Posted on 04/07/2015 4:33:01 PM PDT by Uncle Lonny
I don't know for certain but could he have been saying... "Any law which is used to put black people in jail while giving a slap on the wrist to a white person (disproportionately incarcerate) who does essentially the same thing should be changed."
I am guessing he is talking about penalties for crack vs. penalties for powdered cocaine.
It is a form of triangulation that is also being used by Obama. He doesn't really care about gay people but he does care about destroying the military, Christianity and small business. Therefor he partners with the gays to infiltrate the military, demoralize and disenfranchise Christians and force small businesses to comply with ridiculous mandates.
In this instance, Paul is mainly in favor of abolishing federal drug laws. If he can curry favor with blacks by pointing out how they are being screwed by them he can gain support from a sought after demographic group while achieving an ideological goal.
I want to see a PROUD LAW & ORDER Conservative running for office.
This country has gone completely off the rails, batshit crazy off the rails.
Taking Paul at his word he wants to repeal the laws against these crimes.
No, you are misreading what he said. The statement is about whether or not a "law" disproportionately incarcerates people of color, not whether or not a particular population of people disproportionately violates a particular law.
Perhaps you aren't used to how carefully politicians parse their words to create sound bites in speeches. Or perhaps you just don't like Rand Paul and are trying to twist his words around. I doubt you really believe he is proposing to repeal laws based on the proportion of offenders who happen to be of a certain skin color.
It's a reasonable conclusion to draw.
If it's not what he meant, it's not what he should have said.
Pro amnesty
Pro Al Sharpton
Hates Jews and Israel
Loves the K street while bashing it
It’s a reasonable conclusion to draw.
If it’s not what he meant, it’s not what he should have said.
You’re right. Thanks for that good clarification.
I don't believe Rand Paul made a mistake. I believe every word out of his mouth today was calculated towards various target audiences.
He spoke the language of SOCIAL JUSTICE, of that there is no misunderstanding on my, or anyone else who observed the same part.
In some ways, it was pandering to the lowest common denominator in our society and it's that pandering that's empowered Obama and his ilk the past 6+ years while systematically destroying the country.
I do not tolerate pandering to the 47% who are WRECKING this country sitting on welfare and living the good life while I drag my ass to work every day to support my family and pay excessive taxes to keep these government fed filth alive.
Rand Paul is toast in my book. Done. Charred. Set off the smoke alarm burned.
Thanks, good post.
Absolutely correct. Spot On. Said in one sentence what I couldn't say in ten. Hat's off to you.
You are correct.
I never liked Paul, either. He’s toast and so is Bush. They will both be dead in the water by the end of the summer. IMO.
Blacks are incarcerated for murder, rape and armed robbery at a rate disproportionately above their percentage in the population according to FBI crime stats.
Quotas for black criminals...is this what Paul is advocating? What about the victims and their justice!
I see he’s still on his “outreach” and “big tent” pandering mission.
I just exited his tent.
” Blacks are incarcerated for murder, rape and armed robbery at a rate disproportionately above their percentage in the population according to FBI crime stats.”
But are they jailed proportionately to the crime they commit?
You *just* exited Paul’s Big Tent? What was your tipping point?
“No, you are misreading what he said. The statement is about whether or not a “law” disproportionately incarcerates people of color, not whether or not a particular population of people disproportionately violates a particular law.”
I see your point. But what specific law in your opinion could he be talking about that disproportionately incarcerates people of color?
Given “ disparate impact” policies on racial discrimination from the Obama administration where any action, rule, or law that has a negative disparate impact on blacks is considered to be “racist”,I would say that his quote is ill considered at best.
Eric Holder has used this disparate impact argument in calling for less punishment for black students for school discipline infractions in public schools.
That’s the kind of stretch the removes a person from reasoned discussion.
No thank you to Rand Paul.
“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Paul told the Times before speaking with a group of black pastors in Memphis, TN. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/10/rand-paul-slams-voter-id-its-offending-people/
He may not have been talking about any law, just making what he thought was a good sound bite. Or, as another poster suggested he may have been referring to sentencing guidelines for drugs which are stricter for certain forms of the same drug.
Personally I suspect he was doing what most politicians do - trying to pander to some group, and also trying to defuse criticism from the liberal press that he wasn't in touch with the issue of "racism".
But he isn't advocating for repealing laws against violent crime.
Lol!
I can barely watch him on Hannity right now.
He said something like the framers and founders didn’t think that anyone would interfere with one’s religious freedom, so they didn’t delineate it. (Something like that... he bores me, and those yahoos screaming in the background are obnoxious dweebs.)
Hey Rand, so it was just a coincidence that freedom from a national religion ( states can decide their own) just happened to be make it the first two statements in the first amendment?
I find him shallow and has knee-jerk reactions that show his liberal tendencies. He thinks he’s hip and cool. I think that he is what he projected Cruz to be on the day Cruz announced:
“throwing out red meat,” rather than his personal approach of putting out “intellectually enticing” messages to new groups of people to expand the party’s reach, which he said is “the way to win general elections.” Overall, he argued, “winability” is a big factor that Cruz doesn’t seem to have.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.