Comments on: Jack Conway’s Unfair Attack on Rand Paul

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:31:30 +0000

If one were to perform a simple search for the video snippet with Rand Paul, he-or-she would find that the context is a discussion about gambling and how Paul’s opponent of the time was against allowing private casinos, while seeing no problem with state-run lotteries. Paul was explaining that he doesn’t believe legislators should tie up law enforcement with gambling laws against private companies and that they should be worried more about violent crimes. Paul also explained the absurdity of how the government is considering making people earning $80,000/yr qualify for Medicaid as impoverished. He also explained how government shouldnt require more in taxes than is described as a tyranny by the Holy Bible – more than 10% – and the only state taxes should be collected in sales tax. He also discussed the fallacies of dumbing down of school tests in order to get the desired results, rather than requiring accountability and better teaching in school. Rand Paul all the way – not the Con-way!!

By: Michael O. Powell

Michael O. Powell — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:49:22 +0000

Also, JKD, I never said Paul is a racist. I did say that I had heard from a Kentuckian libertarian that racism was helping him succeed and that I don’t trust him. I have no clue what his personal social views are.

By: Michael O. Powell

Michael O. Powell — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 01:03:40 +0000

I’d disagree that Wall Street and mortgage fraud are violent crimes, just because they don’t cause physical harm to anyone else. Given that, they obviously do cause harm of the financial, emotional and psychological sort.

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:42:59 +0000

As far as Rand Paul and the CRA is concerned, I’ll stick to what I wrote here and here.

By: Stephen Littau

Stephen Littau — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:31:55 +0000

I agree, this political ad (like most political ads) is very disingenuous. I think Rand Paul could have articulated what he meant by “violent crime” better though (and maybe he did; it’s possible that there is some context missing). I can’t speak for Paul but when I think of a “violent crime,” I consider any action which threatens the life, liberty, or property of another individual through force or fraud an act of violence. This would cover the vast majority of the crimes (i.e. theft, burglary, white collar crimes, etc.) these cops seem to think that Paul would legalize if he had his way.

As for selling drugs to minors, again I can’t speak for Paul but I think that *most* libertarians believe that it should remain a crime for adults to provide mind altering substances to minors. Most of the time when libertarians say drugs, prostitution, and gambling should be legalized, we are talking about legalization for adults NOT CHILDREN (where the line should be drawn is another debate entirely).

So let’s review:

Selling drugs to children = a violent crime

Selling drugs to adults = NOT a violent crime

Wall Street fraud, Mortgage fraud, burglary, theft = a violent crime

Someone who is promoting (?) prostitution = NOT a violent crime

By: cjs

cjs — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:18:26 +0000

Oh and by the way, one positive of his position might be that we get more recognition for what I’ll call the “smart on crime” campaign. The downside is that its spokesman has otherwise shown himself an idiot, so it might actually discredit the campaign.

But either way, this is something that goes well beyond Rand Paul. This is one of the most severe threats to liberty in this country (and that’s something most liberals will agree with you on). We need to find ways to combat this soft on crime nonsense and inject some rationality into the criminal justice system.

By: cjs

cjs — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:15:33 +0000

This site needs an edit function. Very WRONG not rong. And I think Glenn Beck has two ns.

By: cjs

cjs — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:14:14 +0000

I don’t think he’s a racist – I just think his position on CRA is stupid. The federal government does have the authority to protect the civil rights of American citizens, and that authority is not limited to government establishments. I don’t see exactly why a private organization needs to maintain the right to discriminate – how exactly does that promote freedom?

When someone says they are a libertarian, I am forced to determine whether they are a) a legitimate libertarian who is concerned about excessive government, and is willing to have intelligent discussions on where the line should be drawn (most of the people on this site). b) a mental patient escapee who uses big government as an excuse to rile up the other escapees (Glen Beck). c) an inconsistent hypocrite who only wants smaller government in the areas where it is convenient (most republicans).

From what I’ve seen, Rand Paul is a C. His position on CRA is nonsense, and his positions on the Mosque and abortion are downright anti-libertarian (and very rong). His position on non-violent crimes sounds good, but that makes him 1 for 4 in my book. Not very convincing.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:48:27 +0000

Paul has two black employees on his campaign, his opponent Jack Conway has all white people.

Paul stood up from private property, not racism.

This isn’t the 1960′s …. It’s 2010 the race issue was settle long ago and no one is looking to change it.

By: JKD

JKD — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:52:30 +0000

What do you think his position on the CRA IS? He says he would have voted for it, because of the state of state mandated segregation at the time. However, he is troubled by the idea of government interfering in private preferences, good or bad, in private action. He is denouncing racism at every turn, so to say he is benefiting from racism is a pretty nasty charge. Did you note that in Survey USA he got 37% of the vote from African Americans? Clearly they don’t suspect him to be racist.