Rand Paul

"Who's Better Than Rand Paul on Racial Injustice Issues"?

|

The Daily Beast

When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took his nascent presidential campaign to South Carolina yesterday, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow castigated him for not specifically talking about the fatal police shooting of Walter Scott during his speech at the U.S.S. Yorktown. Maddow, via Mediaite:

"It's gonna be really interesting to see how long does he get to keep getting credit for being a brave criminal justice reformer when he walks into the epicenter of a huge national discussion about race and criminal justice reform and he has absolutely nothing to say about it."

I know I would have preferred it if Paul had in fact commented on the killing during his main speech (which was mostly devoted to foreign policy and defense issues). But Maddow is wrong to say that Paul didn't comment on the Scott shooting while in South Carolina. In fact, he discussed it from South Carolina with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. And there is simply no question that Paul stands head and shoulders above any other national politician when it comes to foregrounding issues of racial injustice stemming from poverty, law enforcement militarization, and the drug war. His response last summer to police actions in Ferguson, State Island, and elsewhere helped create a nccessary and ongoing conversation that simply wasn't happening.

As I write in The Daily Beast in a new column,

Paul revisited his thoughts on police brutality as his nascent presidential campaign landed in South Carolina, where a white cop, Michael Slager, has just been charged with murder for shooting a black man, Walter Scott, who fled on foot during a traffic stop. While saying that "98 or 99 percent" of [cops] are doing a great job," Paul said the killing of Scott was "a terrible tragedy" and called for the compiling of racial statistics when it comes to police shootings. He also added, "I'm concerned that poor people in our society may not be getting the same representation as rich people."…

Apart from underscoring the ways in which police tactics and criminal justice policies disproportionately hurt black and poor communities, he is alone among presidential contenders in highlighting the role of the drug war in turning the United States into something approaching an open-air prison. Taking to the pages of Time again last fall, Paul wrote, "I will continue to fight to end the racial disparities in drug sentencing. I will continue to fight lengthy, mandatory sentences that prevent judges from using discretion. I will continue to fight to restore voting rights for non-violent felons who've served their sentences." Appearing on Bill Maher's HBO show, he proclaimed: "The war on drugs has become the most racially disparate outcome that you have in the entire country. Our prisons are full of black and brown kids. Three-fourths of the people in prison are black or brown, and white kids are using drugs, Bill, as you know…at the same rate as these other kids."

Whole thing here.

These are positions that resonate with Americans, though not with most politicians of either party. Indeed, Hillary Clinton, reportedly ready to launch her presidential nomination campaign this weekend, is trapped in a prohibitionist mind-set that underwrites the evisceration of the Constitution and leads to all sorts of outcomes that have horrible, disparate impacts on the poor and minorities. Do liberals really think somebody who says we can't legalize drug trafficking because "there is just too much money in it" has even a basic grasp of economics and reality when it comes to prohibition?

If Rachel Maddow and the progs at Think Progress are any indication, we know the line that will be flung Rand Paul's way: This is a guy who has questioned anti-discrimination laws in the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, this is a guy who wants to bring back segregated lunch counters.

But when it comes to government policies that screw over blacks, Latinos, and the poor in today's America, getting service at a McDonald's or the equivalent of a Woolworth's luncheonette simply isn't a pressing concern. It's getting shot or killed by cops and, far more commonly, being subjected to an entire system of oppression that predictably funnels black-market drugs into poor minority communities and then punishes them through criminal justice policies that break up families and visits violence upon the guilty and the innocent alike. Beyond that, school choice—which Paul supports, as do most Republicans—is arguably the most pressing issue within poor minority communities. 

You don't need to sign off on Rand Paul's entire suite of issues to recognize that he's helped start a conversation about race, law enforcement, and justice that we desperately need to have. And that we're a long ways from finishing.

NEXT: Ronald Bailey Asks Will the California Drought Force the Unthinkable: Water Markets?

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. Paul’s wife is hot. Almost as hot mine.

    1. Something tells me she hasn’t had quite the same type of…experiences.

      1. Have you ever been experienced?

        Well – I have

        1. I’m sorry, Senator, I don’t recall, it’s all a purple haze.

          1. +1 Room Full of Mirrors.

  2. I wish people would quit making this about race. It’s not. Cops are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to dishing out injustice.

    1. Cop shootings aren’t newsworthy unless you can print “black” before the victim’s name. Because we all know that heavy handed government isn’t the problem, it’s… RACISM!!!

    2. the video from LA earlier today is just the latest evidence of that fact.

      1. What video? All I saw was some white kids getting their comeuppance for their 17 years of white privilege.

        1. The beat-down of the surrendering horse thief.

    3. Kind of, sort of. I think Warty made a point pretty eloquently a couple of days ago that I had been toying around with in my own mind for a while. The cops generally don’t really care about race, per se. They care about what they perceive as the relative power of the person they’re fucking with. And in a lot of cases, they perceive black people as not have a lot of power to do much about their fucking with them.

      So, yeah, there will be racial disparities. Not necessarily because the police are necessarily racists, but because they’re bullies in general.

      1. I largely agree with that. That said, sometimes it might actually be because some of them are racists, as we see even in the progressive utopia of San Francisco.

        http://www.theguardian.com/us-…..t-messages

        1. Cops deal with criminality, and beat cops deal with a specific type of criminality (violent, petty, unsophisticated). After some time dealing with criminality, you begin to notice trends among the criminals. There’s little denying that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime, and such crimes as beat cops deal with specifically. Their attitudes are likely shaped as a result of that.

          1. Nice apologia for blatant racism. Are Filipinos and gay people also known for committing lots of crime, by the way?

            I mean, I could at least understand your perspective (though still find it repugnant) if we they were just making racist generalizations about black people, which might be in line with what you describe. These statements, however, seem to indicate that they’re deeply and fundamentally racist and bigoted people:

            “The phrase “white power” was used repeatedly.

            One read: “All niggers must fucking hang.” Another said: “Cross burning lowers blood pressure! I did the test myself!”

            In one exchange, Furminger asked an unnamed officer if he should be worried that the husband of his wife’s friend, who was black, had visited his home, according to court filings.

            “Get ur pocket gun. Keep it available in case the monkey returns to his roots. Its [sic] not against the law to put an animal down,” the officer advised.

            Furminger replied: “Well said!”

            “You may have to kill the half-breeds too,” the unnamed officer responded. “Don’t worry. Their [sic] an abomination of nature anyway.”

            If you really want to excuse or justify that shit, go ahead. Racism in this country existed for hundreds of years before disproportionate black crime rates did, using that as a catch-all explanation of racism is simply stupid and ignorant.

            “Cops aren’t racist, and when they are, it’s black people’s fault!”

            1. I hadn’t read what they said/texted/emailed. Moreover, I’m not making any excuses for it, Guiliani.

              Explaining what blowback is does not mean you approve of people flying planes into skyscrapers.

              1. “I hadn’t read what they said/texted/emailed.”

                Maybe you should have before responding then.

                “Moreover, I’m not making any excuses for it, Guiliani.”

                Then what’s your point? Even if that was true, it doesn’t change the fact that in some cases, police are actually racist, and that might at times result in disparities in treatment. Even if you assumed they were racist for good reason, their racism is still going to result in innocent black people being victimized by being thrown in with the criminals in their eyes (or criminals receiving nonetheless unfair treatment).

                “Explaining what blowback is does not mean you approve of people flying planes into skyscrapers.”

                Apparently that only goes one way.

                And apparently I missed the part in American history class where we learned that cops weren’t racist in this country until black people gave them reason to be.

                1. Without delving into the actions or private exchanges of members of the SFPD, I’d rather address the issue more broadly.

                  I tend to think of race relations as being in a state of a symbiosis, a feedback loop. Where racism and dislike for blacks is evident today (and I know people who feel that way, though oddly enough the ones I know that feel this most deeply are latino or middle eastern), it is not the same as the old racism of eugenics and “belief in the inherent inferiority of the negro.” The people I know that dislike black people do so because they’ve been victims of crime, or had many combative or disturbing interactions with black folk. It is a function of their own dealings with black people.

                  The problem here is that their judgements of black people as a whole result in them treating black people derisively and black people again feeling like everyone hates them and thus reinforces the very behaviors that made them hated to begin with. So feedback loop. The same reason black people have a natural fear of the police and that police have a natural suspicion of blacks.

                  I sometimes try to tell explain to people that even if 90% of a population acts in a certain way, you should give the benefit of the doubt to any individual person you meet as they should be treated as an individual first and foremost. But people develop generalizations for a reason and that reason is typically to protect themselves and generalizations don’t develop in a vacuum.

                  1. I largely agree with what you said. I do want to point that even if the old-school “inherent inferiority”-style beliefs aren’t very common, a lot of the stereotypes and beliefs you refer to have very old origins and frequently accompanied or “justified” the inherent-inferiority belief. This can affect how people react to interactions with certain groups. Whereas a negative interaction with a person from one group will result in the feeling that that person is shitty, a negative reaction with someone from another group may result in the feeling that that group is shitty. Different rates of occurrence are relevant, but so are confirmation biases that cloud perceptions and affect how people generalize.

                    Plenty of bigoted people have had little-to-no interaction with the group(s) they hate, and there are historically plenty of bigoted stereotypes and beliefs that had little to no basis in reality. I’m not saying that what you describe doesn’t often happen, I’m just saying that it’s oversimplifying things to say that these beliefs are only formed through valid personal experiences

                    1. Plenty of bigoted people have had little-to-no interaction with the group(s) they hate.

                      Likewise, plenty of people who embrace the SJW-diversity-tolerance vision of the world live in gated communities in largely white suburbia. And I’ve known plenty that fit that bill. They choose not to live in areas with certain kinds of diversity because they mouth all the right platitudes but deep in their subconscience they harbor judgements. Hell, I live in the shadow of skid row and see and deal with black people on a daily basis. All manner too: the homeless, the gangsterish ones that come up from South L.A. on a Friday night to go clubbing, and the local hipsterish ones. The first two groups I’ve had or witnessed others having some uncomfortable encounters with. It’s made me more susceptible to racism rather than less. Fortunately, I’m a libertarian and reduce all to the individual and can compartmentlize the idea that “behaviour x is more common in this group, but person y is not necessarily going to conform to that”.

                      Hell, even going back as far as the antebellum South, they had far more interactions with blacks than any northerner did, and yet had what is consider the more “ignorant” attitude towards them. I generally hate the use of the term ignorant to describe racists, as in my experience it’s generally less born of ignorance than born of experience that’s inappropriately extrapolated to the broader population.

          2. “There’s little denying that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate share of crime”

            This is the most disgusting thing Ive read all day. You are a certifiable racist, Sudden.

            1. Is this sarcasm? Because disproportionate black criminality is an undeniable fact.

            2. That would be what is known as a “hatefact”.

      2. The problem of police brutality isn’t a problem of racism per se, but more a problem of the police preying on the powerless. But make no mistake, plenty of police are disgusting racists. That’s more or less what I was trying to say,

        1. My apologies if I misrepresented your comments.

    4. It’s not a black-or-white (no pun intended) either/or issue. At the end of the day, race is going to be relevant to these discussions as long as there’s a wide gap in how much different care about this issue. Paul’s not saying anything that isn’t true, and it’s a politically smart move helps combat the notion that he’s just another aloof, out-of-touch upper-class white Republican.

      1. *that

      2. combat the notion that he’s just another aloof, out-of-touch upper-class white Republican

        Yeah – he’s the sensitive, aloof, out-of-touch upper-class white Republican.

      3. Nothing ever seems to happen at the beginning or middle of the day.

    5. I wish people would quit making this about race

      Even if you make it about poverty, which is more accurate, it will come back to race given the disparate level of poverty in minority populations. And I do think there is a racial component to it.

      Whatever. If making the drug war primarily about race moves us closer to ending the drug war, I’m not going to complain.

      1. Back in my younger days when I sported long hair, concert Ts and ripped jeans, the cops would search me and run me for warrants every time they saw me. I cut off my hair and got a respectable wardrobe, and it stopped.

        1. I don’t think the fact that cops do harass and brutalize white people, or that there are factors other than race influencing your likelihood of police harassment, means that race is irrelevant to the situation.

          To go off your example, I think it’s extremely questionable to assume that (some, at least) cops have racially-neutral perceptions of what a “respectable person” looks like. A white person might violate that if they have long hair, tattoos, etc. but a black person might violate it just by looking like a pretty average young black male who has the nerve to not walk the streets in a suit. My black friends don’t dress significantly differently than I do, and for some reason they’ve attracted much more attention from LAPD over the years than I or my white friends have (and none of them are thugs or criminals).

          1. Yes, Cald, racism is **a** factor in police harassment and brutality, but rarely **the** factor that determines whether an encounter turns ugly.

            Certainly pigs identify minorities and noncomformists as worthy of more attention and may well expect more trouble. Beyond that I believe most pigs (not all, of course) are running on instinct and training. When the suspect makes a threatening or uncooperative move they merely react. Since more minorities etc encounter pigs more frequently for a variety of reasons (poverty, crowding, volume, etc), and the chances of miscommunication are higher between white pigs and street people, there are many more chances for things to go bad.

            1. That may be true. But it’s important to note that complaints about racism by police and the criminal justice system (including most of what Paul is talking about here) go well beyond just the encounters that result in death, tasering, or beatings.

              1. And we also see plenty of complaints of racism on a daily basis that are wholly imagined. But for some reason, so many commenters here who regularly insist that many people’s claims of racism are them being overly sensitive or seeking victim status will buy hook line and sinker any claim of greivance when the perpetrator of the racism is a cop.

                1. “But for some reason, so many commenters here who regularly insist that many people’s claims of racism are them being overly sensitive or seeking victim status will buy hook line and sinker any claim of greivance when the perpetrator of the racism is a cop.”

                  I think there are many more commenters that will agree with virtually anything negative said about cops, to the point where people can call them all violent savage animals who hate the citizenry and love bullying abusing them, and get very little if any pushback, but are suddenly extremely hesitant to rush to judgment the moment anyone suggests that there might be some racial bias in policing or that some cops might be racist (going off of our discussion above about stereotypes existing for a reason, there just might be a reason why people, including a lot of white people, have a stereotype that police and the criminal justice system are racist).

                  I think it’s common for people to claim racism where it doesn’t exist, even in police-related situations. I don’t think every negative encounter between police and black people is race-related. At the same time, just because there are a lot of times when people baselessly claim racism doesn’t meant there aren’t a lot of times when those claims aren’t baseless. And moving beyond individual incidents, that there isn’t good reason to belief it’s been a systemic flaw of American policing and justice for centuries.

                  1. One problem with a lot of individual cases is that short of the perpetrator yelling a racial slur or having a background or personal life that paints them clearly as a racist, it’s impossible to know what the underlying reason really was. But when viewed in the aggregate, it’s clear that it is a problem and does sometimes affect these incidents, it’s not surprising that people will make those assumptions in the absence of knowledge (though of course I still think a rush to judgment in individual cases in that regard is unfair).

            2. Since more minorities etc encounter pigs more frequently for a variety of reasons (poverty, crowding, volume, etc), and the chances of miscommunication are higher between white pigs and street people, there are many more chances for things to go bad.

              It could also be a result of attitudes towards and behaviors with police. Blacks have a default position that cops are antagonistic towards them on account of them being black. They legitimately fear every interaction with a cop may result in being shot. I also fear that (though I’m not black). But that makes me more cautious in those interactions. Not fight or flight, but rather calmly explain and show that I’m doing nothing wrong/illegal and that I have no intent on fighting or running. Michael Brown wasn’t a “hands up don’t shoot” situation. The DoJ report (overseen by Holder ferchrissakes) concluded that he did attempt to wrestle Wilson for control of his gun and was running at Wilson at the time of the fatal shooting. In this Scott case, he fled not once but twice. That doesn’t excuse shooting a fleeing man in the back, but it nonetheless demonstrates that fight and flight are both dumb fucking reactions to these situations if you wish to keep your life.

          2. To go off your example, I think it’s extremely questionable to assume that (some, at least) cops have racially-neutral perceptions of what a “respectable person” looks like.

            But, does this come down to racism or an assessment of their ability to screw with their targets. And the police will always target based on their ability to get away with it. And, honestly, I can’t see why it’s somehow more okay for them to screw with someone because they’re tattooed or have long hair or…whatever than because they’re black. The moral offense, presumably, is screwing with an innocent person because they can, not of whatever their fucked-up basis is for picking the innocent person to screw with.

            1. “But, does this come down to racism or an assessment of their ability to screw with their targets.”

              It can be both and I think it is. I don’t know why some people here seem to perfectly understand that policing is an attractive career choice for the type of person who wants to bully others and have control and power over them with little fear of repercussions, but can’t see why that same logic would make it an attractive option for racists. Racism in American policing is simply a historical fact, no reasonable person denies that it has been a very real and significant reality in our country’s history. I think the burden of proof is on people who think that it no longer plays any significant role. If you think it’s really irrelevant, when did this change occur, exactly? And what evidence do you have to back that up?

              I wasn’t saying it was ok to bully people with long hair or tattoos, I was making the point that the fact that they do so doesn’t mean they’re necessarily equal opportunity offenders when it comes to race

              (again, to clarify – I’m not arguing that all, or even most, cops are racist or that they don’t bully and abuse people in general. I’m just arguing that the fact that they do that doesn’t mean they do it all equally to all groups or that such disparities are not at times the result of bigotry and discrimination).

              1. Calidissident.
                I would agree that racists are probably attracted to the job. Ultimately though, I just don’t think its very important to the situation. You can find racist in all professions doctors, plumbers,mechanics etc. But those racist generally manage to behave well even with people they might hate. Reason being, if those people fuck up someone’s life or breech their contract they personally pay a price for it. Cops almost never pay a price for the shit they do. And even if you could fire every racist cop tomorrow I doubt it would change anything, because the incentive to fuck with people is still there, and there’s almost zero consequences.

                1. I agree completely. For the reasons you mention, combined with the nature of police work, racists (as well as just generic assholes) can and are more likely to do more damage than in other professions.

              2. I think the burden of proof is on people who think that it no longer plays any significant role. If you think it’s really irrelevant, when did this change occur, exactly?

                I think you’re missing my point. I’m not saying that continuing racism doesn’t exist. I’m saying it’s, by far, not the dominant problem driving law enforcement excess. Let’s say, tomorrow, someone found a magic wand that would eliminate all racism from the world. How much police excess do you really think that would remove? Hell, how much of the disparity do you think that it would remove? I’d be shocked if it even moved the needle. The same kind of guys who become cops because they are racists are the same kind of guys who become cops because they’re bullies. The chance to act on their racism is just icing on the cake for them. How many racist cops do you think are Andy Taylor when dealing with white people? They’re still going to see black guys and still think “Yeah, I can probably get away with fucking with him.” And their lack of racial animosity isn’t going to make a whit of difference in the fact that they’ve chosen to fuck with the guy.

                1. Here’s a little thought experiment, caldisident.

                  Who do you think minorities have more to fear from, a racist cop who somehow respects the rights of the public or a non-racist cop who’s a bully?

        2. Some people are just cop magnets for one reason or another. I’ve lived my whole life all beardy and long-haired and have never been searched by police or detailed on the street or run for warrants in my whole life. I don’t know what it is.

      2. If making the drug war primarily about race moves us closer to ending the drug war, I’m not going to complain.

        I respect where you’re coming from. But, I have to disagree. The thing is, if you think the problem is racism, you’re not going to conclude that it’s the drug war that needs to be dealt with, but racism. So, they’ll make all the efforts in the world to eliminate the racial disparity in abusing the population.

        It just won’t occur to them to stop abusing the population.

        1. “We’re not abusing enough white people.”

          1. Honestly, I wouldn’t put it past them to draw just that conclusion.

            1. Or to hire more minorities to join in on abusing the population.

            2. That’s already a commonly expressed sentiment.

        2. I think it depends. A lot of people on the left believe the drug war to be fundamentally racist, and thus believe that it must be ended entirely (and/or that ending the racist part of the drug war would defeat its whole purpose) to get rid of the racism. There are also others who believe the racism can be rooted out of it with the right people in charge, and that the drug war isn’t wrong per se. Both schools of thought exist on the left.

          1. I don’t think it depends very much. Sure, a lot of the people on the hard left might very well think that. But, when you translate matters into practical politics that isn’t gong to be what happens.

            Soccer moms aren’t going let you end the drug war and risk their little snowflake “falling in with the dopers”. They’re going to demand you end the racism and still go after the dopers. And, in practical terms, that means double down on screwing the white trash.

            And the police have their perfect solution. No cries of racism. No pushback from anyone who matters. And you get to keep your drug war.

            1. With practical politics, sure, but in that case, I don’t think the racism would actually get eradicated, they’ll do some meaningless training that doesn’t actually solve the problem and call it a day.

              I was responding to this:

              “The thing is, if you think the problem is racism, you’re not going to conclude that it’s the drug war that needs to be dealt with, but racism.”

              It wasn’t clear you were strictly referring to people with impact on practical politics here.

    6. I agree. But it does seem like Rand Paul is doing a pretty good job of pointing out the racial disparity of outcomes of interactions with the criminal justice system, which is certainly true, without making it all about race.

      And I think that black people do have a bit more to worry about from police than white people in general. And there are plenty of racist, or at least biased, police. But it is hardly the case that only black and brown people need to be cautious in any encounter with police.

    7. No they’re actually not. Ask a black person. Any black person, male or female, as well dressed as you like.

    8. It’s not race, it’s money.

      In our criminal justice system a person is innocent until proven broke. Color is irrevelant.

      Ask OJ Simpson.and Robert Durst.

    9. It’s not race, it’s money.

      In our criminal justice system a person is innocent until proven broke. Color is irrevelant.

      Ask OJ Simpson.and Robert Durst.

  3. Even if Paul was advocating the repeal of anti-discrimination laws (which he isn’t), a lack of such statutes would not entail a return to segregated lunch counters. It would merely mean it would be possible for some private business owners to create segregated lunch counters. Which black people (and many whites) would promptly not use. Which would mean they wouldn’t be “segregated”, they would just be white-racists-only lunch counters.
    For something to be “segregated”, black people have to actually use the “black” allocated thing.

  4. “Who’s Better Than Rand Paul on Racial Injustice Issues”?

    You know else gave a shit about “racial injustice”?

    1. Al Sharpton?

    2. Lana Kane?

    3. Teddy Roosevelt?

    4. Woodrow Wilson, implementing it?

    5. Woodrow Wilson?

    6. The Borg?

    7. Lincoln?

    8. Paul Atreides?

    9. I’m sorry but the answer we were looking for was “Hitler”….Hitler.

      1. Reginald Dennis?

    10. Jim J. Bullock! circle gets the square

  5. My co-worker’s step-sister makes $80 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of work for seven months but last month her paycheck was $21155 just working on the laptop for a few hours. find out here now
    ????????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. Wow, bad-work bot – Ram Jam is not gonna leik that one bit!

      http://www.derpityderpHURRRDURR.de/hurrdurrhurr/derp

  6. Meanwhile, at an Iowa university, Rand Paul quoted Pink Floyd to a bunch of students.

    I think most of all they’re terrified of Rand Paul because he puts them to shame on important issues and, unlike other Republicans and a certain geriatric First Lady, comes off as an actual human being when he talks to people.

    1. 90% of the students were like “Who?”

      1. And by the way, which one is Pink?

        1. Oh, I like her!

        2. +1 cigar

          1. You’re gonna go far.

            1. Be careful with that axe, Eugene.

              1. One of these days….

            2. Ha ha, charade you are.

      2. “90% of the students were like “Who?””

        I agree. I prefer The Who over Pink Floyd as well..

        1. Unlike the Who’s guitarist, Dave Gilmour doesn’t collect kiddie porn.

    2. “Citing a band from 30 years ago should show those kids I’m not out of touch.”

      1. *flicks Motley Crue lighter*

        1. FREEEEEBIIIIIRD!

          *burns finger*

          1. I am not embarrassed to state that “Freebird” was my HS class song. I should be, but I’m not….

            We were the first in Alma High School to be “allowed” to have it….others had tried. We finally got the administration to succumb.

            POWER TO THE MOTHERFUCKIN’….FREEEEEEEEEEBIRRRRRRRRDDD!!!

            1. My first concert was AC/DC. I lost my head completely in the excitement, flicked my lighter and howled for “Freeeebiiiiird!!” My brother swore he couldn’t take me anywhere. Which was probably correct.

              1. that is fucking awesome! You’re welcome to my concert-going gang any day

              2. I’d like to hear AC/DC’s version of “Freebird.” I bet there’s cannons.

                1. Fire!

                    1. Quite lovely, though it could use more pipes.

                    2. Thanks, Doom-Hamster.

                    3. Hamster of Doom|4.10.15 @ 3:08PM

                      I would like to add this to the discussion, if I may.

                    4. Trouser-Pod…. I have no words for this fabulousness. You’re my new second-favorite.

                    5. +1 wrench on anvil

                    6. “Woe to you, O Earth and Sea”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BP0JFPZT0x4

                      I credit Trouser-Pod for reminding me of this video.
                      I think the lead singer nails it, by the way.

              3. Maybe you started that.

            2. I am not embarrassed to state that “Freebird” was my HS class song. I should be, but I’m not….

              Admit it: your HS class song was actually the Baby I love Your Way/Freebird medley.

              There’s a spactacular set of songs in the sidebar

              1. Ours was “Sister Christian.”

                1. Ours was “The Long and Winding Road”…

                  Get off my fucking lawn!

            3. +1 malfunctioning fuel gage

          2. I don’t think I’m ever going to hear that song again without thinking of The Devil’s Rejects.

      2. Citing a band from 30 years ago should show those kids I’m not out of touch.

        Yeah, maybe. But it’s out of touch in a cute sort of way. And I know quite a few MILLENIALS! that like classic rock.

        1. I know quite a few MILLENIALS! that like classic rock.

          [citation required]

          A poll perhaps?

          1. DOH! By ONE minute! blast

          2. It’s true. One of the reasons is that the guitar console games were very heavily populated by classic rock for a while. My kids used to walk around the house humming “Sunshine of Your Love.”

            1. Watching a five year old get the words wrong to “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is one of the great parenting moments.

              1. My daughter, out of nowhere, got really into “Respect” when she was two. Like dancing and singing (what little she understood of the lyrics–she got “what you want” right). Which pleased me to no end, as the Queen of Soul is a good thing.

                1. “They still owe you money, fool.”

                  1. I just rewatched that last week. I fucking love that movie.

                    The Blues Brothers could’ve performed at my wedding reception, as our music was almost all old R&B and soul. Sam & Dave, Otis, Aretha, the works.

                    1. Nice, Pro L, very nice indeed.

            2. Isn’t classic rock also Boomer music? God knows the local “greatest hits of all time” station wants to push the same crap from the British invasion through the 70s down our throats constantly.

              1. It might be because other people like it. You know you can change the station, right?

                I don’t think there is actually a giant conspiracy to annoy Ted S. by keeping “boomer” cultural things popular. It might have something to do with that generation now being the mature, nearing retirement demographic with lots of disposable cash and time to get nostalgic.

                Pretty soon they’ll start dying off in large numbers, like those “greatest generation” assholes have been kind enough to do. Don’t worry.

              2. Depends on the age of the Boomer, I guess. My mom is technically from the first wave of the boom, but she doesn’t listen to classic rock much. Also not a hippie, thank God.

                1. By “first wave of the boom” you are referring to the Big Bang, right?

        2. You know this from an Emily Ekins poll, I assume?

          1. I am MILLENIAL!

            1. Oh! Then you speak for all Millenials. Perfect!

            2. I’m dubious of a claim made by a member of a group who can’t properly spell the group’s name.

              1. The letter N is racist and should be used as sparingly as possible.

                  1. Mille–ial?

                    Now that’s just a niggardly under-use of “n”s.

              2. I’m dubious of a claim made by a member of a group who can’t properly spell the group’s name.

                I’m inclined to think that in this case, it makes almost certain one’s membership in that group.

                1. I acknowledge your logic and accept correction.

      3. Come now, even the hipster kids today that I know like Pink Floyd and probably own copies of the Dark Side of the Moon (which has surpassed The Wall on the coolness scale).
        Just like half of them have a collection of vinyl records.
        The 70s are still the era of good music for most people who like rock or punk.

        1. I will note again that the first two albums I ever purchased, at age 11, were “Genesis: Foxtrot” and “Dark Side of the Moon”. I still have them both – the Floyd STILL has the orig posters and is in immaculate condition (the Foxtrot I played to death, and have about 3 newer copies).

          the Floyd stickers went on my first bagpipe case that I sold long ago, or I’d still have them, too 🙂 Good times…

          1. I’m surprised to learn that you’re more than 11 years old.

            1. BURN – it hurts

          2. Bagpipe. Bagpipe.

              1. No – sadly – I actually, you know, PLAY bagpipes. Not in a band any more – did the Grade 1 competitive thing for about 25 years. It was fun 🙂

            1. Yes. Will have to file Almanian in the Bagpipe players folder.

              1. Hazel has BINDERS full of bagpipe players.

            2. Oh, aye. Those were my Gillnders and McLeod, purchased in…1974-ish?? My present set of Grainger and Campbell (silver and ivory mounts, of course) I got in 1979…nice pipes.

              1. No, kudos to you, Al. I can’t play, so you’re ahead of me.

              2. It’s a long way to the top.

              3. Ivory? You are worse than Hitler.

                1. It’s mammoth ivory, so it’s legal.

      4. 50 years ago, just about.

    3. He also used ‘Baba O’Riley’ by The Who as his entrance music for that rally.

      1. Can you name one member of the Who without GOOGLE?

        Damn kidz!

        1. Townsend, Daltry, Entwistle, Moon (RIP)/Kenny Jones (suck)….saw them in ’79 a week after the Cincy “trampled under foot” concert – yeah, I had floor passes for me and the then-future Mrs. Almanian….livin’ on the edge.

          1. Nice pull on Entwistle.

            Bassists get no respect.

            /michael anthony

            1. I still have my ~’74 Geddy Lee model Rickenbacker 4001 bass. Played everything from big band to rock to jazz….

              Stanley Clarke was my #1 hero – Entwistle #2, Chris Squire from Yes #3. What do they all have in common? Twangy, trebly, roundwound sound before it was common, superb technique….I basically taught myself bass watching those guys play.

              1. Until today I was totally unaware that Geddy Lee was not the original bassist for Rush. It was a fellow named Jeff Jones, who only played with them for three months. He then went on to play with Red Ryder.

                1. More Rush trivia for anyone who gives a shit: John Rutsey quit the band primarily because of health issues related to diabetes. He then went on to become a bodybuilder!

                  I know, who gives a fuck.

                  1. Dude, everybody knows that.

                2. Pete Best feels your pain.

              2. I was all prepared to bust your bagpipes, til you said you play bass…(Fender Jazz 5 string)
                “Dude you’re black, you play bass.” – Cartman

            2. But no RIP on Enwistle. Does Almanian! hope he is in hell?

          2. I saw them in the early eighties. And since this was their farewell tour I am pretty sure they have not performed together since

          3. I had the T-shirt…

            “I’d walk over you to see The Who!”

    4. “And in the immortal words of Metallica, Don’t Tread on Me.”

    5. a certain geriatric First Lady

      Whatever that bitch is, she’s no lady.

      -jcr

      1. But her girlfriend is!

  7. who gives a fuck what Rachel Maddow thinks? It’s not like she or her five viewers are going to vote for Paul.

    1. Progs repeat her talking points all the time. Including this particular one.

      1. I will never forget Maddows stupid fucking ad campaign from a couple of years back. Her vile bobbing head in front of a variety of monuments and federal shovel ready projects stating with a straight face “There is no economic crisis” & “social security is solvent”. Maddow is a propogandist and apologist for power and for that she has earned my eternal contempt.

  8. battagila 2 minutes ago
    “Who’s Better on Race Than Rand Paul?” In terms of the volume of legislation he has put forward that are proof of his passionate position on these issues? I would say…..David Duke?

    mroy103 45 minutes ago
    Rand Paul belongs to the party that suppresses the African American vote. Case closed.

    derekdj 2 hours ago
    Paul will end racial disparity in drug sentencing, but will stand by the ultra right wingers to legally arm everyone, including criminals and prospective terrorists with the deadliest weapons that the gun industry can manufacture.

    QFAs 4 hours ago
    rand paul on race relations ?

    paul’s biography was co-authored by a neo-confederate; the same person was on his Senate staff and paul had to fire him when his background became public knowledge.

    paul is on public record stating that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

    paul is also on public record stating that he thinks businesses should be allowed to refuse service based on a customer’s race.

    If gillespie thinks paul is a champion of race relations, one can only conclude the two of them share an affinity for dressing up in pointy white sheets.

    1. Word on the street is that there’s a meeting tonight. Nothing formal – just bring your hood.

      1. I’m gonna need to borrow a wrench to get it off the car….why are we bringing hoods to the meeting again?

        /unclear

      2. Nothing formal – just bring your hood.

        I may be running late. I have to stop for some Arizona Iced Tea and Skittles on the way.

      3. Can I wear my limited-edition white coneheads snuggie?

        1. Oh, Mister Fashion, gotta show up all us prols draggin’ our car hoods around…well, LA DEE DAH Mister Fashionplate!

          1. Watch out Almanian – Mr. High and Mighty carries around a pointed stick in the event things get out of hand.

    2. Paul will end racial disparity in drug sentencing, but will stand by the ultra right wingers to legally arm everyone, including criminals and prospective terrorists with the deadliest weapons that the gun industry can manufacture.

      I wish.

      1. How does one legally arm criminals and deh terrists, exactly?

        1. Rand’s Got a Plan!

      2. Ooh, including plasma rifles in the 40 watt range?

        1. Just what you see, pal!

          1. +10mm explosive tipped caseless, standard light armour piercing rounds

            1. New: The i-Gun: http://video.weibo.com/show?fi…..nstalled=0

          2. Uzi. Nine millimeter.

    3. TDB must pay Nick well because it is a cauldron of weapons-grade stupidity.

      1. Nick doesn’t degrade himself by reading comment sections.

    4. That’s the thing about progs on the race issue. They hold that everybody falls into one of two camps: 1) you agree completely and enthusiastically with the progs, or 2) you’re a Nazi KKK racist who wants to murder all non-white people and then put their dead bodies in chains. Those are the choices.

      1. Your lack of enthusiasm is noted

        1. Yeah, could sammich be any MOAR of a fucking racist?

          I think not.

          1. If I were a betting man I’d wager he knows the reason why hoods are being taken to that meeting I heard about.

            1. He IS the reason that hoods are required

              1. Hey! No need to rub it in. I know I’m ugly.

      2. It’s all about intentions. They have good intentions which means they’re good people. Anyone who disagrees with them must do so out of bad intentions, and is therefore a bad person.

      3. Yeah, that does seem to be about the depth displayed in those comments. I fucking hate elections. I’m already about ready to hide for the next 2 years.

      4. you’re a Nazi KKK racist who wants to murder all non-white people and then put their dead bodies in chains.

        So how is that different than Sheldon Richman and a fair number of posters here?

    5. That is really unfair to Gillespie. Everyone knows he would wear black pointy sheets

      1. black pointy LEATHER sheets

      2. Made of leather.

        1. Damn you, Almanian!

            1. *hangs head*

        2. The Jacket comes with a snap-on black leather hood.

    6. How the fuck do you say shit like that when Rand sponsored the bill to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Is it because the bill applies to all ex-felons? It would only count if the bill was only for black ex-felons?

      It would be depressing to see someone do a man in the street sort of interview where they tracked these people down, showed them the facts about the work Rand has done to help on this front and then asked them what they thought of him now. I’m sure they would find ways of saying , “yeah that might be great, but….”

      1. How the fuck do you say shit like that

        Cause they’re retarded Proggies? Or something?

      2. dude = “Narrative” (greater than sign) “Facts”

        and its only going to get worse.

        when it becomes clear that the path to Hillary 2016 victory is in fact, *not* guaranteed? and that there are a plurality of voters who really don’t care about their endless whining about “the Koch bros” and “Racist GOP”, etc.?

        they’re going to freak the fuck out. its going to be nonstop shrieking

        1. “its going to be nonstop shrieking”

          I know the consensus around here is that Peak Derp cannot be obtained, but I’m confident we’ll see new levels reached as the campaign goes on, especially if Paul gains traction/is perceived as a real threat.

    7. That comments section is wall-to-wall derp. I think I may have sustained brain damage from having read it.

      1. Spend no more than 15 minutes at depth and come up slowly. The brainbends are no fun.

  9. WHITE PEOPLE NEED TO CONVINCE OTHER WHITE PEOPLE THAT THEY ARENT AS WHITE AS THE OTHER WHITE PEOPLE BECAUSE FUCK EVERYONE HATES WHITE PEOPLE HEY WHO WANTS FREE GAY PIZZA!!

    /”politics, 2015″

  10. Hillary is going to announce that Lil Jon is her running mate

    WHAT

    1. YEAH

      1. WHHHAT?

        1. OKAY!

          1. I thought he turned her down, for what I don’t know.

            1. YESSSSS!

    2. It’s sort of a sad testament when that would actually make her ticket slightly less revolting.

      1. I’d cancel my campaign and vote for her if L’il Jon were on the ticker. No shit…

        1. Damn! She’d probably stroke out in office anyway, leaving us with President Lil’ Jon. YEEAAH

          1. And then we’d have finally achieved what Idiocracy predicted not long ago. Our very own President Comacho

              1. The one good thing that ever came out of Celebrity Apprentice was finding out that Dave Chappelle’s impression of Lil’ Jon was 100% dead on.

                Ok, two good things: the time Meat Loaf had a psychotic break at Gary Busey over spongepainting supplies.

  11. His response last summer to police actions in Ferguson, State Island, and elsewhere

    Great subliminal typo.

    1. Joez Law strikes again

  12. As far as the Maddows of the world are concerned, Rand Paul could personally hunt down and kill every member of the Ku Klux Klan, cure sickle-cell anemia, give every black man a job, and make “Mama Said Knock You Out” into the national anthem, and he would still be closet white supremacist less qualified for the Presidency than Robert Byrd.

  13. In the Republican party, probably not many, but as with every other issue that matters, that’s a low bar. Rand Paul likely holds no racial animosity, and his position on the CRA is “principled” in the very special way libertarians have principles. That is, they’re not personally racist, but all their ideas came originally from white racial resentment politics of the South, and they are too dumb to know that.

    1. That is, they’re not personally racist, but all their ideas came originally from white racial resentment politics of the South, and they are too dumb to know that.

      What is it about progressives and projection?!?

    2. Ideas like the one where it is completely unacceptable for the government to discriminate based on race? Fuck off. There is exactly one section of the CRA that principled libertarians disagree with.

    3. Our ideas came originally from English common law. The white racists of the south just adopted it temporarily as a defense. A defense against one specific form of coercion. Which they happen to be right about. At least if you’re a believer in private property rights then you would think they are right.

      There is after all a reason WHY racist white southerners thought that adopting that argument would be convincing to other people, you know. it’s not like they were the first people to invent the concept of property rights.

      1. The lefts bastardization of history knows no bounds.

        The GOP did incorporate the racist Southerners, but then again…LBJ was one of them. The whole issue is way more muddled than they make it out to be and more Democrats still voted against the Civil Rights Act than Republicans.

        Of course, none of them want you to trace the intellectual backgrounds of the progressive movement. That would lead you back through the Eugenics, Marxism, authoritarianism…

        But libertarians are racist because the Confederacy believed in nullification and states rights as an excuse for slavery. Forget the part where you can trace libertarianism back to classical liberal ideas.

      2. Racist white southerners have spent centuries enveloped in a politics almost entirely concerned with how they can exploit and kill black people. Property rights is not just their convenient excuse, it’s not even relevant. Property is a thing defined by government. Best if government defines it in a way that does not require human ownership or apartheid.

        1. RIP Senator Robert Byrd, former klansman and Democrat

    4. Don’t you love how lefties have convinced themselves that “Racist White Southerner” WASNT synonymous with “Democrat” in the 20th century?

    5. The Democrat… is going to tell everyone that their politics are built on a racist history. The supporter of the Democrat Party is saying this…

  14. But, my leftard friends all tell me that I’m a racist if I don’t support the incompetent rich old white lady criminal for president in 2016.

    -jcr

  15. Maddow is a putz. Anyone who spends their time listening to Maddow is a putz.

  16. just before I saw the bank draft which was of $9694 , I be certain that my sister was like they say actualy taking home money part-time from there computar. . there neighbour haz done this 4 less than a year and just paid for the mortgage on there house and bought a great new Aston Martin DB5 . go now
    http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  17. The racism in these cases seems institutional – not individual – which has more to do with us v other than it does with skin color. Ferguson/N Charleston were mostly black towns policed by mostly white police who lived in different towns so problems look more racial than they prob are. Poor parts of bigger cities are policed by middle-class cops who don’t live in that part of the city so problems look like a mix of race/class. We usually label/pigeonhole to ‘market’ our solution rather than to understand the problem of a dysfunctional institution. Which could well be an inevitability of neighborhood segregation.

    I applaud Rand Paul for being the first libertarianish conservative sort to at least seem to reach out to try to understand the problem and kind of shut up until he does understand it. Gillespie doesn’t. He thinks the solution is to ‘foreground the issue’ (make it more important than it actually is so that he can market the bugaboos he wants to market – militarization of police, drug war, school choice). While that is effective at turning him into a SJW (who have also been itching to ‘foreground this issue’) at the right cocktail parties, it doesn’t have much to do with any specific problem here. Most libertarianish conservatives lean conservative on this issue – ie minimizing the issue so they can instead talk about breakup of the black family.

    I have absolutely no clue what the answer is.

  18. The problem with all this pother about the police targeting blacks is that it ignores all the whites who get killed by the police. They don’t suit the liberal narrative, so they go largely unreported, so every black shooting can be cited as “proof” of racism. Without knowing the numbers (including how many people of each race resist arrest), we can’t know what the problem is. It might be racism, it might be cops with hair-trigger tempers, or it might even be a plague of troublemakers who bring their fates on themselves (as Michael Brown did).

  19. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week……………….

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  20. Maybe a start would be mandatory collection of statistics on ALL “police involved” shootings.

  21. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  22. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  23. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ———– http://www.work-cash.com

  24. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do….. ????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.