessings of liberty for future generations. His brand of libertarian-leaning conservatism attracts young voters, and recently he inspired the nation with his Capraesque filibuster demanding basic answers about our use of drones. I sent him some caribou jerky from Alaska to help keep up his strength on the Senate floor. There's more where that came from for this bold Senator with 20/20 vision willing to take a stand for liberty.

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.

330 responses to “TIME Puts Rand Paul on the Cover (and Sarah Palin's Endorsement of Him Inside)

  1. Where did TIME put the alt-text?

    1. They can’t afford any.

  2. Christina Aguilera? Mindy Kaling?

    1. Jimmy Kimmel?

      I would also say Frank Ocean?, but apparently a lot of music folks like him. So I defer to their judgment.

      1. To be fair they never said they were all positive influences.

      2. Just so I got the Frank Ocean story straight… He was just another pretty well compensated song-writer until he came out as gay and that landed him a chance to get his songs produced for himself?

        1. He was blowing up before he came out. All the cool music sites were pumping his album for the past year or so.

        2. Pretty much, yes. His album got a lot of critical love which seemed overblown to me, and I actually like R&B. (*ducks to avoid METALRAGE from Warty*)

          For my money, this slightly effeminate R&B critical darling of 2012 is better, if only because he asks the right questions (namely: “Do you like drugs? Yup, me too.”)

          1. I’m not even sure what R&B means. But here is some even better music to get you in the mood for bangin’.

            1. Misha! Coolest motherfucker on the planet? Where is he on TIME’s list, if they think they’re so smart? I bet most of those people can’t even do this.

            2. “I’m not even sure what R&B”

              When I was in grade school (back in the 60’s) the paper printed Billboard’s top-10 songs and albums. They also printed Billboard’s top-10 R&B, which I assumed meant Red & Black, but for some reason no Native American song ever seemed to make the list. Just blacks.

          2. have you heard any Cody Chesnutt? Worth owning?

            1. I have not, but this lil’ jam with the Roots sounds like my kind of thing.

            2. YES IT’S WORTH OWNING.

              The Headphone Masterpiece is amazing. And I say that as a complete prog-rocker who doesn’t otherwise listen to anything like it.

        3. Who is Frank Ocean?

          1. Billy Oceans son

      3. They got Billy Ocean’s first name wrong. That’s some excellent journalism.

    2. Mindy “NBC actually made a good choice not to pick up my show so miracles do happen”Kaling?

      She’s not the next Fey or Poehler, Tv reviewrs

      1. They’re jizzing all over her b/c she’s an Injun-American. Their cultural Marxist brains cannot comprehend any categories beyond race and gender.

        Even “class” is a difficult concept for these veritable Einsteins.

        1. The funny thing is it’s only white liberals who obsess over her. All of my indian friends can’t stand her.

          1. Probably because she goes out of her way to act like a shallow SWPL (which, incidentally, is why white liberals obsess over her)

      2. Has anybody watched any of her show beyond the pilot? I watched it ‘cuz it was free on Google Play and it was downright painful.

        1. I wouldn’t even know what show she was on.

    3. Lena Dunham??? *barf*

      1. Yeah, I was actually surprised not to see John Stewart on the lists. He’s certainly more influeintian then Lena Dunham or Gabrielle Giffords.

        1. And is Dunham actually influential at all? It’s not like she got her show due to any semblance of talent, and the only people who seem to watch her show are 20-something urban Jews.

  3. “And here’s Palin’s ode to Paul:”

    Is an ode the same thing as an election curse?

    1. Is an ode the same thing as an election curse?

      Unfortunately, in this case, yes.

      1. Not necessarily. The people with Palin Derangement Syndrome already have Paul Derangement Syndrome, and she has a huge fanbase which will help secure Rand a lot of supporters.

  4. Rand Paul lost me with his Howard University speech which was apologism for the war on drugs. Disgusting.

    He had an opp to make a strong statement indicting the WOD and to an audience that may have been sympathetic considering that it disproportionately imprisons blacks. But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

    He couldn’t even come out with a strong statement against MARIJUANA prohibition (the wimpiest of the illegal drugs), but only called for sentencing reform and a bunch of mealy mouthed bullshit.

    Sure, he’ll take a principled stance on drones, but when it comes to WOD he’s just another statist WOD enabler.

    Disgusting.

    1. He’ll save that for the general election. Gotta win the primaries first.

      1. Making excuses for drug warriors. Pathetic. It’s like liberals who said that Obama secretly wanted to end the war on drugs and just was afraid to say it during election campaign.

        1. “It’s like liberals who said that Obama secretly wanted to end the war on drugs and just was afraid to say it during election campaign.”

          Except Rand Paul has actually done something to combat escalating the WOD.

          “Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) Blocks Draconian Drug War Legislation in U.S.”

          http://www.drugpolicy.org/news…..slation-us

          1. Nope, IMPURE!!!

            Besides, anyone who would be running against him will certainly be the 100% Liberty candidate. Not that there has been one, well, ever.

    2. Um…

      I think we should try to keep in mind that Rand Paul has a legitimate shot at the nomination.

      One of the big advantages that, say, Barack Obama has is that he can bullshit an issue–and his supporters understand that he’s bullshitting. Take Obama’s position on Gay Marriage, for instance, which was exactly the same as the religious fundamentalists’ for the first three and a half years of his presidency. It let Obama get elected, initially, as someone who was a centrist (at the time) on culture war issues–but all of his supporters knew where he really stood.

      Rand Paul isn’t going to be able to do anything, really, about the Drug War so long as he’s not in the White House. And I think we should try to keep in mind that Rand Paul has a legitimate shot at winning the nomination. This isn’t one of his father’s protest campaigns. The point of Rand Paul running isn’t to give exposure to libertarian ideas and lose…

      I know what Rand Paul’s position is on the Drug War–no matter what he has to say to get the support of Republican primary voters.

      He’s playing to win the game.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf04zlExM8c

      1. It’s also possible that Paul is allowing you to project your personal views onto him. This is something Obama did masterfully in 2008.

        This is also the reason so many are disappointed in his performance. The left thought they were getting a real warrior for their cause. The independents thought they were getting a post-racial uniting centrist.

        Somehow they were both wrong as an empty suit got elected.

        1. Rand Paul could be a hardcore drug warrior and still be BY FAR the most libertarian viable candidate we’ve had since Barry Goldwater. The new hate-wave among some libertarians against him is beyond puzzling.

          1. Tulpa, criticizing Paul over something doesn’t mean one hates him (and this is coming from someone who defended him in the post I made right before this)

            1. Tulpa’s gotta Tulpa.

            2. Exactly. I don’t hate Rand Paul. I think he’d be a better repub candidate than most others. I just think he’s a far cry from a libertarian and he SUCKS on the War on Drugs.

              I see many libertarians in their defense of Rand doing the exact same thing deluded progressives did with Obama – oh, he’s just playing three dimensional chess and doesn’t really believe what he’s spouting. And then they were surprised when he got into office and turned out to be as bad or worse on those issues than he appeared to be when he was running.

              I’ll be the first to say he’s principled on drones, etc. and I admire him. But he SUCKS on the WOD and that needs to be addressed too

              1. As pointed out, you are the one actually arresting drug users.

                1. What would you acknowledge a piece of shit?

              2. How do you reconcile this statement with the previous “Rand Paul lost me” one?

              3. Rand Paul is not the perfect libertarian candidate, unlike Gary Johnson.

                1. FairTax? Sorry GJ wasn’t perfect (still voted for him).

                  1. Time to recalibrate your sarc meter, oh mighty Tim.

              4. Would you rather have someone who is principled on drones and foreign policy but is iffy on the drug war, or someone who is principled on none of those?

                1. That was in reply to dunphy

          2. I’ll take the 50% libertarian president over the current 2% crop.

            1. Who was a 2% libertarian? Because it certainly ain’t GWB, Obama, or even Romney should he have won.

        2. “It’s also possible that Paul is allowing you to project your personal views onto him. This is something Obama did masterfully in 2008.”

          Definitely possible. It is possible that Rand really does want to completely end the WOD, but just doesn’t want to publicly say it, but I’m not going to assume that. However, at a minimum, he has actually done things to roll back parts of the WOD (and stop it from expanding in other areas) which is at least a start. I’d like to think that if push came to shove, Rand would leave it up to the states

          1. “Definitely possible. It is possible that Rand really does want to completely end the WOD, but just doesn’t want to publicly say it, but I’m not going to assume that.”

            Everything he’s done and said seems to suggest he wants to decriminalize marijuana, he wants to demilitarize our police forces…

            He seems to want to do everything I’m talking about when I talk about ending the Drug War–except say that out loud that he wants to legalize drugs.

            I think he’s better than where Obama was–publicly–on Gay Marriage when Obama was running in 2008. Obama came out explicitly against Gar Marriage back then, and tons of gay activist groups kept campaigning for him anyway. …not because they were stupid–but because they knew where he really stood, and having him in the White House was the best possible thing for their cause.

            If there’s a legitimately electable nominee who’s better than Rand Paul on the Drug War issue, I’d love to know who that is. And if he keeping his mouth shut, more or less, on the issue is what’s necessary to get into the White House, then he’d be an idiot to take a public stand.

            Once again, it isn’t libertarian votes he needs to win the nomination.

            It’s the votes of registered Republicans in Iowa. If they won’t vote for a primary candidate that explicitly says he wants to legalize marijuana, then he’d be an idiot if he opened his mouth and actually said that.

            1. As I said, it’s definitely possible, but I’m not going to assume it and then be surprised if/when it turns out I was duped. I’m still planning on voting for Paul in the primaries if he runs

              “If there’s a legitimately electable nominee who’s better than Rand Paul on the Drug War issue, I’d love to know who that is.”

              I agree that there isn’t one.

        3. “It’s also possible that Paul is allowing you to project your personal views onto him.”

          If Rand Paul were the president of the United States, he would be the most libertarian president ever–and maybe the best thing that’s happened to the libertarian movement since the Declaration of Independence, the end of slavery, and that time we won the Cold War.

          That would still be true even if he really were all-in for the Drug War, in his heart of hearts…but that’s not where he really is.

          Oh, and anybody on the left that thought they were gonna get more than they got from Obama was being completely unrealistic. He all but nationalized healthcare really did nationalize two-thirds of the auto industry; he renegotiated free trade agreements because they didn’t have the support of the unions; blew tons on stimulus; recreated Wall Street in his own image; etc., etc., etc…

          All those lefties say they’re disappointed with Obama wish he were running for president in 2016 so they could vote for him again.

          1. More libertarian than Coolidge?

            1. Coolidge had some bad financial policies.

            2. You want to go with best thing for the libertarian movement since Coolidge, then go with it.

              It’s hard to imagine something more fortunate happening to the libertarian movement than Rand Paul winning the Republican nomination.

              1. Some would argue (not me) that if he becomes president under the banner of a libertarian and then turns out to not be one and ruins the name, that would set the movement back quite a bit much like the recession did for free market advocates.

                1. “Some would argue (not me) that if he becomes president under the banner of a libertarian and then turns out to not be one and ruins the name, that would set the movement back quite a bit”

                  When we get enough libertarian minded people thinking libertarian thoughts, it won’t matter who the president is. Until we get there, however, it matters a great deal. If Rand Paul had been president, there wouldn’t have been a TARP. If Rand Paul had been president, there wouldn’t have been an ObamaCare.

                  The long term goal of getting people to think more libertarian thoughts is to create a self-sustaining, more libertarian society. The short term goal of getting people to think more libertarian is to get a libertarian ass in the Oval Office.

                  If it were true that the short term goal and the long term goal were somehow in conflict, I’d rather shoot for the short term goal. One of the great benefits of having a libertarian in the White House is that it keeps a non-libertarian out of the White House.

                  We’ve lost so much ground over the past 13 years. Just running in place for a while would be a big improvement–that serves the long term goal, too, doesn’t it? It will be so much easier implementing a libertarian program if we don’t go so quickly down the anti-libertarian path today, won’t it?

              2. Could this have also been said about Reagan?

        4. It’s also possible that Paul is allowing you to project your personal views onto him. This is something Obama did masterfully in 2008.

          There is NO comparison there. Seriously?

          Rand P has been extremely specific on many, many issues. On this issue he’s not going as far as libertarians would like, but BO-2008 was an absolute tabula rasa.

          1. If doing what Obama did on issues like gay marriage is what’s necessary to get the most libertarian president possible, then I hope Rand Paul does the exact same thing Obama did in 2008.

            Getting a libertarianism president in there is certainly more important than that when he gets there, he does it by baring his honest libertarian soul.

        5. It’s also possible that Paul is allowing you to project your personal views onto him.

          Maybe but I think it’s far more likely that as a president Rand would do ‘everything but’ as in everything but legalization. Defunding foreign subsidies for WoD, defunding the DEA, letting states be free. There’d be a war with almost no troops and no supplies.

          Sorry, outright pro-legalization pols don’t get elected. Lets knock this wall down a brick at a time.

    3. At this point,the idea of not sending nonviolent offenders to prison is radical. Witv Rand,I’m not letting perfect be the enemy of “vastly better than could be expected even 15 years ago”

      1. Here is this nonviolent offender BULLSHIT again.

        Auto theft is nonviolent. So is burglary. And both types of offenders should go to prison , and I think Rand Paul agrees with that. There are many nonviolent offenses (like Burglary) that are more serious and more injurious to the victims than many violent crimes. In terms of harm done to the victim, a garden variety assault causes less harm to a crime victim than a burglary. A burglary literally feels like rape. Ask a burglary victim. Kids in the house are afraid to sleep in their bed for weeks or months afterwards, have nightmares about burglars breaking in while they are sleeping. Families lose irreplaceable heirlooms and lose their feeling of safety and security in their most private and sacred of places – the home

        So, can we stop this BULLSHIT about “nonviolent” offenders. Lots of seriously bad criminals are nonviolent and deserve to be in prison.

        VICTIMLESS crime offenders, like war on drug offenders etc. are a different story, but Burglars are scum and destroy people’s feeling of safety and security in the home. They cause immense harm and they deserve prison

        1. Dunphy, are you auditioning to be our new semantics troll?

          Burglary is a crime against property.

          1. And stealing property reduces a persons life (either in length of in quality) either of which is violence against that person.

            1. Yup.

              A burglary literally feels like rape.

              The word ‘rape’ originally meant theft. It’s modern meaning isn’t totally unrelated.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Lock

            2. I’m not interested in your word games. Burglary is classified (UCR and elsewhere ) as a nonviolent crime … unless it’s aggravated like an occupied burg, etc.

              Ditto for auto theft.

              The offenders in both cases deserve incarceration.

              Reasonoids have some sort of funhouse unique definition of “violent crime” if they consider a burg or an auto theft, a “violent crime”.

              We classify crimes (part I and Part II), (Violent and NonViolent) using accepted definitions and no – burglary is not a violent crime. But it’s a SERIOUS crime and one deserving of incarceration

              1. We classify crimes…

                I’m not interested in your bureaucratic lawfare games.

        2. Auto theft is nonviolent. So is burglary. And both types of offenders should go to prison , and I think Rand Paul agrees with that. There are many nonviolent offenses (like Burglary) that are more serious and more injurious to the victims than many violent crimes

          At this point, caning is more humane than our prison system, which should be reserved only for those who, in society, would go around and seek to actively physically harm others.

    4. Says the guy who arrests drug users.

      Talk about unwilling to take a principled stand much?

      1. He’s just following orders.

        1. Also known as being unprincipled.

          1. Not at all. It’s called rule of law. And when I worked undercover I was NOT anti-WOD. I was following my principles. Viewpoints changed. I would not take such an assigment NOW (not that I could work one since I am known to people in my jurisdiction), but at the time i worked undercover, I had different viewpoints about the WOD.

            During my time undercover, I went after exclusively dealers (weapons too, but mostly drugs) and I had no ideological problem whatsoever with that.

            I was perfectly principled and completed my assignment (deep undercover work is the most dangerous assignment in law enforcement by a factor of at least 10 and is also the most exclusive and rare assignment. There are literally less than a couple of dozen officers in the entire country working deep undercover. It’s almost never used due to the danger).

            I stand by my actions as perfectly principled. I was pro-WOD and acting in accord with my principles

            1. So you can be a cop, despite what you have to do to uphold the thousands of laws which restrict personal freedom, and you still have integrity, but Rand Paul cannot temper his remarks without being a sell out? Wow.

              1. Rand Paul screwed the pooch in his Howard University speech. It’s that simple

            2. It’s called rule of law.

              Actually, that isnt what rule of law means at all.

    5. Yeah, how dare he temper his remarks slightly so he might survive long enough to actually be a force for good rather than increasing the power of government.

      If he were a real libertarian he would have killed any chance of success with the first sentence out of his mouth. Something like, “I want to buy meth from a lab next to a daycare center, and I want to pay for it with money I printed in my basement! Fuck you all very much!”

      1. Yeah, if Rand Paul somehow miraculously wins the Republican nomination and ultimately the presidency, maybe some of my fellow libertarians can console themselves with the realization that the LP will still be there to pound the lectern for truth–and poll less than 1% nationally.

      2. You are correct, that opening sentence would have killed his chances…

        He should have stuck with “Fuck you all very much!”, and left out the details.

        Much more electable that way!

        Anybody who does this, gets 100% of the Bobarian vote.

  5. Holy shit, Rand Paul might have a chance at the nomination.

    Way more of a chance than his dad ever did.

  6. I would say only Rand and Amir Khan have actually influenced me.

  7. More cosmotarian nonsense trashing Rand Paul. The leftists have taken over TReason magazine!

    I HAVE A POOPY DIAPER!

    1. There there Nutrasweet, it’s almost pudding time!

      Who’s gonna be a good boy today and not fling his feeces? Hmm? That’s a good boy.

    2. OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA

      1. Do you want the genital cuff?

        1. May I go to the bathroom please?

      2. Who let Joe Biden in?

  8. True libertarians want to redefine marriage. Rand is not a true libertarian.

    1. True libertarians want to get the state out of marriage. Rand Paul doesn’t.

      1. True libertarians think no one else is.

        1. True libertarians all think they’re the only true libertarian.

      2. “True libertarians want to get the state out of marriage. Rand Paul doesn’t.”

        “‘I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,’ he says. ‘That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.'”

        1. That is a nice way to put it without alienating anybody. Well accept for the people who will only be happy if the feds force something one way or the other.

          1. “That is a nice way to put it without alienating anybody.”

            That’s exactly what it is and it works for most people that don’t get their panties in a wad because: “Oh shit, he didn’t say that like I wanted him to. He can’t be a libertarian”

      3. True Libertarians have armies of child laborers to work in their diamond mines and feed off their salty tears.

        Rand Paul hasn’t even got a diamond mine and has never once been sighted drinking tears

      4. Are you sure?

        As he is a federal senator, he really doesnt have any say in that matter, so we cant know.

        If he were a state senator, OTOH….

    2. Derp. You are the Jon Stuart of libertarianism.

      1. Don’t confuse him, he has to focus on denying his sexuality.

        1. What’s all that banging on the closet door?

        2. Oh, come off it, Epi. If he was really in denial and trying to cover for it, he’d do obvious stuff like drag gay marriage into threads that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

          1. +1 Closetmotarian

        3. So fun to see the glibsters devour their former comrades who step off the narrow acceptable path.

          1. Do you have anything to offer other than petulance?

            1. I make more substantive argument on this site in an hour than you make in a month. Forgive me if I enjoy sitting back and pointing and laughing once in a while.

              1. Are you seeking my forgiveness, my son? Because you shall have none.

                1. Constantly demanding to be taken seriously, asserting that he is making argument while everyone else is just fooling around, the outstanding arrogance that comes from hollow credentialism…

                  Has anyone else noticed that Tulpa has basically become MNG at this point?

                  1. Has anyone else noticed that Tulpa has basically become MNG at this point?

                    Pretty much, yes.

                  2. Dude, at least MNG used to have a moderate sense of humor and enjoyed my Strangers With Candy references (unlike you, asshole); Tulpy-Poo has always been a joyless buzzkill whiner douchenozzle.

                  3. The other stuff you claim is bullshit too, but to the charge of credentialism I must respond. I have never, not once, claimed my degree means I’m right about something. The search bar is right up there if you want to provide a counterexample, which I’m sure you won’t since all you’re capable of at this point is glib insults.

                    1. You need a new word, Tulpa. How about irreverent, cheeky, flippant, or maybe even pert?

                      Superficial? Come on buddy – they don’t put the vocab section in the Reader’s Digest for no good reason.

                    2. I’ve already put a lot of work into establishing brand recognition, I’m not going to piss that away in the name of thesaurus-worship.

                    3. The search bar is right up there if you want to provide a counterexample, which I’m sure you won’t since all you’re capable of at this point is glib insults.

                      Since you are comically hard of reading and all emotional, I never said you make appeals to authority using your degree, merely that you are arrogant in thinking your education gives some weigh to your opinion. You have interjected your educational credentials and teaching position into dozens of threads and you are demonstrably arrogant.

                      See, there’s an argument. Call me glib again. That totally works.

                    4. Ad hom! Ad hom! Ad hom! I win! GLIB

                2. At least you guys agree about circumcision.

              2. I make more substantive argument on this site in an hour than you make in a month.

                Randian might be the only person you can say that about.

                1. Aw, someone else has a crush on me too.

              3. “What you substantively arguing in a year, I’m substantively arguing in a week”

                Class envy right?

                1. “I’ve chunks of guys like you in my stool!”

                  1. Haha, I just watched the best of Phil Hartman DVD a couple weeks ago. Awesome line.

            2. Randian, he should stop being petulant anytime now that he got that job that he DESERVES. There’s gonna be some changes at his Burger King now that he’s running the show.

          2. It’s funny how normally rational individualists turn into emotional collectivists on this issue.

            1. Irony, thy name is sarcasmic.

            2. “There’s got to be a pony in here somewhere!”

            3. It’s funny what a whiny douche you are on this issue. Except it’s not really funny.

            4. Yeah I don’t get it – except maybe it goes to show libertarians can be douchey tribalists too.

              1. All humans are douchey tribalists; human fucking nature.

                1. Here, we draw the lines around deep dish eaters and sub-humans.

                  1. I will gladly stand with my knuckle dragging mouth breathing brethren in the fight against the deep dish pretender as pizza.

            5. Yes, how dare we question the emotional collectivist wisdom of centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition enshrined into law.

              1. Judeo-Christian tradition enshrined into law

                Sounds like a 1A issue to me.

    3. Get the fuck over it already.

    4. Jesus, do you have no friends to wingman for you at your local gay bar? Or os it just super far away? Because as I keep telling you, some hot man on man action will help you overcome your asshole ex

      1. He does seem to really crave male attention. Not sure what that signals.

        1. No, it is easily explained: Sarc is a gay man whose long term boyfriend broke up with him in the last year, right before Sarc was going to propose. Now he thinks all love is a sham and that marriage is evil. To never get hurt again he doesn’t want to even consider marriage ever. What he really needs to do is get back in the game and meet a nice guy, but he’s gone all A Rose For Emily on us

          1. THAT boyfriend, may very well have been Rand Paul. He only gets all crazy on us when the story is about Rand.

    5. True libertarians want to redefine marriage.

      So?

  9. Please don’t fuck this up Sarah.

    from Juneau, Alaska.

    1. She still has cred with Republican primary voters, and it’s their opinion that really matters here.

      I don’t think she can screw this up by endorsing him–if that was the suggestion.

      1. I don’t think she can screw this up by endorsing him–if that was the suggestion.

        Not for anyone who would actually consider voting for him. To hardcore lefties her endorsement is just further proof that he’s as evil as they’ve been told he his.

        1. At first I was a bit annoyed with the whole Palin thing, but by the time he runs in 2016 or 2020 he is going to have been made by lefties into a bigger fire-breathing dragon than Reagan was, so I don’t think it tips things either way.

      2. I don’t think she can screw this up by endorsing him–if that was the suggestion.

        I disagree. She single handedly brought down the Tea Party. The last thing Rand needs is people thinking libertarian republicanism is the same thing as being a socon. Which is EXACTLY how she killed the TP.

        1. I thought Beck ruined the Tea Party.

          1. He didn’t help it.

            But this bitch pretty much hijacked it for the socons.

        2. “The last thing Rand needs is people thinking libertarian republicanism is the same thing as being a socon.”

          If you want to be the Republican nominee, you have to have the blessing of a certain amount of socons.

          No really.

          If the socons will acquiesce to Rand Paul just because people like Sarah Palin vouch for him, then that’s probably the cheapest way to get their tacit support.

          You’d hate for him to have to throw them an actual bone.

  10. Time hasn’t gone out of business yet?

    1. I was wondering the same thing. I think Reason might be pimping an article from like 2009 or something.

    2. As long as doctors and dentists have waiting rooms, Time will remain in business.

    3. It’s still going, but I think it’s done to only about 24 pages, 19 of which are guys playing golf and talking about how they can’t get erections.

      1. They stole material from my blog? Those bastards!

      2. I always love the side effect admissions on those ads-

        “SIDE EFFECTS MAY INCLUDE LOSS OF YOUR DICK. NO SERIOUSLY, YOU DICK MIGHT FALL OFF IF YOU USE THIS PRODUCT. YOU MIGHT ALSO EXPERIENCE DISCOMFORT IN THE DICK REGION BECAUSE YOUR BONER WANTS TO LITERALLY JUMP OUT OF YOUR BODY AFTER YOU TAKE THIS PRODUCT. PLEASE SEE YOUR DOCTOR IF YOU DICK FALLS OFF.”

      3. Hmmm…golf causes impotence?

        1. Corrlation is not causation. Golfers are just compensating with their “woods” and “irons”.

        2. No, but a round of golf with no women around is the perfect place to have a frank discussion with your friends about why your wife would rather have you take a dangerous drug than help you out with a few minutes of oral.

          1. “Say, Frank, my wife is too fat to excite me anymore, has no libido because of her depression and the Zoloft that has only made her slightly more tolerable to be around, and she has no interest in touching my penis before or during sex. Luckily, this little pill solved all my problems!”

            1. Warty, have you been doing advertising work?! That is solid material. I can see that being played on the Golf Channel, 8-10 times a day.

              1. Ask your doctor if Wartria is right for you. Side effects may include bloating, gas, euphoria, rage, homicidal thoughts, homicide, hatred, genocide, impotence, and hermaphroditism. Do not take while pregnant. Notify your doctor if you experience an erection that lasts more than four hours.

                1. Notify your doctor if you experience an erection that lasts more than four hours

                  I don’t understand this. Call your doctor? Shouldn’t you be calling an Asian outcall service?

                  1. Yellow fever.

                    RACIST!

  11. OT: I was being tailgated by a Louisville Metro PD cruiser this morning for about 2 miles. When the cop whipped over at the first break in traffic to try to pass, I gave her the traditional rigid-digit salute. She spiked the breaks, got back behind me, and pulled me over.

    I got audio of the rest. Nothing epic, but kind of funny.

    The only thing not recorded was her initial approach. She asked me to explain myself, I asked if I had broken a law, and she asked for my license. The audio starts when she returned to my window.

    Thank seven years of HyR for giving me the stones.

    1. She also calls me by name, so… this is the “Private” section of the Internets, right?

      1. Keep telling yourself that buddy.

        *FAP FAP FAP FAP*

    2. You missed a perfectly good chance to tell her that she didn’t deserve any respect. Other than that, good job.

      1. This can’t be said enough. Of you receive a salary from the government, you work for me. I’m your boss and can be a dick to you if i want. And you, in turn, should b respectful to the person who pays your salary

      2. That, and a chance to ask if she literally pulled me over to teach me a lesson about manners.

        I was also pretty nervous. Definitely not my SOP.

    3. I enjoyed that.

      Especially the end.

      “If you have an issue with another drive you may be held accountable.”

      “For flipping you off?”

      “Have a good day, sir.”

      It’s so clear that she was abusing her position and she didn’t have a damn leg to stand on.

    4. Was expecting the “am I free to go”, “why am I being detained” discourse, but well done

    5. Passing on the right is illegal.

      1. “LANES FOR PASSING
        In general, you should pass on the left. Passing on the right can be dangerous
        since other drivers do not expect it. Vehicles on the right side are also
        more difficult to see. The operator of a vehicle may overtake and pass
        another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such
        movements safely. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the
        roadway, unless the vehicle being passed comes to a complete stop and
        such movement may be made safely.”

        1. Which state is that?

          1. I don’t know what state he is quoting but here in Texas there are no passing lanes. If some fucker is driving slow on the left feel free to go around them.

            1. We have “keep right except to pass” signs.

            2. Looks like he was quoting something very similar to KY law, the last two sentences anyway, before that it mentions the two scenarios:

              1. Person making a left hand turn
              2. Roadway with at least 2 lanes in that direction.

              So, in theory, if done “safely”, passing on the right on the interstate is legal.

              1. I thought it was illegal as well. I guess the signs are just suggestions.

              2. The “safely” part is what pissed me off. And obviously the fact that she operates under the authority of arresting anyone else who performed an identical maneuver. If she so fancied at the moment.

          2. “Which state is that?”

            Kentucky

    6. Also, good job.

      Also, also, you did get her name and badge number and report her correct?

      1. No, complete failure there. It’s the first thing my wife asked as well.

        1. She even told you to report her.

          1. I admit I was completely overwhelmed and didn’t live up to what I would have scripted with even a few minutes’ notice.

            I’m kind of a wimp most of the time, but my tough-guy debut wasn’t exactly worthy of the lead in Falling Down.

            Maybe next time? :/

            1. I whiffed on a filming an arrest opportunity, so I completely understand.

    7. I asked if I had broken a law

      Disorderly conduct, breach of the peace… if she wanted to bone you she could have done so easily and no one in the mainstream would have batted an eye.

      1. Neither of which he did.

        His finger went up in an orderly manner and we are in an (undeclared) state of war so there is no peace to breach.

      2. Including you, Tulpa?

        Disorderly conduct and breach of the peace are redundant laws designed as catch-alls to make you respekt the authoritah. They are disgusting abuses of power.

        1. If she had run him in for disorderly conduct and breach of the peace, he would have been first in line to perform cunnilingus on her. If she had also tazered and peppersprayed him to death, he would cum so hard he faints.

        2. They are disgusting abuses of power.

          That’s what gets him off.

        3. “Failure to disperse” is often used that way too.

      3. Also, the 2nd District Court of Appeals disagrees with this fascism, thank hey-sus.

        Flipping off a cop is free speech and NOT disorderly conduct, even in the eyes of the state.

        1. Not only do I agree, but I posted on this already. Old news.

          I’ve been flipped off a # of times. Big fucking deal.

          Heck, you want to talk free speech, how about some libtard dancing back and forth in front of my (black) partner at N30 and calling him “fucking N**ger” over and over again for 10 minutes. That’s free speech too.

          If we can’t defend the most odious of speech, than the 1st amendment has lost

          1. Sometimes Dunphy… That’s twice I’ve agreed with you today. STOP IT!

      4. if she wanted to bone you she could have done so easily

        No shit. That’s kind of the point. I’m proud of the fact that I took a tiny step toward making them do it overtly instead of cowering beneath the implication of it.

    8. She was in the wrong. Full stop. When people flip me off I just wave and smile. That’s the proper response. Pulling you over because you flipped her off was an abuse of authoritah. Period. I think you are a childish fool for flipping her off, but that’s besides the point.

      1. When someone puts my life and safety at risk by driving like a jackass in my vicinity, being flipped the bird is a pretty tame reaction. I’m no less endangered and infuriated because she has a badge.

        1. I am assuming you meant it was childish and foolish to flip off a cop. If you meant it was childish and foolish to flip of a random shitty driver then nevermind, that’s not an opinion about which I have a strong opinion.

      2. I think you are a childish fool for flipping her off

        Tolerances were exceeded. Digits were extended. Procedures were followed.

        1. AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. (we hope… you could receive something in the next few weeks)

  12. Time hasn’t gone out of business yet?

    Not as long as they have the SPLC to back up their moronic Kultur Krieg speculation about the identity and motivation of the Boston Bomber.

    I thought about linking it when I saw it the other day, but fuck that. I don’t want to be responsible for page views (or damaged computers).

    1. Copy paste. Fuck their page views

  13. Gotta agree with Dunphy here. While it isn’t enough to turn me against Paul, and I will certainly support him if he runs, his position on the WOD is beyond disappointing. If he can’t even come out for POT legalization, which is now the status quo in several states, he’s being a complete pussy.

    1. It’s also slightly disturbing to see how quickly libertarians rush to excuse this behavior, or accuse anyone who has misgivings of “hating” Paul or being purists.

      Limited legalization of drugs is now mainstream – we’re not talking about ending the Fed or Medicare here.

      1. As far as I am concerned, you’re in Elbows Too Pointy territory. That is all.

      2. Some excuse it.

        I sure don’t, but I do think there is a point to be made that we can demand that he be better on this issue while simultaneously supporting him where is right. And where is he is right is pretty darn good.

        It’s also important to acknowledge that if we are waiting for the perfect libertarian candidate to win a major party nomination, we’ll be waiting forever.

      3. Exactly. Thank you. We aren’t talking a radical position here. Pot is legal in two states already and has been EFFECTIVELY decriminalized on the local level in many jurisdictions, and legally decriminalized in many others for many years.

        I’m not saying RP should have come out and said “let’s make heroin legal and availabe in vending machines”. Even if he agreed with that position, it would seriously hurt him politically.

        But considering the broad public acceptance of legalizing marijuana and the momentum moving in the direction of greater and greater acceptance of same, he could have taken a principled stance against the war on marijuana at LEAST

        not “sentencing reform”, but opining that throwing people in jail for smoking weed is counterproductive, both as a waste of law enforcement resources and as a way of taking otherwise responsible members of society and turning them into outlaws for engaging in relatively harmless activity that hurts nobody.

        1. YOU throw people in jail for drugs RIGHT NOW. You have zero moral authority in this matter. None.

          1. This is kinda ad hom, no?

            1. It is tu quoque and therefore fallacious, yes.

              But seriously fuck dunphy in the ear.

              1. For what? Being one of the few good cops in existence? He should be praised for finding the Shift key.

                1. Being one of the few good cops in existence?

                  Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha!

                  Does he ride a unicorn?

                  Haaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha!

                2. Yes it is nice that Dunphy found his shift key.

          2. YOU make ad hominem attacks RIGHT NOW. You have zero moral authority to call others on logical fallacies. None.

            1. Can barely suppress my laughter.

              1. He’s just giving you the rhetorical thrashing that you DESERVE, Randian. Don’t think this wasn’t coming.

                1. You Flip Flipsters in the Peanut Gallery churn out less substance in a decade than he does in 30 seconds!

                  1. Flipertarians.

          3. I’ve made 1 drug possession arrest in the last 12 months. Big fucking whoop. And I am acting in accordance with rule of law. I enforce PLENTY of laws I disagree with. It’s called civilized society and rule of law.

            I have plenty of moral authority. I see the harm the WOD does firsthand (as well as the harm drug abuse does.).

            I can’t be a cafeteria cop and just choose not to enforce any drug laws. I apply my libertarian sensibility as best I can, but yea- if I catch a guy with an ounce of cocaine, he is going to jail.

            You don’t want cops making up which laws to enforce and not enforce, effectively destroying the seperation of powers do you?

            1. I want you to follow your conscience. If locking up people for drugs is wrong, then you shouldn’t be doing it.

              1. Corrupt laws are only enforced by the corrupt, Randy.

              2. Serious question to Randian and the rest:

                Do you really want cops to be a law unto themselves, and ignore the body of law that has been legally enacted when it comes to their duties?

                I don’t.

                As with judges, the job of a cop is not to come up with a justification for whatever he wants to do, but to enforce certain aspects of our legal code. To paraphrase a (not so) great man, the decision about what our laws should be is outside of the pay grade of cops and lawyers, and should be determined in the context of the republican system that we’ve established.

                1. No, I don’t. I didn’t say LEOs should determine which laws they are going to enforce and which one they are not. I said that people who object to the enforcement of immoral laws should not be law enforcement.

                  1. So you want the police staffed by the immoral. Got it.

                2. Take the Fugitive Slave Act for example.

                  Should that have been blindly enforced, or would it be the duty of honorable law enforcement to refuse to enforce it?

                  1. IMO the FSA itself violated the 10th Am since it bound free states to honor a law passed by another legislature that their state did not see fit to authorize.

                    Good law enforcement uses discretion in enforcing law and uses its experience and public respect to support changes to immoral law — but is also duty bound to enforce the laws that the reigning authority passes.

                    If the reigning authority passed a law giving cops a broad mandate to “opt out” of enforcing laws that violate their conscience, that would be good. In lieu of that, the above applies.

                3. TIT,

                  I don’t want that, but calling yourself principled while constantly doing a job that violates those principles in the grossest manner possible is ludicrous. A truly principled person would quit. A truly moral person wouldn’t constantly defend corruption and abuse of power in this forum.

                  1. Agreed.

            2. You don’t want cops making up which laws to enforce and not enforce, effectively destroying the seperation of powers do you?

              If honorable police existed, legislatures would hesitate to pass unjust and immoral laws because they would know that these honorable police would refuse to enforce them. Checks and balances and all that.

              1. The vast majority of police are honorable and the public recognizes this. It’s called seperation of powers. We didn’t make the war on drugs and we didn’t pass the anti-drug laws. You continually blame the wrong party – the cops.

                Enforcement of drug laws is a very very small part of my job, but it is part of my job and I will do my job with honor and dignity and that means that if I catch Joe Nimrod with an ounce of cocaine, he’s going to jail.

                I may think that cocaine shouldn’t be illegal, but it would be anarchy and awful to simply expect police to not enforce those laws they disagree with.

                1. I didn’t say “don’t enforce”. I said “stop being law enforcement”.

                2. The vast majority of police are honorable and the public recognizes this. It’s called seperation of powers

                  dafuq?

                3. A moral person does not do things he considers immoral. There isn’t a “unless you’re in the employ of the State” exception.

                  If it is morally wrong to lock people up over drugs, then you’re in the wrong regardless of whether you wear a badge.

                  1. If it is morally wrong to lock people up over drugs, then you’re in the wrong regardless of whether you wear a badge.

                    You may have just passed Tulpa.

                    1. You may have just passed Tulpa.

                      For what?

                4. The vast majority of police are honorable and the public recognizes this.

                  The vast majority of the public has never been the victim of a serious crime, so they’ve never had the experience, as I have, of being mocked and belittled by the police for having your home broken into or being mugged at gun point. All of my contempt for police is a direct result of my dealings with them. Had I never had to deal with them I would probably think they are honorable because I wouldn’t know any better.

                  1. Had I never had to deal with them I would probably think they are honorable because I wouldn’t know any better.

                    The idea of “Familiarity breeds contempt” is never more true in the place of the cops. Between being slammed into a wall a few times by one, menaced with a giant flashlight, and waiting two hours by the side of the road for the third state trooper to show up so I could get my 5th Breathylzer because they were so desperate to charge me with a DUI, and quite a few other incidents–cops will never get any respect or benefit of the doubt from me. And every last bit of it their fucking fault.

                    1. so I could get my 5th Breathylzer because they were so desperate to charge me with a DUI

                      Reminds me of when the car I was a passenger in was pulled over, and the cop made the driver blow into the machine until he was ready to pass out from lack of oxygen.

                      Cop must have repeated “Blow again, that was an incorrect reading” twenty or more times before enough alcohol accumulated in the machine so as to give the reading that he liked.

                    2. It was a funny night. The first trooper that pulled me over was tiny. Like horse jockey tiny. I was speeding. It was a fair stop, but he became obsessed with proving that I had been drinking. I hadn’t, none of my passengers had, but he persisted. He field tested me then got out the Breathylzer. After two blows didn’t give him what he want, he called for another trooper, and then another after his failed twice to convince them. I blew a total of six times and had three field tests.

                      I wasn’t even being an asshole. I was speeding. Give me the ticket and let me go.

                    3. The first trooper that pulled me over was tiny. Like horse jockey tiny.

                      One time I went to contest a speeding ticket and so of course a bunch of troopers are wandering the halls.
                      One of them, like five foot nothing, makes a b-line to a couple who were contesting a ticket and he went ballistic.
                      He got right in to the dude’s face, so close his hat was touching the guy’s head, and screamed at the top of his lungs at the guy that he was guilty as fuck and had no right to contest any ticket that he gave out, and so on and so forth. It was almost as if he was daring the guy to stand his ground so a good old fashioned beating or killing could ensue.

                      Of course none of the other troopers batted an eye. You know, those good cops who report bad cops when they cross the line. Yeah. Them.

                    4. I would think that after two hours went by, you’d be much more sober.

                5. We didn’t make the war on drugs and we didn’t pass the anti-drug laws

                  Let’s change this too…

                  We didn’t make the dirty Jews and we didn’t pass the Racial Purity laws

                  1. Dunphy would never kill a Jew, but he will turn the gas on and off if ordered to.

                    1. Dunphy would never kill a Jew, but he will turn the gas on and off if ordered to.

                      The law is the law is the law. If the law authorizes the killing of Jews, well then it’s time to do some killing.

                6. Enforcement of drug laws is a very very small part of my job

                  I’ll give you that. It’s not like you work for the DEA or are on some sort of drug task force.

                  I may think that cocaine shouldn’t be illegal, but it would be anarchy and awful to simply expect police to not enforce those laws they disagree with.

                  I’m guessing you don’t support jury nullification then.

                  Have you ever participated in an asset forfeiture seizure?

      4. Can we wait until he actually runs in the primaries before calling him a failure on drug policy?

        If he maintains this weak position during the debates I will join you in being disappointed. But right now he isn’t in campaign mode, he’s in testing-the-waters mode.

      5. Name ten Senators who are in favor of legalizing marijuana.

        Yeah, that’s what I thought.

        Personally I could give two craps whether, in his heart of hearts, Rand Paul wants to legalize drugs or not. I suspect he does, but more important to me is that he has actually *done* more legislatively to ameliorate the awfulness of the War on Drugs than 99% of his colleagues, and that he wants to do more on that count. If a Rand Paul presidency ended with the government leaving drug laws to the states (which is Paul’s stated preference), that would be a huge win.

        1. Barny the Frank? Oh wait, he’s a rep. Never mind.

      6. I agree completely. I’d vote for him in the general election if there is no good Libertarian candidate. And he’d probably get me to vote in the republican primary again. But I’m going to say what I think about the positions he takes. I’m not part of the Rand Paul campaign. It’s his job to convince me.

    2. HE ISNT RUNNING FOR STATE SENATOR, IT ISNT HIS JOB TO HAVE A POSITION ON POT LEGALIZATION AS THAT IS A STATE ISSUE.

      1. Hold up now, Pot Legalization is a federal issue. What do you call the Controlled Substances Act?

        1. Unconstitutional.

          The 18th Amendment gives clear precedent that a constitutional amendment is required to ban drugs.

          1. So you would tell him to do what if there were a vote to change/alter the CSA in a positive direction?

            Whether it should be a federal issue is different from whether it IS a federal issue. It should not be, but it IS.

            1. Rand Paul has already stated that he thinks drug laws should be a state issue.

              http://blog.mpp.org/medical-ma…..na-stance/

              1. Well, that would be a position on a federal issue, then.

                1. Sure, but it’s a fairly benign dodge that lets him be however good (or meh) on drugs as he wants at the federal level while suggesting that states can pick up the slack.

              2. To be fair, that was specifically referring to medical marijuana laws. Has he ever stated if he feels the same way about recreational marijuana, or cocaine and heroin?

                1. He supported CO and WA passing recreational MJ laws.

                2. He’s said the same about other drug laws, but I didn’t have a link on hand — that’s the first thing I could find.

            2. Robc is just jumping on the Rand Paul apologism train.

              Face it, Rand Paul screwed up and came up with a HALF-ASSED position on MJ. He DID come up with a position, which kind of erodes robc’s point that he shouldn’t have a position- that it’s a state issue – but the position he took was that sentencing is too harsh. We shouldn’t incarcerate people for AS LONG AS WE DO for MJ. If he can take that position he can certainly take the position that WE SHOULDN’T BE INCARCERATING PEOPLE AT ALL for MJ.

              He didn’t take the “it’s none of my business” position and as Randian correctly points out , the reality is that the CSA etc. means that it IS a federal issue. This isn’t fantasyland

              1. Given that he does have a position which says “leave drug laws to the states”, wouldn’t you say your criticism of him is almost entirely wrong?

                I would.

                1. almost

                  almost?

                  1. I like to hedge my bets.

              2. As pointed out 3 minutes before you posted, he already took the “its none of my business” position.

                After that, within the illegal construct of the federal law, he is trying to make it better.

                I am for big moves, but small moves in the right direction are still a good thing.

                Incarcerating people for MJ less is good. Incarcerating people not at all for HEROIN would be better.

                I will take the good.

              3. I’m Sowell-esque in my approach to public policy — I really don’t care how my legislators feel about or explain the policy they enact so long as it aligns with my policy preferences and has corresponding outcomes.

                So far I have not seen Rand Paul oppose any anti-WOD efforts at the federal level, and I have seen him spearhead the charge against many of its worst aspects. That’s good enough for me — and is the opposite of the Obamabots, who could care less about policy and just want the Master to fart in their general direction to show how much he loves them.

                1. So far I have not seen Rand Paul oppose any anti-WOD efforts at the federal level

                  Or the state level. Or the local level.

                  If anyone can point to a pro-WOD vote Paul has made, I would like to see it.

                  Just because he doesnt talk the talk, doesnt mean he isnt walking the walk.

                  Usually, its the other way around for politicians, they promise more than they are willing to actually support.

              4. “If he can take that position he can certainly take the position that WE SHOULDN’T BE INCARCERATING PEOPLE AT ALL for MJ.”

                Guess what moron? The word “marijuana” isn’t even in the speech. He was speaking about DRUG sentencing

          2. If only you could a majority of SCOTUS to agree.

        2. RandP has come out in favor of letting states legalize pot. That is effectively the same as repealing the federal drug laws.

          Unless the prez orders states to repeal their own drug laws, he can’t go any further toward legalizing drugs than RP already has.

          1. ^^^
            THIS
            ^^^

            On a slightly related issue, he is pushing the feds to grant KY a waiver so that industrial hemp can be planted. KY legalized it last month.

            1. It’s actions like this that hint at his true position. If he comes out and says the WoD is lost and he will shut it down when elected president – he won’t be elected president.

          2. Calling for the repeal of the CSA and the rescheduling of marijuana would be good.

      2. Pet peeve of mine, expecting federal politicians to take a position on state issues.

        If I were running for federal office, I would answer “state issue, I dont have a position” on about 95% of questions.

        1. He DID take a position. He said sentencing is too harsh. Sentences should be shorter. IF he can take that position, which he did, he could take the position that we shouldn’t be sentencing people AT ALL for MJ possession at a minimum (dealing is more controversial… baby steps)

          1. dealing is more controversial… baby steps

            Says the guy criticizing baby steps.

            You are a walking fucking contradiction.

            1. I am saying that his position at Howard University was wimpy as fuck and wasn’t baby steps at all. It was complete statist sellout.

              hth

              1. How is it not a baby step?

                It was a move in the right direction. Thats what a fucking baby step is.

      3. IT doesn’t matter. He’s a legislator and the war on marijuana is based on the federal level. How the feds react to state legalization is important. He could have come out and said that the feds should leave well enough alone. He DID come out with a position on pot CRIMINALIZATION. He advocated for sentencing reform (less harsh sentences).

        If it was his “job” to opine on sentencing length for marijuana offenses, then opining that there shouldn’t BE sentencing in the first place for MJ smoking is certainly within the scope of “his job”

        Face it, he screwed the pooch on the MJ issue and was a mealy mouthed half-assed loser when he could have come out and said

        “the federal govt. should respect those states that have legalized marijuana and let them decide what is best for the people in the state”

        He also could have said “Many prosecutions on the federal level and a substantial # of people in the federal prison system are there for marijuana offenses and that is wrong. People shouldn’t be going to prison for using marijuana”

        1. IT doesn’t matter.

          Information Technology always matters, but not sure why in this case.

          Constitutionality also always matters.

        2. “If it was his “job” to opine on sentencing length for marijuana offenses”

          He wasn’t opining on marijuana offenses, you moron, he was explaining a bill he was introducing on mandatory DRUG minimum sentencing.

          MARIJUANA isn’t the only drug that a libertarian should be for legalizing.

          When you start writing signed letters to the editor of the major newspaper in your city about your support for DRUG legalization you will have enough credibility to be taken as a serious critic of another’s public speech on the topic.

      4. That’s a point. But he should have something to say about federal drug laws, and that should be that there should be no federal drug laws that don’t involve things crossing international borders.

    3. i If he can’t even come out for POT legalization, which is now the status quo in several states, he’s being a complete pussy.

      Yet according to Nick G’s girlfriend hate-fuck, Ann Coulter, it’s us libertarians who are pussies for pushing the drug war stuff just to try to get liberals to like us.

      1. Fucking html tags, how do they work? That quoted part should have been italicized. Oh well.

        1. Yes, exactly. And at Howard University, he likely had one of the more sympathetic audiences he could ask for – college kids – for the idea of pot legalization.

    4. Yeah, it sucks. I don’t like his position on this, and I’m willing to believe that drug courts are his actual position.

      Look, they are authoritarian as fuck, but they would still be less authoritarian than sending kids to jail to be raped. Plus, if people see that shifting to a lower level of sentencing works and state based activists keep doing the good work they’re doing, legalization could come sooner. To wit, I think you keep your voting rights after being sent to drug courts.

  14. Is it me or has Palin improved herself over the years?

    1. She started reading the NY Times.

    2. Bitter experience can teach much.

      See ABC douchebag interview, etc.

    3. I wouldn’t be surprised. Going from AK governor to national figure all at once will leave a person somewhat unprepared. I’m sure she has been working on her writing and argumentation skills a bit.

      1. Num-chuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer-hacking skills…

        1. Vote for Pedro.

    4. AK has always been a little libertarian if you look at it sideways (besides the oil corp laws), and the town where Palin was mayor (Wasilla) is full of methbillies and general potheads. My guess would be that Palin is your average AK person and could care less about what her neighbors do in that respect.

      1. Also, don’t you have drive for like a day to even see a neighbor?

  15. I would not say that he sucks on the WOD. The position he’s taken is a Great Leap Forward(tm) compared to the past 40+ years from both parties.

    1. He’s BEHIND the curve. We’ve already seen MJ legalization in two states, and he is too much of a pussy to even say “hey, that’s a good position to take. Other states should consider legalizing MJ and the federal govt. should leave well enough alone and respect state autonomy on this issue”

      THAT would be a reasonable position to take, and hardly a radical one considering the current state of the law regarding MJ in this country

      1. He has come out in favor of states legalizing pot.

        As usual, you are wrong.

        1. I am specifically talking about his howard university speech

          AS usual I am right. In that speech, he came out for less harsh penalties. He did NOT come out for legalization.

          Try to keep up and read for comprehension. Here, I’ll quote myself:

          Rand Paul lost me with his Howard University speech which was apologism for the war on drugs. Disgusting.

          He had an opp to make a strong statement indicting the WOD and to an audience that may have been sympathetic considering that it disproportionately imprisons blacks. But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

          hth

          1. I am talking about the entire body of all his statements since he started running for office.

            The Howard speech has context, which is the entire body of his work.

            He didnt apologize for the war on drugs, he suggested scaling it back. I dont no what universe that is an apology, especially in the CONTEXT of his earlier statements supporting CO and WA and his statements that it is a state issue.

            1. dunphy was talking about Rand Paul in toto as well. Don’t let him fool you:

              “Sure, he’ll take a principled stance on drones, but when it comes to WOD he’s just another statist WOD enabler.”

              1. Omg, I’m ‘fooling you’ when I stated explicitly I am referring to his Howard University speech.

                Jesus christ, you sound like a funhouse mirror progressive. ANYTHING to defend your team, cognitive dissonance drive engaged.

                Fucking amazing.

      2. Hey, read the link robc provided above:

        “He just believes it should be left up to the states ? I’m not sure if that’s a position he would take at this time. It’s a decision for doctors and patients at the local level.”

        1. Hey, read my first post. For the umpteenth time, I am talking about the position he took DURING HIS HOWARD UNIVERSITY APPEARANCE.

          I am not talking about the totality of his statements throughout his career.

          I am talking about one specific appearance and his statements made at that appearance. Howard University. His most recent opportunity to blast the war on marijuana and ex-post legalization by colorado and WA

          1. His speech at Howard wasn’t perfect, but he was walking a lot of fine lines between speaking to an essentially hostile audience and keeping an eye towards the press reporting that would follow.

            1. His speech was a fucking joke. We have already legalized MJ in two states and instead of heaping some praise there, and instead of saying “it’s wrong to throw people behind bars for smoking MJ” a position that is hardly political suicide considering the state of the law and the momentum shift we are seeing, he offered SUPPORT for imprisoning people for MJ offenses by saying that the sentences were simply too harsh. Iow, the problem isn’t that we ARE sentencing people for MJ offenses… nooooooooooooooo. The problem is that the sentences are too harsh

          2. Dude, this is what you said in your first post:

            “Sure, he’ll take a principled stance on drones, but when it comes to WOD he’s just another statist WOD enabler.”

            You were clearly labeling him (as a person, not in an instance) as “statist WOD enabler”, which IS a statement on the “totality of his career”

            1. And I also specifically said I was referencing his Howard University speech. You can gloss over that all you want, but it’s what I specifically referenced in this thread and others and where I lost a lot of respect for him.

              He had an opportunity to take a strong, but not overly radical (considering it’s already been legalized in two states) position and to a likely relatively sympathetic audience (college kids ) and also an audience of mostly blacks (who are disproportionately negatively effected by the WOD) and he didn’t. He came out with an opinion on the war on marijuana that sentences are TOO HARSH which implicitly, if not explicitly condones the idea of sentencing people for possessing MJ.

              1. This moron thinks the WOD is only about marijuana. He can’t read anything in context, so he doesn’t understand anything about the speech at Howard. It would confuse his little brain if he realized they were about DRUG sentencing and not just about marijuana. How many fucking states have legalized heroin?

              2. You said “when it comes to WOD HE IS just another statist enabler”

                You did not say “In the Howard speech he sounded like a statist enabler”. No, you said HE IS one.

          3. The Howard speech was made in the contest of the totality of his statements. They cannot be separated.

            Clearly you arent familiar with the theories of Dirk Gently.

            1. Dirk Gently

              Greatest. Detective. Ever.

            2. I am criticizing him for his Howard speech. I made that clear and I am making it clear now. It was the right time, the right audience, and he blew it.

              1. If the audience was only people at Howard, how the fuck do you know anything about it?

              2. You also said this:

                “I’ll be the first to say he’s principled on drones, etc. and I admire him. But he SUCKS on the WOD and that needs to be addressed too”

                HE SUCKS, is what you said, attributing that characteristic (suckitude) to Rand Paul’s entire character, not just his speech. You labeled him as a person in toto, and you know it.

  16. Anyone else think the left/media are hyping Rand Paul now because they think he’d be easier to defeat in the general?

    1. Yes, he’s a republican they can begrudgingly heap some limited prais upon, then shellack him with the Biden/Clinton ticket. Because hope and change.

    2. Only a small portion. I think the rest of them are tearing at the seams from cognitive dissonance.

      In 2007 a kid at my old HS wrote an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Dem nomination. He was actually a Republican and thought Obama had the better chance at winning.

  17. Rand can see the throne of evil from his Senate office.

  18. OT: just finished brewing an IPA. For the first time ever, I got the whiff of cat urine that some talk about from Citra hops. Used an ounce of citra at flameout and got a whiff during the whirlpool.

    It was just like Citra more extreme. I hadnt ever made the cat urine connection before, but got it this time.

    I still dont care, I like citra.

    1. Is there any type that smells like Ke$ha urine?

      1. I hope I never find out.

        1. I hope I never find out how one would go about finding out.

  19. @Dunphy Dunphy, you suck on a whole range of issues. Even though you’re a brownshirt, we still respect you since you’re at least more libertarian than the rest of your colleagues. You wouldn’t pass the purity test, either. So suck it.

    1. I’m eagerly awaiting his signed letter to the Seattle Times, or wherever the fuck he lives, advocating legalizing ALL drugs to prove his libertarian credentials

  20. Time magazine?

    Maybe when I’m at the dentist next year, I’ll peruse this ‘Time Magazine’.

  21. Just to clarify. I respect Rand Paul, and especially for stuff like his principled filibuster regarding drones. I think Rand Paul would make a good president, and I would vote for him if given the choice over pretty much any candidate I can think of.

    What I am specifically critical of is that when he spoke at Howard University, in an environment where two states have already legalized MJ use, he effectively ENDORSED the war on marijuana by saying that sentences are too harsh for marijuana offenses and should be reduced.

    He screwed up.

    He should have said that sentencing people at all for MJ offenses, and specifically mere possession of same is WRONG. He also could have said stuff on a federalism basis about how specific criminalization or legalization in most cases is a state issue, but it is the job of the feds to respect state decisions, like those made in WA and CO and if those states want to legalize it, the feds should respect that.

    He had an audience of college kids, and mostly black college kids, one that would likely be pretty sympathetic to MJ legalization and he came out with what was effectively an endorsement of MJ criminalization.

    That was a screwup.

    That doesn’t take away from the fact that Rand Paul has a history of voting the right way, and taking the right positions and is one of the more honorable and to be respect politicians in our congress

    That is all

    1. “What I am specifically critical of is that when he spoke at Howard University, in an environment where two states have already legalized MJ use, he effectively ENDORSED the war on marijuana by saying that sentences are too harsh for marijuana offenses and should be reduced.”

      And again, since you obviously don’t want to take the time to know a little about what you’re critiquing, the speech mentioned DRUG sentencing mandates, and wasn’t about MARIJUANA. The word “marijuana” isn’t in the speech.

    2. So you’re saying that a politician who has some positions libertarians agree with also has positions that libertarians disagree with?

  22. Rand Paul… See Austin Powers 2: Scotty Is semi evil.. the Diet Coke; not one calorie not evil enough! < See this and apply to Libertarian-ism.

  23. Forget the purity tests. How about the test of whether he has had a real job, is in tune with how normal, intelligent people think, and seems to base his views on principles rather than what radicals and moronic voters want. What??? He has worked a real job and seems to have actual principles? I – I can barely imagine what that would be like in a president…

  24. Dunphy

    he effectively ENDORSED the war on marijuana by saying that sentences are too harsh for marijuana offenses and should be reduced.

    Would not a reduction of the sentence to NOTHING be a reduction and contained within his comments? He is not implying – you are inferring.

    He is being a careful politician. He knows that a statement like “I think drugs should be legalized” or “Marijuana users should not be bothered” will NOT go over well with a very large part of the constituency he needs to energize in order to win (so-cons). He is being careful NOT to get pigeon-holed as a nutcase like his dad. Check back in a year or two when the debate has changed and those views are not seen as Radical, then you will get a better idea of his full views.

    1. We’re a bunch of lay political philosophers who generally try to use reason in our debates, but that’s not how politics works, as Obama has demonstrated ad nauseum over the past four years. The chief lesson Rand can learn from Barry is to tell convincing lies to gain the support of people who are on the fence, then do what you want while using juvenile rhetoric to attack your political opponents.

      If Paul wants to win, he has to participate in the dog-and-pony show and lie through his teeth about his real beliefs, whatever they may be. If he’s sufficiently good at that, his steady demeanor and extemporaneous speaking skills give him as good a shot as anyone at capturing the Presidency.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.