Jump to content

Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

atomheartbevo
atomheartbevo

Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530   Dear Senator Paul: Attached is a letter that we received concerning Dr. Anthony Fauci. I feel that you

wildcat09
wildcat09

GOP: "We should add over a trillion dollars to the deficit to give Donald Trump Jr. and the Walton heirs more money."  Rand: "Sign me the fuck up! No we don't need to cut anything else to pay for

CooterBrown
CooterBrown

Posted Images

RomaVicta

RomaVicta 30505

Posted
Posted

Does the GOP caucus have lead pipe plumbing and flaking lead paint on the walls. It's an insane criminal organization.

I heard raving about this on the radio today. They're the party of spittle slinging fury now. Sekulow and Gym Jordan and Lindsay Graham and all the rest. Pure rage and false outrage.

Most of them are smart enough to know what they are doing, but they have no shame to restrain themselves. 

And it may be enough to keep them in power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Blotto

Blotto 23975

Posted
Posted

At the risk of some neg bombing here,  does anybody have a link that presents the specific language that Paul is objecting to? I spent a few minutes searching for the actual language but didnt have much luck.

Quote

Paul said he’s concerned that the way the House bill is written, it might “conflate lesser crimes with lynching.” He said on Wednesday evening that he wanted to amend the legislation so that minor injuries could not be considered lynching and “ensure crimes resulting in substantial risk of death and extreme physical pain be prosecuted as a lynching.“

While I suspect this objection is probably his regular bullshit political grandstanding, I will withhold judgement until I better understand his specific objection. I am leary ANY time Congress passes legislation in a reactionary fashion to the outrage of the day, because the vote will likely be passed for political appearances rather than on the merit of the legislation itself. The Patriot act comes to mind after 9/11. Everybody wanted to root out terrorism and as an end result we now have more government surveillance of American citizens with fewer checks on how that power can be abused. 

The classic definition of lynching (implying murder by mob action without legal approval) I don't think anybody would have a problem with, but I am curious what he is referring to as minor injuries. Could open a pandora's box if the crimes that can be prosecuted as lynching are not tightly defined. Again, I think Paul is a fucking choad, but that doesn't mean Congress isn't capable of passing poorly thought out legislation with an election fast approaching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10809

Posted
Posted

If there are only bruises on the neck then you shouldn't be convicted of lynching. If you tie someone to a pickup to be dragged but the rope breaks then you don't get convicted of lynching. I think that is what he is arguing but I don't really understand. If someone is trying to kill you but fails and you don't get real hurt then they shouldn't be convicted of lynching.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34659

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Blotto said:

At the risk of some neg bombing here,  does anybody have a link that presents the specific language that Paul is objecting to? I spent a few minutes searching for the actual language but didnt have much luck.

While I suspect this objection is probably his regular bullshit political grandstanding, I will withhold judgement until I better understand his specific objection. I am leary ANY time Congress passes legislation in a reactionary fashion to the outrage of the day, because the vote will likely be passed for political appearances rather than on the merit of the legislation itself. The Patriot act comes to mind after 9/11. Everybody wanted to root out terrorism and as an end result we now have more government surveillance of American citizens with fewer checks on how that power can be abused. 

The classic definition of lynching (implying murder by mob action without legal approval) I don't think anybody would have a problem with, but I am curious what he is referring to as minor injuries. Could open a pandora's box if the crimes that can be prosecuted as lynching are not tightly defined. Again, I think Paul is a fucking choad, but that doesn't mean Congress isn't capable of passing poorly thought out legislation with an election fast approaching. 

here's the entire operative part of the bill

Quote
Ҥ 250. Lynching

“Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10156

Posted
Posted

Well, if Rand is trying to exclude from the definition of lynching “minor injuries” such as a neighbor licking your ass and breaking some ribs for you being an asshole then I am ok with this.  In fact, in his particular case, Im ok with not making it a crime at all

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Horn Dog said:

Well, if Rand is trying to exclude from the definition of lynching “minor injuries” such as a neighbor licking your ass and breaking some ribs for you being an asshole then I am ok with this.  In fact, in his particular case, Im ok with not making it a crime at all

That’s quite a lick.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 49331

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:

I'm, um, not quite sure what point Rand was trying to make there. 

"Eratosthenes proclaimed that the earth is round. However, Dr. Fauci thinks we should social distance and wear masks. Mike drop!"

I believe the point he's making is "Sometimes a rose can grow in a big pile of shit, or in this case, dead human carcasses."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Message Board User

Message Board User 12405

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

I don’t wish physical harm on him, but I echo the sentiment of the woman who says he isn’t getting any rest until Breonna does.

Does it matter that Rand Paul has been among the most vocal in fighting for criminal justice reform in general and called out the Breanna Taylor case specifically?

Dont believe me?  Just ask Shaun King.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Seanothan0918/status/1299228460603244544

https://mobile.twitter.com/KatieBailey_DC/status/1299314283180949504

Edited by Message Board User
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6263

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Does it matter that Rand Paul has been among the most vocal in fighting for criminal justice reform in general and called out the Breanna Taylor case specifically?

Dont believe me?  Just ask Shaun King.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Seanothan0918/status/1299228460603244544

https://mobile.twitter.com/KatieBailey_DC/status/1299314283180949504

When your actions show that you support someone responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of our fellow citizens during a global pandemic you lose the right to any high ground no matter what you are doing. I can be vocal about supporting the BLM Movement and go to all the rallies and protest marches I want, but if other actions I partake in do not reflect that commitment it makes my words and actions ring hollow.
 

Rand does not get to pontificate on criminal justice reform or invoke Breonna Taylor’s name when his actions and support go to a president who has made it his business to be as cruel as possible to black people that are still getting killed by racist law enforcement officers. You do not get it both ways. He made a choice to get in bed with the devil and he can suffer the consequences for that choice. I do not want to see him get beaten again, but all his words just ring hollow and they will for the rest of his days.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12405

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, UpperWestside said:

When your actions show that you support someone responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of our fellow citizens during a global pandemic you lose the right to any high ground no matter what you are doing. I can be vocal about supporting the BLM Movement and go to all the rallies and protest marches I want, but if other actions I partake in do not reflect that commitment it makes my words and actions ring hollow.
 

Rand does not get to pontificate on criminal justice reform or invoke Breonna Taylor’s name when his actions and support go to a president who has made it his business to be as cruel as possible to black people that are still getting killed by racist law enforcement officers. You do not get it both ways. He made a choice to get in bed with the devil and he can suffer the consequences for that choice. I do not want to see him get beaten again, but all his words just ring hollow and they will for the rest of his days.

His words ring hollow?

He introduced actual legislation to ban the police tactic that was used to kill Breanna Taylor!  Which is what the protester was screaming about!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6263

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

His words ring hollow?

He introduced actual legislation to ban the police tactic that was used to kill Breanna Taylor!  Which is what the protester was screaming about!

You can do this all day if you like. Let’s make it as simple as possible here.

His support for the current president, who is a racist, means everything else he does is immaterial and does NOT MATTER. You do not get it both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Message Board User

Message Board User 12405

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

You can do this all day if you like. Let’s make it as simple as possible here.

His support for the current president, who is a racist, means everything else he does is immaterial and does NOT MATTER. You do not get it both ways. 

And they say there’s no such thing as cancel culture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6263

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Literally saved our lives. Hyperbole much? 

He knows that no one who votes for him will actually watch the video. His supporters will say that the mythical ANTIFA brigade overwhelmed him and he was facing certain death of not for the heroic bravery of the police. If this wasn’t all such a clownshow I’d laugh about the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TXSG8R

TXSG8R 3362

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Being surrounded and yelled at, is a tough situation that I wouldn't want to be in. 99.9% of the time the crowd won't do anything. But if one person steps over the line, psychologically it gives others the go-ahead to join in. 

 

Bike cop almost gave them the match.  Dudes were just walking along yelling and then he got pushy with the black guy.  Black guy pushed back and the cop almost ate it.  Really close to getting ugly.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...