Dear DU: Fuck Rand Paul

[Stinky The Clown]

Yeah, he asked a few questions that resonate with the left. BIG FUCKING DEAL. So did his father. (Fuck Ron Paul, by the way).

He is NOT your friend.

He should not be speaking for you.

He deserves NO praise from anyone.

Once again, but this time with feeling: Fuck.Rand.Paul.

With a dried corncob.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

1. K&R for a voice of reason. nt

[Buzz Clik]

2. This isn't your best work, Stinky.

The "Fuck..." threads are pretty damned weak.

[Common Sense Party]

83. Hey, object rape threads are cool now.

It shows how classy we are. Or edgy. Or something. I dunno.

[No Vested Interest]

131. I agree. I never give

a recommend to posts with such language, even though I may agree with the general opinion offered.

[Iggo]

180. I sure as fuck do. All the fucking time.

[Cary]

165. I disagree.

It's actually excellent work and from what I've seen from Stinky it very well might be his very best.

Fuck Rand Paul kind of says it all. While the word "fuck" is most definitely vulgar it is actually a perfectly serviceable word, and quite apt from a metaphorical standpoint in this particular situation.

Rand Paul is not our friend. Do not be fooled. This guy is real bad news.

[Kingofalldems]

3. Is he also behind the National Right-to-Work bill?

[Kingofalldems]

9. I'll answer my own question-yes Paul is behind

the National Right To Work bill. Just looked it up.

Eff him.

[freshwest]

86. Fought to stop raising the Debt Ceiling over Personhood, defunding PP, food stamps, etc.

But he's soooo liberal!

[Ohio Joe]

4. Another Fuck Rand Paul here...

I agree completely with everything you said.

[Honeycombe8]

5. Touche, Mr. Clown. Touche. nt

[PDJane]

6. Well, I have standards...........but agree with the gist of the sentiment.

[bluedigger]

7. Fuck Rand Paul!

And his John Bircher Paulbots trolling away here, as well!

[freshwest]

88. Thank you, too. I'd have left the vegetable reference out of the OP, though.

[bluedigger]

91. Yeah, that's why I spoke for myself.

It's a euphemism, not a call to action.

[sheshe2]

129. Yup the veg out the rest stays!

[freshwest]

203. Agreed!

[DollarBillHines]

12. I say , leave the husks on the ear

Then add broken glass and rock salt.

And habanero juice.

That oughta curl his hair.

[onehandle]

16. You mean his wig. nt

[Common Sense Party]

97. I'll mark you down as one more object rape-supporter.

Stay classy, y'all!

[freshwest]

98. Please delete. The Holder-haters post the same thing about him.

[Common Sense Party]

85. Yay! MORE violent object rape cheering!

[backscatter712]

168. Fuck political correctness! n/t

[LanternWaste]

204. I'd also rationalize it by merely calling it PC...

I imagine that were I cheering rape, I'd also rationalize it by merely calling it PC...

[freshwest]

90. Thank you.

[G_j]

164. Please be kind enough to explain

what you mean by "Paulbot".

[one_voice]

10. Indeed...

Fuck Mr. The Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. As if I wanna hear shit from him about anything to do with the constitution. Fuck him, his dad, and their fucked up racist I've got mine so fuck you and your family, views.

That's all I've got to say about that.

[graham4anything]

35. Plus a zillion

[freshwest]

93. See reply below yours #92.

[freshwest]

92. Plus a million to that. Guess I'll have to pull this one out for the same crowd:

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 03:00 PM - Edit history (2)

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals

...Attention to all self-proclaimed liberals and progressives.

I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America. He believes that the so-called “war on terror” as we’ve engaged it has undermined American freedoms at home and contributed to greater tensions and anti-American sentiment abroad...

The rest of the piece goes into detail about who is really being celebrated here and why the tunnel vision. And it's not the first name mentioned in the article...

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

Second verse, same as the first. Wash the tea bagger away once, rinse, repeat.

[graham4anything]

147. This should be pinned to the GD and the Politics 2013 sections forever.

This should be an opening Post and have people read and agree or disagree with it.

[freshwest]

186. Anyone who has read that article and understands it, knows the basis of much of the TOS.

[one_voice]

197. Excellent read!!!..

thank you for the link. I've booked marked it, for use later on.

It's dead on accurate, imo.

[freshwest]

202. YW. I think some people are being misled by these guys. Many aren't, but some will take the bait.

[TommyCelt]

211. Interesting article...

....which has made me think more in depth about being able to separate the "man from the issue". I've been touting the content of Paul's filibuster for the past day.

Thank you for linking to this article and giving me some food for thought.

[freshwest]

214. It's context as well. Some have skewered Brennan, who they confused with Bremer, not the same animal

and when one really thinks about what many of us find suspect here, is the record of Rand Paul. Please excuse the formatting on this post and that some text and links are repeated:

Angry Black Lady Chronicles

http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-is-cordially-invited-to-kiss-my-ass/

You'll enjoy her take on the man who always attaches Personhood laws on bills. He knows that Obama will veto them, and that Obama is standing up for us in ways those who don't know what is going on never will. Those who haven't done the research and support him on his filibuster, don't know why they aren't taken seriously on anything else.

If anyone really wants to know where Rand Paul and his white liberal friends are coming from, read this article all the way through. It explains most of the questions some ask about the TOS:

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals
Posted on January 12, 2012

...Attention to all self-proclaimed liberals and progressives.

I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America. He believes that the so-called “war on terror” as we’ve engaged it has undermined American freedoms at home and contributed to greater tensions and anti-American sentiment abroad...

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470341#post125

Post #125 links to longer articles, with the text of the video posted here on DU by Thom Hartmann. Angry Black Lady's website goes a long way back and to the present. Devon Rex's links to the SPLC go into detail here as well, and those of us who remember the actions of the JBS or John Birch Society, begun by the Koch family and precursor to the Ron Paul and Patriot movement, know these people are bad news.

It is packaged to draw liberals in on certain issues, but the larger questions they ignore are very telling and the end result is fascism. When people ask 'Where are the liberal voices' the answer is they are in Congress and the Senate fighting these militarisitic schemes but within the context as well, but it is not publicized. I've googled and found that many hair on fire threads are based solely on what media says - that same media that promoted the Iraq War, fired those who opposed it and every other liberal voice. Because we are getting the news that is ALLOWED by conservative billionaires, not the facts at all. I would put the actual facts of what was going on at times and the statements of those voting yea or nay - they were not doing what they were being accused of.

If you want to bother, check my Journal. A lot of it is lighthearted and several things, but I've written and linked to many things there. I haven't gotten permission from Tim Wise to post the entire article, as it really explains the division that is being promoted.

It's not dismissive of whites or males, but it reveals the frustration of those who are not and don't consider our rights to be a philosophical online article. The ABL articles go into detail how coddling this group is destroying the lives of people that many of us know in person. Those whose bodies are being legislated. There is no magic in what Paulbots promote, just a shiny face on fascism - and this is their latest sand in the machine to stop Obama doing what needs to be done. He was part of the reason we are now stuck with the Sequester - he held up the debt ceiling and flood relief to push his Personhood bill. That's not a person who cares about life, here or elsewhere. His group dictates how to enable those around the world to deny women and the disabled their simple human rights.

[Ratty]

217. Oh Bravo!!

Most awesome.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Fuck drones too.

Broken clocks are right sometimes too.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

15. Except no one looks to a broken clock for the time. nt

[Robb]

20. And we call people who do "idiots."

[riqster]

26. This.

Thanks.

[Politicub]

45. +1

[SidDithers]

13. Huge K&R!!...nt

Sid

[TwilightGardener]

14. Pretty much. I don't think Republicans suddenly give a rat's ass about civil liberties

and personal freedoms. Democrats in the Senate raised these questions first.

[Abq_Sarah]

28. Where the hell are they now?

With the exception of Wyden, no one else seems to be concerned about this.

Yes indeed... Fuck Rand Paul for monopolizing the debate on an issue that WE should have placed front and center.

[TwilightGardener]

42. Maybe Democrats don't want to filibuster Brennan based on Holder's hypotheticals.

It can all be cleared up if there's any issues, through hearings and legislation. Why hold up the CIA nomination? Brennan doesn't make the law.

[Abq_Sarah]

72. Do you really believe

Senator Reid is going to hold hearings on drone strikes in the USA?

Like it or not, the filibuster is forcing debate on the issue. It's something WE should have done. It something WE would have done if we had a R President.

[TwilightGardener]

80. Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee already demanded

the legal memos concerning drones and targeted killings--they've been asking for them for months now. Feinstein and Wyden, specifically.

[Abq_Sarah]

113. How long should we wait?

Should we just sit on our hands and defer to the Administration? Why do we turn into cowards when our party controls the White House?

[TwilightGardener]

118. What did the administration do? Most I can see is that they dragged their feet handing

over drone legal memos for the last few months. I thought the WH should hand over their legal reasonings. They appear to have done so. They haven't "droned" an American citizen on American soil, so this filibuster is GOP grandstanding and not terribly related to John Brennan at all.

[Abq_Sarah]

120. You don't get it

This isn't grandstanding. We have an administration and a justice department that has gone on record to state the President has a legal right to assassinate an American citizen on US Soil with no due process. The same people also hold they can assassinate an American citizen overseas if they believe they might be plotting against the USA. Those are not defensible positions for ANYONE to hold in our party. This is not an issue that can be excused away by feet dragging.

[TwilightGardener]

122. The President does have a right to DEFEND us from an attack on our soil--

the hypotheticals Holder brought up basically referred to attacks in progress. Local law enforcement, FBI also have that right--we stop people by force if they are in the process of killing police or others. I don't believe Holder said the President can just order an assassination with no criminal act in the process of being committed.

[Abq_Sarah]

141. He did not limit scenarios only to attacks in progress

That's the problem. He wouldn't set limits down in writing.

[Mojorabbit]

126. Thank you! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. I agree...a Democrat should have been doing the filibustering.

[OnyxCollie]

75. Our Democratic champions

have perfected their vanishing act during Obama's presidency.

(Poof!)

Gone.

[1983law]

127. It would have meant a hell of a lot more...

than Rand Paul. Oh, I'm sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the raping by instrumentation stuff.

[Faryn Balyncd]

218. +55

[Warpy]

18. Not with anybody else's ten foot pole

The man is toxic, a wimpy imitation of his daddy who's now set out to outdo the old man.

And KY, in their infinite wisdom, will give him a long career.

[Initech]

19. WORST SENATOR EVER!!!!!

[GoCubsGo]

178. No.

His new buddy, Ted Cruz, has him beat by a hair.

[Initech]

184. True that is a very competitive category.

[mimi85]

213. Ted Cruz aka

Joe McCarthy. This dude is going to be in the top 4-5 aholes in congress. In no particular order

Rand Paul

Eric Cantor (that constant smirk while trying to stab Boehner in the back annoys the piss out of me). And not because I'm a fan of Boehner by any means.

Paul Ryan

Ted Cruz

Michele Bachmann (although she's too dumb to be much of a threat - she's more like a fly buzzing around a pile of shit)

Darell Issa

Mitch McConnell (poor Kentucky, both their senators are pricks).

Damn, help me, I can't stop! There's too many! Clap on, clap off.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. This wouldn't happen

If we had someone with enough guts to stand up to the President on this.


Then again I've seen people support the use of drones on this website so I guess I'm an off the deep in commie leftist.

[MotherPetrie]

22. You don't have to think he is your friend to have the same question on something that he does.

[ReRe]

23. K&R to the moon, Stinky...

... to the moon up his arse...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

24. It says a lot.

That some of you are more mad at Rand Paul (yes he sucks, whatever) and those who support his filibuster than you are at this administration.

Close to a thousand innocent people killed by drone strikes and this is what you choose to complain about? The American political system is a joke. Its all about cheering on your political team. It doesn't matter if its a Republican or Democrat when your family gets blown the fuck up. Keep fighting about nonsense from the warmth and comfort of your safe American houses. disgusting.

[bluedigger]

40. It's about not showing support to a Bircher.

Is that hard to understand?

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

52. Well, it's not like you're voting for him or anything like that

If the guy has an important point to make, why not listen to what he says instead of automatically dismissing it just because he's on the wrong side of the issues most of the time? And if he has a good point, why not impress that upon the Democratic leadership?

[bluedigger]

57. Because that is what the Bircher's want.

They co-opt our issues, divide, and conquer. Remember this day, when Paul runs in 2016 as the reasonable Republican.

[DevonRex]

76. Rand Paul would use drones on Americans HIMSELF as long as they were poor, minorities,

or any other group he thought was worthless. He's a fucking Bircher. Look it up.

[freshwest]

94. Yes, he would. They've added a weasel word to their exceptions already. It's on ProSense's thread.

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 03:57 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470090

[DevonRex]

109. Thanks. And here's a good link

from the Southern Poverty Law Center on the Birchers. Just in case people try to deny the racist angle.
http://www.splcenter.org/home/2012/spring/bringing-back-birch

[freshwest]

125. Definitely racist. More links for those who think he's any kind of liberal:

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals
Posted on January 12, 2012

...Attention to all self-proclaimed liberals and progressives.

I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America. He believes that the so-called “war on terror” as we’ve engaged it has undermined American freedoms at home and contributed to greater tensions and anti-American sentiment abroad...

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

Thom Hartmann: Conservative Millennials, Boomers & Libertarians all being Conned

Multigenerational political influence by a very narrow special interest group is rare, but we're seeing it played out right now in front of us. A billionaire family - the Kochs - have gone from influencing my father's generation, to my generation, to my kids' generation - and very few Americans realize it. Daddy Koch - Fred - made his first millions palling around with Joe Stalin in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. As the fascists rose to power in Europe in the 1930s, he was an enthusiastic supporter of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, who invented the word "fascist," meaning essentially the takeover of democratic governments by big business interests. Mussolini went so far as to dissolve the Italian parliament, and replace elected politicians with representatives of each district's largest corporations. Fred Koch and Mussolini both particularly hated the trade unionists and their sometimes allies, the communists. So after Mussolini, along with his ally Hitler, lost World War II against America, Fred Koch brought the anti-communist pro-business-running-goverment - what some would call "facist" - torch to America big time, helping start the John Birch Society.

Two of their biggest efforts are pretty well known. After the Supreme Court ruled, in 1954, in the Brown versus Board of Education case, that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, the John Birch Society put up billboards all across America calling for the impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Court, Earl Warren. Daddy Fred Koch was very concerned about the integration of our schools - in fact, he wrote, "The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America." With JFK's election, Fred Koch's John Birch Society went off again - this time against JFK. Using rhetoric not that different from the "secret Muslim" plots the Tea Party promotes about Obama, in a 1963 speech Fred said that " infiltrate the highest offices of government in the U.S. until the President is a Communist, unknown to the rest of us.”

When JFK was scheduled to come to Dallas that year, the JBS distributed flyers saying, "Wanted, for Treason" all around the town two days before his arrival. On the day JFK was assassinated, large ads ran in the Dallas newspapers attacking Kennedy as being soft on Castro, among other things. That was my dad's generation. Daddy Koch died, and his sons Charles and David took over the family business of promoting the business and billionaire takeover of our American government.

They're doing it with a two-pronged attack. For people over forty, they're funding the Tea Party through a variety of groups, most notably Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks. And for people under forty, they're funding Libertarian think tanks, like the Charles Koch Foundation (which was renamed as the Cato Institute), and the Reason Foundation, where David Koch is a trustee, which happily embraces a new generation of young people with the idea that "freedom" means the "freedom" to buy politicians and the "freedom" to pollute. For the young people, of course, the Libertarians throw in the "freedom" to smoke dope and hire a hooker, but those are just bones being cynically tossed to young potheads and young protoge's of Dick Morris.

But the Koch's have been inside the Libertarian movement from its beginning - 32 years ago this year, David Koch was the Libertarian Party's official candidate for Vice President of the United States. It's really pretty incredible, but it's all true. The main agenda of the Koch's John Birch Society was to enhance the power and control of our government by big business and billionaires, while fighting organized labor and people like me who were protesting the Vietnam War. The main agenda of the Koch's Tea Party is to get millionaires elected to Congress and have them cut taxes and regulations for Koch Industries and other polluting corporations, while fighting organized labor and people like me who were protesting the Iraq War.

And the main agenda of the Koch's Libertarians - again, funded and trained by the Koch Brothers - is to keep intact the power of big money over our government, cut taxes and regulations on billionaires and polluting industries, while fighting organized labor and people like me who are protesting the corporate takeover of the United States of America. Three generations of Americans, all duped by the same billionaire family. Three generations buying into the idea that "what's best for industry and billionaires is best for America" - and that government is our "enemy" rather than something that our nation's founders fought and died to create for all of "We The People" And, increasingly, it's not just the Koch family. The Walton family - whose combined wealth is greater than 40 percent of all Americans - funded a covert campaign to rename the estate tax as the "death tax" and lobbied so hard they got the estate tax eliminated entirely in 2010.

Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out yesterday that - so far - we know of 26 billionaires - worth over $146 billion - who have already "invested" or committed to invest over $561 million dollars in this election cycle - most of it to defeat Democrats who want to raise their taxes. The good news is that young people are waking up and realizing that the Libertarian hustle the billionaires are feeding them is just that - a hustle. Just like Tea Partiers are waking up to their having been had by billionaires who want to privatize their Social Security. Hopefully, soon, America will regain its sanity and we'll go back to viewing cranky billionaires the way my Dad's generation did - as Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower did - when Eisenhower referred to their ilk as "small in number and stupid" They're not stupid any more, and if we really value American traditions, we really must push back on this kind of power and influence in American politics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=44227

Alex Jones | Ideology: Patriot Movement

Alex Jones knows how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Every week from his studio in Austin, Texas, he dives into red-faced tirades exposing the forces that threaten to enslave all human life on the planet. The conspiracy always boils down to about the same thing: eugenics operations, the militarization of the police, a cabal of wealthy corporations and the United Nations involved in a fiendish plot to control the world...

Influenced heavily by the conspiracy-minded John Birch Society, Jones ran unsuccessfully for a Texas House seat in 2000 as a Republican but said he doesn’t follow the platform of either of the two major parties. He has described his own politics as libertarian...

At the movement’s previous peak in the 1990s, the “black helicopter” was a symbol of its cartoonish insistence that the government would soon be coming after freedom-loving dissidents who knew the truth about the New World Order. Jones gave these fears a 21st century update in an October 2011 online broadcast. He obsessed over news that the sheriff of Montgomery County, Texas, had used a federal grant to buy an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (also known as a drone) called the ShadowHawk. The laptop-controlled, miniature helicopter comes equipped with a powerful zoom camera, infrared heat-seeking optics and crowd-stopping cartridges.

To Jones, this was not simply a police department taking advantage of the latest law enforcement technologies but a glimpse at the insidious machinery agents of the New World Order are deploying in the night skies in advance of martial law. “They’ve got large unmanned drones,” Jones warned. “They’ve got small drones. … And they’ve got million-dollar systems up there flying around with cops in control of them, surveilling you. And now they’re mounting them with ground-penetrating radar that looks right through your wall, while you’re on the toilet, having sex with your wife.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/alex-jones

More here:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/patriot-movememnt

[DevonRex]

196. And I dug around. Glenn Beck thinks drones will be used on conservatives.

Apparently there have been rumors flying around white supremacy groups for a long time that Obama is going to start a war with white people. They say he's building a black army and will use drones against whites. Gun confiscation will happen, too. Maybe first. They think Sandy Hook was staged to begin it all. Rand Paul's question to Holder is rooted in those fears. Not because he has any moral outrage about drones in general.

Maybe he's just coddling a crazy constituency in asking the question. Or maybe he believes it himself. Who knows. I just spent about an hour last night bouncing around from one site to another and couldn't believe what I was reading. Then I took a shower and went to bed with a Le Carre novel. I recommend the novel but not those sites. Ugh. Never again.

Thank you for the new reading material. This is something we have to get on top of. Like yesterday.

[freshwest]

201. Check the Angry Black Lady Chronicles for the scoop on this darling man - keep going, she's great:

http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-is-cordially-invited-to-kiss-my-ass/

You'll enjoy her take on the man who always attaches Personhood laws on bills. He knows that Obama will veto them, and that Obama is standing up for us in ways those who don't know what is going on never will. Those who haven't done the research and support him on his filibuster, don't know why they aren't taken seriously on anything else.

If anyone really wants to know where Rand Paul and his white liberal friends are coming from, read this article all the way through. It explains most of the questions some ask about the TOS:

Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals
Posted on January 12, 2012

...Attention to all self-proclaimed liberals and progressives.

I would like to properly introduce you to a man about whom you’ve heard much — especially from his enemies and those who prefer a continuation of the status quo — but at whom you might wish to take a second look, and whom you might consider supporting for president.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an immediate end to our current and ongoing wars abroad.

Unlike Barack Obama, he supports an end to predator drone attacks by the United States military, which kill innocent civilians and foment growing hatred of America. He believes that the so-called “war on terror” as we’ve engaged it has undermined American freedoms at home and contributed to greater tensions and anti-American sentiment abroad...

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470341#post125

[DevonRex]

205. I love both of them. Absolute heaven.

I love people who speak their mind and do it so very well. And consistently, too. That's the part I lack. You've always got such good information and links. I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you share with me. [URL=http://www.sherv.net/purring.kitty-emoticon-2279.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[freshwest]

208. You're also appreciated. And I love that cat!

[freshwest]

207. Thanks, added the link to ProSense's detailed thread and will go that link, too.

[NOVA_Dem]

51. If you're against the President people are cheering for your forcible sodomy???

Hey, it's ok when OUR guy wants to take our civil liberties.

[patrice]

144. Please don't assume too much. Some of us are having legitimate trouble with your messenger, RP's

protection of millions of unregulated assault weapons sales into some of the world's most troubled places. Are the deaths of innocent people okay as long as there are no drones?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471642

Regarding a piece of legislation that Rand Paul aggressively supported with Grover Norquist style threats to senators on behalf of the NRA to protect un-regulated weapons sales or else:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022193033

Please see my post #61 below.

[Dryvinwhileblind]

159. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^BOOM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[freshwest]

192. Thank you, Patrice!

[patrice]

198. Trying not to forget what happened to *O*U*R* troops & how much more profoundly horrible ALL

of that was for what happened to the people of Iraq, BECAUSE we turned a blind eye to the kinds of people that Ron/Rand Paul are defending.

[Demoiselle]

25. Thank you, Stinky. Well said.

[riqster]

27. With a sandy lubricant, and a Drano enema for dessert,

You start thinking stupid shit like "the man isn't all that bad ", and he'll be fucking the lot of us soon after.

Don't open that door. Not even an inch.

[Lint Head]

29. Ran Paul is an opportunist who is allied with Alex Jones who is a "One World Government" asshole.

The drones fit right into their Illuminati, black helicopter paranoia.

[freshwest]

100. That's all this is, a dog whistle to the racist patriot movement.

[FreeBC]

30. Broken clocks are right twice a day

[Politicub]

46. See post #15

You're welcome.

[Hayabusa]

31. You're Right. Fuck that assclown.

[cliffordu]

32. Well, shit, Stinky.

We agree again.

Rare, but true.

[cliffordu]

138. Apparently I'm on ignore, but that's just fine.

[patrice]

146. .

[cliffordu]

163. Welll....

[lonestarnot]

33. Roger fucking that dude!

[Angry Dragon]

34. Yes Rand Paul is an ass however,

He is doing the filibuster the way it should be done.
No secret holds. Sticking his neck out.
Does he raise some decent questions??
Does Brennen deserve to run the CIA??

He may be an ass, but here he is ding it right ............

[RBInMaine]

64. Ya, but one ok thing doesn't excuse him from being generally a FUCKHEAD !

[Angry Dragon]

161. I never said it did

If you attack someone for their sins then you have to give them credit for when they do a good thing

[Cha]

36. thanks for saying it loud and clear,

Stinky.

MF strawman teabaggin bircher tool.

[sheshe2]

130. +1!

[quinnox]

37. Simple-minded thinking is always going to come up short

Jeezus, let's try and have a little nuance and not always think in simple black and white terms. Just because it is Rand Paul, does not mean he is wrong on everything or that you have to be against whatever he may say. That would be stupid, because then you would have to be for the drone programs, because otherwise you would be agreeing with Rand Paul. A blind cheerleader is not required to be a Democrat.

[RBInMaine]

66. And one ok thing doesn't excuse a THOUSAND fucked up things this ASSHOLE believes and does.

[Politicub]

38. Fuck the Pauls. It's always the same group of DUers who come out of the woodwork

when the Pauls are involved to rush to their defense. Why is that?

Never see them on the forums I frequent otherwise, and I've been here a long time.

It's pretty sickening to give any quarter to the likes of the "doctor."

Krugman is right.

[bluedigger]

41. We are, and have been, infested with Paulbots.

Anybody who followed their tactics during the GOP primary understands they are organized and playing the long game.

[freshwest]

101. They've lost their home turf and are using DU to organize here. Is it working, IDK?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

53. The same DUers that nitpick about everything the President does. nt

[frylock]

67. the same DUers that held the same opinion when bush was in office..

fuck those fuckers with their precious principles.

[Generic Brad]

39. His filibuster is not being done to protect the Constitution

It is being done to meet his self serving ends. Free publicity for Rand as he pretends to be a pseudo patriot.

[WheelWalker]

43. K&R for unamiguous intent

[TeamPooka]

44. Fuck.Rand.Paul!

[Vanje]

47. Yes. but

Fuck using Drone strikes on American citizens.

[RBInMaine]

69. This is being HYPED in a big way. Chill down. Doubt this would ever happen. Let's get real here.

[LittleBlue]

49. Why are people so bothered that we could agree with Paul on one issue?

Assassinating people with no oversight shouldn't be a partisan issue.

The bigger issue is why aren't more of our senators concerned about this policy?

[MadHound]

50. So where are the Democrats?

Where are the Democrats who are stepping up to speak out against the shredding of our Constitution? Where are the Democrats who are speaking out against this unconstitutional expansion of the Executive Branch power? They are strangely silent.

Yes, Paul is a right wing nut job, but he is the only one stepping up on this issue. Yes, he is a right wing nut job, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

When you are more concerned with issues that personalities and political parties, then it becomes much easier to side with Paulon this issue. Doing so doesn't mean that you support everything Paul says or does, it simply means that you agree with him on this issue.

Politics, in the end, is about issues, not about people or political parties.

[WillyT]

54. Ron Wyden Was There... Harry Reid Showed Up, But Just To Ask Paul To Stop So They Could Vote...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022468665

[Iliyah]

55. Father and son does not deserves no praise

Some of their spouting coincide with Dems, most with crazy GOPpers. They are the potential third party. Rand Paul doesn't care about the drones at all, he does are about fucking America tho.

[MrSlayer]

60. So, they deserve praise?

Double negative buddy. Watch that shit!

[awoke_in_2003]

56. Agreed...

fuck them and feed them fish heads. I am against drone use, but Paul is just doing this to be an ass.

[spanone]

58. k&r...

[Jamaal510]

59. Broken Clock Sr. and Broken Clock Jr.

Both are semi-correct on a few issues, but 100% incorrect on far too many others to be taken seriously.

[freshwest]

95. Yep - Of Broken Clocks and... by Tim Wise.

[patrice]

61. He's a lobbyist for assault weapons manufacturers who make profits from 3rd-world VIOLENCE that

can trigger drones, at minimum, and/or the involvement of U.S. troops in places where American and Chinese weapons markets have created situations in which women and children die.

Proof? S. 2205 introduced in the 112th Congress and currently sponsored by Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas. Rand Paul was aggressively involved in promoting a Grover Norquist style pledge in the Senate threatening any Senator who signed on to any U.N. effort to regulated private arms sales.

[freshwest]

103. Thank you, patrice, for putting his hypocrisy in view.

[Blue Owl]

62. FuPaul

n/t

[RBInMaine]

63. DUers, this is the FUCKNUT who said "the market" should dictate WHO should be served in restaurants.

Rand Paul and his racist asshole father would not have voted for the civil rights bills of the 1960's. He is absolutely on record saying he would prefer "the market" to determine those questions, such as whom should be served in restaurants or not. He says people would serve blacks only because it would not be in their market interest not to. This guy and his crazy old man are TeaWhacko Libertarian FUCKWADS. They are AGAINST civil rights laws. They are AGAINST environmental laws. They are AGAINST minimum wage laws and other important labor laws. They are AGAINST healthcare benefits laws. They are TOOLS for the RICH and for them it is all about "the market, the market, the market" as though everything from a stubbed toe to a common cold and how to treat them should be ENTIRELY dictated by "the market, the market, the market."


TO HELL WITH RAND PAUL !

[freshwest]

133. Thank you many times over for that post.

[Zen Democrat]

65. Rand and Ron Paul are against ALL government spending, including for drones.

[LeftInTX]

96. [phone]

[bluedigger]

110. I think they are good with local policing.

Protecting property rights and such.

[patrice]

145. Wrong, they're protecting un-regulated markets in the world's poor countries. nt

[frylock]

68. and fuck that fucking Judas Paulite, Ron Wyden..

how dare he get up there and speak in support of due process. how DARE he!!1

[WillyT]

70. LOL !!!

Yeah... huh ???

[DevonRex]

108. I respect Wyden. Fuck Rand Paul. He's a Bircher. They're

racist anti-communist nuts. http://www.splcenter.org/home/2012/spring/bringing-back-birch

[frylock]

117. i don't understand what all that has to do with being against targeted assassinations..

I don't like either of the pauls. fuck them. i'm for gay marriage and equal rights. does that mean I support dick cheney?

[DevonRex]

128. He's NOT against targeted assassinations. Get a grip.

He asked a hypothetical specifically regarding targeted drone strikes within the United States, which Holder did not actually answer. You need to read what was explicitly asked and then see if that question was, in fact, answered. Hint: it was not.

Rand Paul is a Bircher. Support for Rand Paul in any way is unhelpful to all Democratic Party and other progressive groups. The JBS is anathema to everything we believe in right down the line. People like Paul and others in the JBS would love to use anything they could to garner support from uninformed people. I suggest you read that article from the SPLC.

[onenote]

111. The Ron Wyden that has expressed satisfaction with the administration's explanation

of the drone policy and has stated his support for Brennan's confirmation?

I don't think Ron's a Judas Paulite for taking that position. But you, on the other hand, must be seething that he's not sticking besides your hero St. Rand.

[frylock]

115. i have all of st. rand's albums..

he's my boyfriend too derpa derp!!

[DevonRex]

124. You're confusing him!!!! He thought he had a good thing there. Hahaha.

Then you had to go and state some facts. Get a load of his reply to me above. Talk about all mixed up. Good lord.

[Iliyah]

71. Except for Ron Paul collecting

SSI and tax payers paying for he and his son's great healthcare coverage and paychecks and other stuff (?), "f" everyone else.

[fujiyama]

73. I don't have to "like" Rand Paul to necessarily think he's on the right side of an issue

Broken clocks and all that aside, this claim that the executive branch is making that it can assassinate people based on whom it sees as a threat sets a very bad precedent whether you like and agree with the president on most issues - or not. Due process is something this country has cherished (or at least has claimed to). Our Constitutional protections should not be subject to partisan whims.

When it comes to foreign use of drones, I am not one to give a blanket opposition (and believe that even violating a nation's sovereignty is justifiable in rare cases with their use) but this idea that the government can kill US citizens (within US borders at that!) without as much as an indictment (let alone a trial) should scare the shit out of any American. And I'm sorry, I have no reason to trust Eric Holder on this anymore than John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales. Holder's priorities are clear. He's more intent to bust pot growers in CA than Wall Street criminals, because we know it's a hell of a lot easier (he's basically admitted it himself). It's also a hell of a lot easier to have a drone take out a "high value threat" than it is to build a case, acquire a warrant and apprehend the suspect (or kill them if it is in the line of fire). Tough shit. That's how the game should be played.

I'm severely disappointed that more Democrats aren't speaking out against this. This is a mockery. And Obama knows better. Even if I trust his judgment, this isn't about him. This is about executive power and the limits our Constitution places on it. Yes, I understand that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, but our current situation doesn't reflect that in any way whatsoever. This so-called "War on Terror" is perpetual, as it is perpetrated against an ideology, not a nation state. There will be no terms of surrender, treaty or parade to signify its end. Therefore, being the neverending war it is, I suppose the solution is that we just capitulate and simply trust them.

No government has or will earn that much trust.

[loyalsister]

121. If his concern is drones he should file a bill

Instead, he's using that opposition the same way McCain used Bengazie to torment Obama and his appointees. The really sad thing is he has roped well meaning people into supporting his circus.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

74. He's doing this because he values American lives....

But not $10 an hour worth....

[Cha]

87. Ha! "Rand Paul is Cordially Invited to Kiss My Ass" by ABL

Rand Paul has been droning on about drones for 7 hours. In that time, he could have introduced a damn bill that would repeal the AUMF, which is the reason motherfuckers are freaking out that the Black Dude in the White House is going to drone strike them in the Whole Foods parking Lot.

Rand Paul won’t take the time to introduce a bill to repeal the AUMF (because that would require him to put his money where his pie hole is), but he WILL take the time to try to attach a Personhood Amendment to a fucking flood insurance bill. That’s right. A personhood amendment. To a fucking flood insurance bill.

Oh, and while he quotes Glenn Greenwald and and feigns outrage about drone strikes, he enthusiastically supports the Stand Your Ground laws that are the direct cause of the deaths of so many black people in this country — like Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis.

MORE.. http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-is-cordially-invited-to-kiss-my-ass/

[freshwest]

105. Damn straight.

[bluedigger]

112. Excellent!

Thanks for posting!

[mountain grammy]

77. Rude, crude, and correct! Well said, Stinky

[Nye Bevan]

78. Awkward situation, isn't it?

When you have to yell at that little voice to shut the hell up. OBAMA GOOD, RAND PAUL BAD, repeat several times.

[MrMickeysMom]

79. Wow... I mean...

Ow!

P.S. Eat shit, Rand.

[Drunken Irishman]

81. Exactly right and he ain't doin' it for the left...

You know, the whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality doesn't work. Rand Paul is working over the left and the libertarians to attack Obama. If it wasn't on drones, it would've been something else. The guy doesn't care two-shits about what you believe in and is using you as a shield to attack Obama. Wake the fuck up. What he is doing is unprecedented and it doesn't make it right because he supposedly believes in what you believe. There is a time and a place to debate the drone policy - but filibustering the President's appointment sets a horrible precedence ... even if you agree with his point. I really hope this doesn't become the new norm in politics.

[freshwest]

82. Thank. You.

[cprise]

84. Obama feels he has much to prove to the security establishment

Now he got caught with his pants down. What a decrepit "civil rights lawyer" he turned out to be, playing his game of "political realism".

[Comrade_McKenzie]

135. Guess what? Rand Paul had to pee and now my President's nomination goes through...

Now on to more important matters.

[Iliyah]

89. Pres O pants are fittin

got the GOPpers in a knot - LOL

[nevergiveup]

99. Rand Paul

would likely support bringing back "colored" signs in public washrooms. He also likes to subtly make an association between Obama and Hitler and did it again today during his filibuster rant. I don't give a flying fuck what he thinks about drones. Rand Paul is slime.

[BlueCaliDem]

102. K&R for speaking truth to power! eom

[Justitia]

104. Amen. I'm Texan, I saw the first run of this play, starring his lunatic father.

For years, over and over and over.

And I saw a bunch of idiotic "Democrats" fall all over him, giving him a tongue bath in his opposition to the war.

Some people never learn.

[freshwest]

106. +1,000

[Ken Burch]

107. Is it ok if I just "don't LISTEN to Rand Paul"?

As Meat Loaf would say(if he wasn't a right-winger) "I will do anything for DU, but I won't do THAT!"

[Delzars]

114. Courage to fight for your rights from someone you despise.

I read DU every day. I don't post much. I'm a liberal Democrat and Obama supporter. I voted for him twice. But I have always strongly disagreed with the Obama administration on the following issues: Privacy, Drones, Assassination of American citizens without due process, torture, whistle-blowers and transparency.

I don't like Rand Paul. But what he is doing today is courageous. I don't think any US Presidential administration has the right to kill Americans on American soil without due process. They don't have the right to kill us with drones. They don't have the right to spy on us with drones.

I'm confused how a group so focused and supportive of civil liberties could disagree with Rand Paul's position on this particular issue. Is it just because the argument is coming from a Tea Bagger? Does it really matter who raises this issue or fights for our civil liberties if they fight for our civil liberties?

Am I missing something? If the next President of the US turns out to be a hard-core, right wing Republican, will you (Stinky) be comfortable handing him/her the right to subvert the Constitution and the 5th Amendment?

[Iliyah]

123. Delzars, a hard core nut case would ignore

policy, law, and the Constitution anyways. Bush admin. did and none of them have been prosecuted.

[cliffordu]

137. Thanks for sharing.

[morningfog]

116. I agree. I still don't like Brennen though, and would love to see him blocked.

[Kennah]

132. I'm a little fuzzy on your post Stinky. Could you clarify?

Thank you. I needed that laugh.

You have spoken VERY true words, and the delivery method caused me to laugh out loud uncontrollably.

You have done your daily good deed and then some.

[whatchamacallit]

134. Who praised Rand Paul?

No one I suspect.

[bravenak]

136. Nothing.

He deserves nothing for his fake ass performance he put on. I didn't trust his daddy,and i don't trust him. Skeezy little piggy.

[blkmusclmachine]

139. .

.

[caseymoz]

140. Sometimes . . .

. . . good things are done accidentally by bad people by way of doing bad things. I'll praise Paul for bringing attention to an serious issue no Democrat has called the President on, and for taking the stand Democrats should take. I mean, why not? It's not like we have to stand with Obama to make sure he's elected again in 2016.

Paul's heart is in the wrong place (specifically, it's where his colon should be), but even Josef Stalin had days where he couldn't avoid doing something good.

Really, we should feel ashamed that a hunk of shit like Paul has morally shown us up on this. It should awaken our consciences as Democrats.

[patrice]

142. Please see my post #61 above. & Why is the anti-drone position apparently pretending there is no

risk whatsoever to innocent persons without drone protections, what if they are wrong about that? or if there is a risk that innocent persons will die why would those deaths be acceptable as long as there are no drones?

I tried to think out possible answers to these questions here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471642

Here also is a link describing legislation to protect the millions of assault weapons transferred in PRIVATE American arms sales into the world's trouble spots, especially some beyond our southern border. This bill was aggressively promoted by Rand Paul because he is a de facto lobbyist for American arms manufacturers whom one might guess are an important auxiliary to Libertarian "free market" capitalism in some unregulated and rather disadvantaged places around the world:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022193033

[caseymoz]

148. First, the sale of arms doesn't belong in this argument.

It's totally irrelevant to any argument whatsoever about the President circumventing and ignoring rights guaranteed in the Constitution, which is the only thin piece of paper between us and a government that can make any of us disappear. It's what separates our government from Pinochet's in the '70s.

You're attacking the person instead of the dealing with the argument, and didn't I already make it clear that Paul was a despicable person? That didn't undercut my point when I led my own post with it, and now that you've said it redundantly and added one of the many examples of Paul's mendacity, it still doesn't undercut my point.

I have to quote you here from your title and opening:

"Why is the anti-drone position apparently pretending there is no risk whatsoever to innocent persons without drone protections, what if they are wrong about that?"

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Could you clarify this? Otherwise, I have a guess as to what you mean, but I'd rather understand you than guess badly. To me, the first and second clause seems to say the anti-drone people think there's no risk without drone protections. That seems approximately the opposite of what I understand their position to be.

I can make a general statement: the President claiming power to kill whoever he wants, wherever he wants, without due process, without judicial oversight threatens us all.

If I point a gun at you, and tell you not to worry, I won't pull the trigger, and I even assure you the gun isn't loaded, (but don't show you), how encouraged should you be? I don't make any demands, I just want to hold a gun on you. Would you be relieved that a nice guy like me was holding the gun and not, say, Charles Manson?

No, and if you were smart, you'd be wondering why a nice guy like me insists on holding you at gunpoint.

The very fact that a nice guy like Obama is claiming these powers should be alarming. You should be suspicious. His whole reason could be that he is the nice guy who will make us feel that losing our Constitutional protections are no big thing. Maybe behind the scenes that's a deal that he's cut with the military industrial complex and the intelligence apparatus.

[patrice]

173. Ergo, It's okay for INNOCENT people to die for YOUR Constitution even if they don't CHOOSE to.

Glad to get that on "paper" finally.

Take a look at yourself and meet the "new" BOSS, same as the old BOSS.

..................

FOUR fingers!!!!

[caseymoz]

215. You might as well say, "oh, so you're a Cub's fan!"

Yeah, you've really got me now.

That's how much connection you can make between the issues of Rand Paul being opposed (publicly) to the drone program and his proclivity for promoting arms sales. Your using a logical fallacy, attacking the person (ad hominem). And wouldn't you know, now that I have your argument beat, you're using the tactic against me! Along with a straw man.

It's not even the Constitution I'm talking about. I'm talking about rights enumerated within. I'm talking about the part that might keep you and I from getting killed.

BTW, thank you for clarifying that sentence. I could tell you put a high premium on being understood.

[GoneFishin]

187. Excellent Point "why does a nice guy insist on holding you at gunpoint?"

Well written.

[patrice]

200. That IS a good question if it's an honest one & doesn't start with the answer as is the usual case

around here.

[zappaman]

143. Kick and Rec! n/t

[Scuba]

149. When Democrats don't serve their constituents, they risk the right stealing their voters ...

Next the Republicans will come out for legalizing pot, winning a voting bloc that the Dems have alienated.

Sometimes I think the Dems are trying to lose.

[Andy Stanton]

150. It's all about the money

Republicans like Rand Paul are tools of the rich.
Remember that.
All the other "issues" are smoke and mirrors to distract people from the Republicans only real goal - to promote the interests of the rich.

[graham4anything]

151. Excuse me-Ron Paul is a megamillionaire who makes $50,000 a speech now.

Rand Paul some day soon will be doing the same.
Once the voters of Kentucky have another election and kick this John Birch Society person out of elective politics forever.

What is funny is that all the people that spew NO to dynasties, never mention the Paul
Family.

Why is that I ponder aloud?

Audit Ron and Rand Paul. Follow the money trail and see who/what/where/when they got all the money they got.

They ARE the republican party. There is NO difference between them and Tom DeLay and Karl Rove and W Bush.
In fact, a person very like them got W Bush elected in the first place.

[freedom fighter jh]

152. It's not about the man.

Yesterday's pro-Rand-Paul threads defended not Rand Paul but his actions. No, he is not our friend and yes he's done plenty of awful stuff, but in filibustering Brennan's nomination because of drone policy he did the right thing for the right reason. I wish a Democrat had done it first, but it was Paul that did it, and his action does deserve praise.

[JoePhilly]

153. Its funny how so many on DU will FLOCK to this turd because he

says one thing they like.

Obama does all kinds of good things, and those actions get disparaged daily on these same forums.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

175. The Paul cult infests every site on the Internet.

I can't even watch a live movie stream without someone mentioning Ron Paul or his talking points in a chatroom.

[DevonRex]

190. Nice to see who they are. I am not surprised one bit. nt

[paulbibeau]

154. I think we should be embarassed by this.

When Rand Paul looks like the good guy, we're doing something wrong. Our administration is doing something wrong.

Yes, fuck Rand Paul.

But the fact that he seized on this, and it wasn't one of our so-called liberal representatives who led the charge, should sting. It should drive us to rededicate ourselves to opposing this condition of permanent war that is taking lives all over the world and eroding our freedoms.

We let this happen. Americans of the left and right let this happen. On 9/11 ordinary people discovered that we were brave and resilient and that we could work together to stop terrorists and save lives when our entire military and intelligence apparatus proved itself powerless to do so.

And then we ordinary Americans gave all our power away to the very people who'd failed us so miserably.

[mmonk]

155. I do not agree with the administration's position on drones.

Therefore, I support his filibuster. When someone supports a morally correct position, I will take that position. And I'm one of the least similar people to Paul's ideas on the role of government.

[paulbibeau]

156. Yes! nt

[DevonRex]

212. Um, you might wanna check out his actual opinion on drones before you go agreeing with him.

And Holder spoke only of a Pearl Harbor sort of attack or a 9/11 sort of attack and said of course we could respond militarily in those cases. Didn't mention drones at all.
He's the AG. Read him like an attorney.
rand Paul is a John Birch asshole. Read him like he has an agenda. One that Holder didn't play along with.

[99Forever]

157. How very droll and insulting...

... for your fellow Democrats that happen to place IMPORTANT principle above partisanship and personality, Mr Clown.

The high regard I once held for you as an honorable person, just took a big hit. I expect this kind of hypocritical horseshit from some around here, I didn't think you were one of them. I guess I was wrong.

[bahrbearian]

166. +1

[ProfessionalLeftist]

158. He's also a woman-hating, woman-abusing pr*ck

Sorry but sometimes it's the only moniker that fits.

Oh he's all for freedom from drones. But he's definitely for freedom from rape and reproductive slavery (forcing women to have rapist's babies).

His drunken kid is no different and already has a record as a drunk and abuser of women.

No use for these turds. Not. One.

[Mkap]

160. No drones

The filibuster was necessary to stop the outrageous claim that the admin can kill anyone at anytime

But Paul is an ass. He is a follower of Ayn Rand's "me first" philosophy and her juvenile books, whose readers look at her as a hero for reinforcing their immature brat beliefs on how the world works. Thats why the average Ayn Rand book reader is under 21!!!

Yes i like how Paul took a stand against the drone program, but im not rushing to help or endorse Rand Paul. Fuck him indeed

[workinclasszero]

162. Rand Paul and his daddy should wear their pointy white hoods to work

Oh yeah and that racist scum Scalia as well

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/09/400521/rand-paul-explains-his-familys-opposition-to-civil-rights-act-its-about-controlling-property/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/28/1649421/why-scalias-racial-entitlement-quote-is-even-scarier-than-you-think/

Just goes to show you that the republican party is actually a neo confederate racist white power party full of modern day klansmen and women.

[backscatter712]

177. +1. And they call themselves "libertarians"

More like "Liberty for me, but not for thee..."

[patrice]

191. Yep. The LiberTEAryans branch of that family supporting tax-cuts for the 1% this time.

[grahamhgreen]

167. But support re-instating Habeus Corpus, right?

[backscatter712]

169. Judging by the length of this thread and the speciousness of some of the flames...

I'd say we've got a good Randroid infestation here.

[Idpomattlex]

170. He poses as libertarian

While denying gays and women their rights to marry and have a child, respectively. He's a phony.

[backscatter712]

174. Exactly. The Randroid does not really believe in liberty. If he did, he'd support GLBT rights. n/t

[ProSense]

171. Rand Paul supports "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion" of an "imminent danger"

Rand Paul supports "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion" of an "imminent danger"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022472789

[Romulox]

172. This thread is certainly not DU's finest hour. nt

[DevonRex]

193. So we'll put you down as supporting Rand Paul on drones. You'd better check his actual position.

Then you should probably, for the sake of accuracy, find out what he asked Holder and then read Holder's exact answer. Then it just might hit you that Holder ignored the John Bircher bastard's question. As he should have.

This wasn't your finest hour. But I sure am glad most people on DU know what Rand Paul's position on drones is. And we also know that his concern about drone use in the US comes from RW Glen Beck CT bullshit about Obama. If you're happy to join in with that crowd that's your business. But Attorney General Holder has no reason to give that racist drivel the time of day. I think he handled himself "Supremely" well considering these CTs are coming out of white supremacy.

[Romulox]

209. Putting words into people's mouths only to denounce them? It's the lowest form of "discourse". nt

[backscatter712]

176. Stinky, may I suggest some lube for that dried corncob?

That would make it truly worthy of penetrating someone like Rand Paul...

http://www.hotsauce.com/Blair-s-4am-Reserve-Extract-p/misc-blairs-4am-160.htm

[bowens43]

179. even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while....

[TommyCelt]

181. "He should not be speaking for you."

Maybe so. Where were the elected Democrats who SHOULD have been speaking for me, then?

[timdog44]

182. I want to address something

a little off thread that helps me to understand this thread.

I don't have anyone on ignore. That lets me see and understand all the positions and reasons for those positions.

I originally was in favor of the Rand filibuster because of the position on drones. What I have been made aware of is his hypocritical stance on said drones. His being in favor of sale of other weapons of war referred to by Patrice in post #144. I have because of that piece of legislation that he pushed, changed my mind on what I thought was a good thing, his being against drones. It does not affect my position on being against drones, and I am also against assault weapons, and their sale to other regions of the world that so destabilized that any weapons there are not needed.

____ ___ Rand Paul. Of course I thought that already.

[patrice]

189. Thank you, timdog44. It's a difficult position to hold, because I am actually REALLY worried about

drones! It's not a lie that they could turn into something really insanely horrible, but what we have going on isn't much better, so I was thinking about this from the perspective of the mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to have half of a chance of not repeating those terrible terrible things that happened. Certainly, if we rely totally on drones, we'll only regress further into the same old patterns, until it's over for all of us, so, as always, the real questions are how to get from where we REALLY ARE to where we WANT to be.

[timdog44]

194. Agreed.

I don't know if there is an easy answer. I like to think there is, in getting the heck out of places where just our presence causes the people to hate America. It comes from trying to be the world's police. I think we need to be against inequity where ever it occurs, but that is for the "dreaded" UN to come in to play. The problem I see with America being where they get involved, is that it is to protect capitalist interests and not the true bottom line, which is people.

[Daemonaquila]

183. Oh, please.

Does anyone here REALLY think he's our ally?

This proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. We can be happy that he's poking the hornet's nest for the right reasons this time. We can give him positive feedback for THAT, not for his other politics. In this one instance, he IS speaking for us, not that we don't need other voices. I don't think we need the warning that he ain't our friend. We can make short-term alliances on a single issue or a single action, and we don't have to be warned about the dangers of making it anything more than that. We're all grown-ups and know how politics is played.

[GoCubsGo]

188. "Poking the hornet's nest". Exactly right.

If little Randy REALLY gave a shit about how the President uses drones, he would be spending his time DOING HIS FUCKING JOB and crafting legislation to regulate the usage of these things. Instead, he conducts some bullshit dog-and-pony show under circumstances that have absolutely NOTHING to do with drones. The only thing he is really accomplishing here is to divide the people on the Left.

[Rider3]

185. Exactly.

[BklnDem75]

195. +100

Just like Ron. Say something people want to hear and they forget who he is. Line up behind them whether he supports their positions or not. Rand can care less about drones, people.

[ellie]

199. Yeah, fuck that guy.

He isn't our friend. All concerned about drones but could give a rat's ass about protecting women, minorities, and LGBT people. He can kiss my ass.

[RoccoR5955]

206. No thank you

Not unless the corncob had splinters of razor blades and shards of glass.

He's a cretin of the nth degree.

[spanone]

210. the stinkmeister is correct.

[fuzila]

216. Local KY Poll: Can we blow this up pls?

http://www.wkyt.com/polls?pollID=195886671&mr=1&submit=submit&oid=2&pid=195886671&cid=6500

I'm in Lexington KY, this is a local poll that is supporting this shameful representative of my state, can we blow this up please?

[Rhiannon12866]

221. Does this help?

Do you support Senator Rand Paul’s attempted filibuster as a means to bring attention to Attorney General Eric Holder’s assertion that the president could conceivably authorize the use of military force against an American on American soil?

Poll Results:

Yes 64.01%

No 31.48%

Not sure 4.51%

Total Responses - 1131

[polmaven]

219. Eeewwww!

No thank you!

[DirkGently]

220. Not the point. Ideas count, not teams or personalities.

Ron Paul has terrible ideas for the most part. But he's also been correct where some Democrats have not been.

Rand Paul is no better.

But if you stand for reason, and not simply picking teams, when the guy whose ideas you generally hate says something -- even one, small thing -- that is correct, YOU RECOGNIZE IT.

Otherwise, you're the asshole.