Rand Paul was always a Piece of Shit

[American Swindle 102]

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

The fact that he can take reasonable positions on some policies doesn't mean he's not a fucking clown.

I'd like to know why he has such a hardon for Russia these days. Can someone explain why we should  be relaxing sanctions on a country that is unapologetically fucking with our political infrastructure?

Maybe because he's for peace and diplomacy and it's consistent with his non-interventionist stance he's always had?

[Anastasis 23703]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

@Anastasis, do you believe that Rand Paul is doing or will actually do "everything in his power" to end the funding of those Afghan groups? I already gave an example of something in his power that he could do. Will he do it or anything close to it?

LOL Huckleberry.  You think that it is politically effective to leverage his vote on a conservative SCOTUS appointment to end funding to afghan military and police forces?  Come on man, this is your gotcha..."he said everything on twitter!11". He used his position on committee to propose an amendment to withhold U.S. funding for Afghan security forces unless the U.S. government’s watchdog in Afghanistan could verify those forces were not using children as child soldiers or sex slaves.  He's making an issue and highlighting sex trafficking and abuse using the mechanisms at his disposal, including tweeting about it to raise awareness of the issue. What an unprincipled animal, basically an enemy of the united states at this point.  

[Huckleberry 34407]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL Huckleberry.  You think that it is politically effective to leverage his vote on a conservative SCOTUS appointment to end funding to afghan military and police forces?  Come on man, this is your gotcha..."he said everything on twitter!11". He used his position on committee to propose an amendment to withhold U.S. funding for Afghan security forces unless the U.S. government’s watchdog in Afghanistan could verify those forces were not using children as child soldiers or sex slaves.  He's making an issue and highlighting sex trafficking and abuse using the mechanisms at his disposal, including tweeting about it to raise awareness of the issue. What an unprincipled animal, basically an enemy of the united states at this point.  

So your answer is no? You could have just said no.

He said he would do anything in his power. That is clearly a lie. That's all I was wondering.

Seems like you are misplacing some frustration with other posters on me. I've never accused him of being an unprincipled animal or an enemy of the US. You should try to post better.

[wildcat09 29562]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

LOL Huckleberry.  You think that it is politically effective to leverage his vote on a conservative SCOTUS appointment to end funding to afghan military and police forces?  Come on man, this is your gotcha..."he said everything on twitter!11". He used his position on committee to propose an amendment to withhold U.S. funding for Afghan security forces unless the U.S. government’s watchdog in Afghanistan could verify those forces were not using children as child soldiers or sex slaves.  He's making an issue and highlighting sex trafficking and abuse using the mechanisms at his disposal, including tweeting about it to raise awareness of the issue. What an unprincipled animal, basically an enemy of the united states at this point.  

He could certainly leverage his vote to get a nominee that is better than Brett fucking Kavanaugh on issues he pretends to care about. Kavanaugh should be enormously offensive to Rand, but he's barely made a peep. He may have some somewhat unique views for a Republican on issues like privacy and criminal justice reform, but he won't use any amount of actual political capital because he prioritizes slashing taxes on the wealthiest Americans and eliminating asbestos regulations.

[bad_teammate 13482]

Powerful Tweets

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Kavanaugh should be enormously offensive to Rand, 

Yeah, Kavanaugh is a neoconservative’s wet dream.

Expanded executive power

Torture 

Privacy rights 

 

Rand? Where is your objection? 

[Anastasis 23703]

40 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

He said he would do anything in his power. That is clearly a lie.

[Huckleberry 34407]

So do you expect representatives to be honest or not? You're strictly both sides so apply your standards evenly. Why do you unceasingly defend Rand Paul and yet not only allow his lies but actively post them here? You defend him as principled yet ignore his lack of principles (as pointed out with respect to Kavanaugh's executive authoritarian leanings). What exactly is your position on Rand Paul?

I used to think you were a good poster but all you've got here is pasting tweets, misrepresenting my position, and now a gif that helps you avoid the discussion. You're like a Hugo Stiglitz clone at this point.

[Anastasis 23703]

 

Just now, Huckleberry said:

I used to think you were a good poster but all you've got here is pasting tweets, misrepresenting my position, and now a gif that helps you avoid the discussion. You're like a Hugo Stiglitz clone at this point.

LOL. I've selected a series of twatters that reflect political positions that nearly 100% of non-lunatic Surly CR agrees with. Those twatters generally cover: out of control military spending, criminal justice reform, functional budget appropriation process, asset forfeiture reform, war powers of the executive branch, and tariffs.  That you decide to parse "everything" out of a tweet and use that as the core of your criticism related to Paul bringing attention to the sexual abuse of children by people we fund in afghanistan, while simultaneously telling me that I should try to post better...well, that is some prime grade lack of self-awareness. Be best huckleberry. 

[wildcat09 29562]

C'mon Anastasis, why not comment on the fact that Rand is apparently totally cool with Kavanaugh?

[Anastasis 23703]

Oh, and here is an article regarding the issue that the liar is bringing attention to and trying to address during the legislative process related to funding of these activities.  Kinda like how our government is suppose to work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html

U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies

Dan Quinn was relieved of his Special Forces command after a fight with a U.S.-backed militia leader who had a boy as a sex slave chained to his bed.CreditCreditKirsten Luce for The New York Times

By Joseph Goldstein

• Sept. 20, 2015
•  

KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.

 

 

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander.

“The Army contends that Martland and others should have looked the other way (a contention that I believe is nonsense),” Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who hopes to save Sergeant Martland’s career, wrote last week to the Pentagon’s inspector general.

 

In Sergeant Martland’s case, the Army said it could not comment because of the Privacy Act.

When asked about American military policy, the spokesman for the American command in Afghanistan, Col. Brian Tribus, wrote in an email: “Generally, allegations of child sexual abuse by Afghan military or police personnel would be a matter of domestic Afghan criminal law.” He added that “there would be no express requirement that U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan report it.” An exception, he said, is when rape is being used as a weapon of war.

The American policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflects a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.

Gregory Buckley Sr. believes the policy of looking the other way was a factor in his son's killing.CreditKirsten Luce for The New York Times

Some soldiers believed that the policy made sense, even if they were personally distressed at the sexual predation they witnessed or heard about.

“The bigger picture was fighting the Taliban,” a former Marine lance corporal reflected. “It wasn’t to stop molestation.”

Still, the former lance corporal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid offending fellow Marines, recalled feeling sickened the day he entered a room on a base and saw three or four men lying on the floor with children between them. “I’m not a hundred percent sure what was happening under the sheet, but I have a pretty good idea of what was going on,” he said.

But the American policy of treating child sexual abuse as a cultural issue has often alienated the villages whose children are being preyed upon. The pitfalls of the policy emerged clearly as American Special Forces soldiers began to form Afghan Local Police militias to hold villages that American forces had retaken from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011.

 

By the summer of 2011, Captain Quinn and Sergeant Martland, both Green Berets on their second tour in northern Kunduz Province, began to receive dire complaints about the Afghan Local Police units they were training and supporting.

First, they were told, one of the militia commanders raped a 14- or 15-year-old girl whom he had spotted working in the fields. Captain Quinn informed the provincial police chief, who soon levied punishment. “He got one day in jail, and then she was forced to marry him,” Mr. Quinn said.

When he asked a superior officer what more he could do, he was told that he had done well to bring it up with local officials but that there was nothing else to be done. “We’re being praised for doing the right thing, and a guy just got away with raping a 14-year-old girl,” Mr. Quinn said.

Village elders grew more upset at the predatory behavior of American-backed commanders. After each case, Captain Quinn would gather the Afghan commanders and lecture them on human rights.

Soon another commander absconded with his men’s wages. Mr. Quinn said he later heard that the commander had spent the money on dancing boys. Another commander murdered his 12-year-old daughter in a so-called honor killing for having kissed a boy. “There were no repercussions,” Mr. Quinn recalled.

In September 2011, an Afghan woman, visibly bruised, showed up at an American base with her son, who was limping. One of the Afghan police commanders in the area, Abdul Rahman, had abducted the boy and forced him to become a sex slave, chained to his bed, the woman explained. When she sought her son’s return, she herself was beaten. Her son had eventually been released, but she was afraid it would happen again, she told the Americans on the base.

She explained that because “her son was such a good-looking kid, he was a status symbol” coveted by local commanders, recalled Mr. Quinn, who did not speak to the woman directly but was told about her visit when he returned to the base from a mission later that day.

 

So Captain Quinn summoned Abdul Rahman and confronted him about what he had done. The police commander acknowledged that it was true, but brushed it off. When the American officer began to lecture about “how you are held to a higher standard if you are working with U.S. forces, and people expect more of you,” the commander began to laugh.

 

Image

A portrait of Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. in his family's home in Oceanside, N.Y. He was shot to death in 2012 by a teenage "tea boy" living on his base in Helmand Province.CreditKirsten Luce for The New York Times

“I picked him up and threw him onto the ground,” Mr. Quinn said. Sergeant Martland joined in, he said. “I did this to make sure the message was understood that if he went back to the boy, that it was not going to be tolerated,” Mr. Quinn recalled.

There is disagreement over the extent of the commander’s injuries. Mr. Quinn said they were not serious, which was corroborated by an Afghan official who saw the commander afterward.

(The commander, Abdul Rahman, was killed two years ago in a Taliban ambush. His brother said in an interview that his brother had never raped the boy, but was the victim of a false accusation engineered by his enemies.)

Sergeant Martland, who received a Bronze Star for valor for his actions during a Taliban ambush, wrote in a letter to the Army this year that he and Mr. Quinn “felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our A.L.P. to commit atrocities,” referring to the Afghan Local Police.

The father of Lance Corporal Buckley believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death, and he has filed a lawsuit to press the Marine Corps for more information about it.

 

Lance Corporal Buckley and two other Marines were killed in 2012 by one of a large entourage of boys living at their base with an Afghan police commander named Sarwar Jan.

Mr. Jan had long had a bad reputation; in 2010, two Marine officers managed to persuade the Afghan authorities to arrest him following a litany of abuses, including corruption, support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, the police commander was back with a different unit, working at Lance Corporal Buckley’s post, Forward Operating Base Delhi, in Helmand Province.

Lance Corporal Buckley had noticed that a large entourage of “tea boys” — domestic servants who are sometimes pressed into sexual slavery — had arrived with Mr. Jan and moved into the same barracks, one floor below the Marines. He told his father about it during his final call home.

Word of Mr. Jan’s new position also reached the Marine officers who had gotten him arrested in 2010. One of them, Maj. Jason Brezler, dashed out an email to Marine officers at F.O.B. Delhi, warning them about Mr. Jan and attaching a dossier about him.

The warning was never heeded. About two weeks later, one of the older boys with Mr. Jan — around 17 years old — grabbed a rifle and killed Lance Corporal Buckley and the other Marines.

Lance Corporal Buckley’s father still agonizes about whether the killing occurred because of the sexual abuse by an American ally. “As far as the young boys are concerned, the Marines are allowing it to happen and so they’re guilty by association,” Mr. Buckley said. “They don’t know our Marines are sick to their stomachs.”

The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.

Mr. Jan appears to have moved on, to a higher-ranking police command in the same province. In an interview, he denied keeping boys as sex slaves or having any relationship with the boy who killed the three Marines. “No, it’s all untrue,” Mr. Jan said. But people who know him say he still suffers from “a toothache problem,” a euphemism here for child sexual abuse.

[Anastasis 23703]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

C'mon Anastasis, why not comment on the fact that Rand is apparently totally cool with Kavanaugh?

I think that voting for Kavanaugh would be a significant error and a reflection of the current political toxicity and poor judgment.  He (as well as all GOP Senators with any pull with Trump) should be lobbying him to withdrawal his nomination. And that has nothing to do with child diddlying in Afghanistan.  

[jimmyjazz 46988]

[Huckleberry 34407]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

LOL. I've selected a series of twatters that reflect political positions that nearly 100% of non-lunatic Surly CR agrees with. Those twatters generally cover: out of control military spending, criminal justice reform, functional budget appropriation process, asset forfeiture reform, war powers of the executive branch, and tariffs.  That you decide to parse "everything" out of a tweet and use that as the core of your criticism related to Paul bringing attention to the sexual abuse of children by people we fund in afghanistan, while simultaneously telling me that I should try to post better...well, that is some prime grade lack of self-awareness. Be best huckleberry. 

It isn't parsing when the phrase being focused on is the crux of the entire statement. Paul brought visibility to a serious issue and wants people to think that he is championing the cause to end it by any means necessary when in fact he is not doing so at all. All he has to say is he is working hard to end funding for these groups and then explain who is preventing the change and why they're doing so. But he chooses instead to exaggerate his efforts to make himself look like he's doing more than he really is. That's not unusual, of course, but it just shows that he is a garden variety politician with the only difference being that his platitudes appeal to you (and me) more than standard GOP and Democrat fare.

It's not that difficult to simultaneously defend Paul against silly Stiglitz allegations while also simultaneously taking him to task for his shortcomings.

[SaucyJack 3517]

One vote 

No influence 

[Anastasis 23703]

Rand Paul is a politician and communicates like one.  Dynamite drop in Huck. You won't find any opinion of mine on this thread that contradicts that. 

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's not that difficult to simultaneously defend Paul against silly Stiglitz allegations while also simultaneously taking him to task for his shortcomings.

I have no problem with addressing shortcomings. Paul saying "I'm doing everything to address this issue" in a tweet but not literally doing each thing in the universe of political options doesn't quite register as a meaningful criticism. It feel's more like a conversation that I would have with my six year old over him eating his green beans at dinner.

Which is all a tangent to the core point that I was getting across with a series of snarky tweet reposts.  There are a significant number of policy positions that Rand has staked out which the vast majority of surly political pundits agree with and themselves support. But in the current toxicity of the political environment, both generally and on this board, he is a traitorous  collaborator with Russia and has a bad perm. 

 

[GRHorn 105]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opinions/rand-paul-suffer-intimidation-and-threats-kelley-paul/index.html

It would be nice to see Booker respond. 

[F250 29180]

This is a compelling letter from Rand's wife but it would carry a lot more weight if she addressed the elephant in the room.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, F250 said:

This is a compelling letter from Rand's wife but it would carry a lot more weight if she addressed the elephant in the room.



 

Oh look, another person in power publicly playing the victim.   I’m sorry he’s getting death threats, that shouldn’t happen.  There’s no call for that in a free society.

However, when you sign onto a criminal enterprise, this shit is going to happen.  You are going to get harassed if you aren’t working for the American people.  

This is the business he’s chosen. 

[F250 29180]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m sorry he’s getting death threats, that shouldn’t happen.  There’s no call for that in a free society.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Hey y’all, Rand Paul is really concerned.   If only he was in a position to do something.

[HenryJames 67129]

 

[Fozzz 152]

Paul is better on foreign policy than 90% of the Dem Senate caucus, and that's probably being generous to the Dems.  

[jimmyjazz 46988]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Paul is better on foreign policy than 90% of the Dem Senate caucus, and that's probably being generous to the Dems.  

Paul is really bad at domestic policy.  His neighbor beat the shit out of him.

[Js1 86975]

Oh really Rand?

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Oh really Rand?

 

[Anastasis 23703]

Now that's some funny shit. 

[bernorange 8385]

Am I to understand that The Daily Dot, and by extension, Surly peeps who are cheerleading the tweet, equate death threats over a SCOTUS confirmation with the type of tyranny the founding fathers were concerned about when they drafted the Constitution?

[Js1 86975]

Thoughts and prayers to Rand and Bernorange. 

[jimmyjazz 46988]

I don't think anyone really cares yet, but at some point social media will have to have an effect on the way most modern politicians tend to shift in the wind.  In the past, that kind of flip-flop would almost surely go unnoticed, because it would most likely take a journalist (a) recognizing that a contradiction had occurred off of memory alone and (b) proving it.

Now, the "proving it" part is trivial for anyone to do, and there are tools that allow one to dig in on just the hypothetical alone as opposed to actual memory.  

Unfortunately, my argument is predicated on the idea that people will eventually care, and they won't, so . . .

[hayden_horn 11402]

3 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Am I to understand that The Daily Dot, and by extension, Surly peeps who are cheerleading the tweet, equate death threats over a SCOTUS confirmation with the type of tyranny the founding fathers were concerned about when they drafted the Constitution?

well, for one, i would think that a sitting member of government should always shy away from suggestions that the populace take shots at tyrannical government, given the type of rhetoric that the sitting member of government has been employing over the past 4-8 years or so.  now this happened before the 2017 shooting last year, but it could be argued that kind of irresponsible tweet from rand emboldened someone crazy like the baseball field shooter to take action. 

in both cases, i would argue that we should not threaten members of government over government type things, but the tyranny of the majority is relative to some people. when people use the tree of liberty or the 2nd amendment as a motivating rhetorical device, i happen to think it's extremely irresponsible. then to about-face when the shoe is on the other foot...well, it's disingenuous at best. but then again, we are talking about rand paul.

[Anastasis 23703]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

when people use the tree of liberty or the 2nd amendment as a motivating rhetorical device, i happen to think it's extremely irresponsible.

why you hate tommy jefferson?

[hayden_horn 11402]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

why you hate tommy jefferson?

well, i do not. however, the world he lived in was vastly different than the world upon which we find ourselves today. he had a front row seat to a very perilous fight against tyranny,  and they had won a hard-fought, against-all-odds victory. 

however, my point is that tyranny means different things to different people. a republican (or a democrat one #bothsides) majority refusing to work with the other side of the aisle in any meaningful way can appear like tyranny to a crazy person. notwithstanding that we all know that with the original tweet, rand was trying to appeal to true believers in the 2nd amendment, many of whom i think are actual crazy people, then it gets dangerous.

edit: and to be clear, when isay "true believers" i reckon most of yall know what i mean. i'm a believer in the 2nd, but i also do not think we should just let everyone do whatever. 

we aren't talking about a guy front loading his musket. so for a guy like rand paul to run around saying "we have guns to shoot at tyrants" it sounds awfully like he is endorsing that sort of behavior. i realize that this rhetoric is popular, i'm just also noting that it is dangerous, and for him to speak openly about that danger after very cynically stoking the fire is disingenuous. 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by hayden_horn

[bernorange 8385]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

.. the tyranny of the majority is relative to some people. ...

We have been living through an era of expansive government that is laying the groundwork for true tyranny for almost two decades now (they removed the governor after 9/11).  The surveillance state, the militarization of the police, civil asset forfeiture, the slow march to the cashless society - systems of control are expanding at an alarming rate for people like me that care about such things.  The infrastructure for true tyranny is growing.  Most peeps don't give a shit about it though (there is at least one Senator that does).

But your argument about the tyranny of the majority as expressed by the political process of a SCOTUS nominee... Man, that is just shocking to me.  We've survived the 2008 bailouts/TARP where the political class betrayed the wishes of overwhelming public sentiment.  People got pissed.  People voted.  No one pontificated that assassinations or taking arms against tyranny was justified.

We survived a right procedural and Constitutional butt fucking with the passage of the ACA contrary to the rules of Congress.  We even survived Justice Roberts et al. tortured "logic" validating that bullshit.  It was a clear violation of the rule of law as far as I'm concerned and I'm not alone in that opinion.  People got pissed.  People voted.  No one pontificated that assassinations or taking arms against tyranny was justified.

But now elected representatives held a vote in accordance in with the rules and the result upset roughly half the public and it's OK to talk about assassinations and armed insurrection?  Really?  GTFO with that bullshit.

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

We have been living through an era of expansive government that is laying the groundwork for true tyranny for almost two decades now (they removed the governor after 9/11).  The surveillance state, the militarization of the police, civil asset forfeiture, the slow march to the cashless society - systems of control are expanding at an alarming rate for people like me that care about such things.  The infrastructure for true tyranny is growing.  Most peeps don't give a shit about it though (there is at least one Senator that does).

But your argument about the tyranny of the majority as expressed by the political process of a SCOTUS nominee... Man, that is just shocking to me.  We've survived the 2008 bailouts/TARP where the political class betrayed the wishes of overwhelming public sentiment.  People got pissed.  People voted.  No one pontificated that assassinations or taking arms against tyranny was justified.

We survived a right procedural and Constitutional butt fucking with the passage of the ACA contrary to the rules of Congress.  We even survived Justice Roberts et al. tortured "logic" validating that bullshit.  It was a clear violation of the rule of law as far as I'm concerned and I'm not alone in that opinion.  People got pissed.  People voted.  No one pontificated that assassinations or taking arms against tyranny was justified.

But now elected representatives held a vote in accordance in with the rules and the result upset roughly half the public and it's OK to talk about assassinations and armed insurrection?  Really?  GTFO with that bullshit.

i don't really need to gtfo out of here with that bullshit, because i never said it was ok. 

what i said was that it is irresponsible to stir up people with rhetoric about shooting tyrants. i never once said it's ok to talk about assassinations and armed insurrection. that was your guy, rand paul doing that.

i know you mad that your boy is getting roasted, but i don't understand your misplaced loyalty. this guy ain't his dad.

[Anastasis 23703]

I agree with your perspective bern, but I think hayden's point on this one is well made.  

[Gap03 3374]

Uhh, I don't know, Rand - is the President calling Russian assets that are subject to FISA-authorized wiretaps?  

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

I haven't read any of this thread but Paul's neighbor should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. 

Oh shit, someone tell that to Trump. He might do it. 

[bernorange 8385]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

...

what i said was that it is irresponsible to stir up people with rhetoric about shooting tyrants. ...

Rand was not "stirring people up with rhetoric about shooting tyrants".  It's disingenuous to characterize his tweet in that fashion.  It's clearly not a call to action or alarmist in any fashion.  It's clearly just espousing a justification for the 2nd amendment - one that has been discussed since the publication of the Federalist papers.

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Rand was not "stirring people up with rhetoric about shooting tyrants".  It's disingenuous to characterize his tweet in that fashion.  It's clearly not a call to action or alarmist in any fashion.  It's clearly just espousing a justification for the 2nd amendment - one that has been discussed since the publication of the Federalist papers.

 

first of all, let's clear the air - rand paul himself probably did not send that tweet. as a matter of act, his office said that it was a staffer who sent it.

the problem with twitter, however, is the brevity and frequent lack of context.

look at it:

that's alarmist rhetoric. he's @ing napolitano, so it could be an echo or endorsement of something he said, but nevertheless, it's a tweet under the blue check mark of rand paul. it lacks context. he doesn't say "now, let's all be reasonable people and understand that i'm not talking about today's government being tyrannical, mind you, so please don't think that's what i'm saying." again, twitter is a limited platform, but i argue that means one should be extra careful what they tweet as a sitting government figure.

this is not the first time this tweet was brought back up. it was the source of considerable scrutiny the following year when the baseball field got shot up. so i'm not just talking in hypotheticals. a crazy person went looking for people he thought tyrannical with a gun. that he was crazy only underlines that being responsible with your rhetoric rather than throwing red meat should be considered. rand paul was there during the shooting, so it's possible he's tempered his stance, but he hasn't since taken down the tweet.

it's also possible that there exists this idea that only second amendment champions, largely of republican and liberterian bent are gun owners capable of determining what tyranny is and when it is happening. that's equally dangerous, though, because there are also crazy people on the right. 

so, once again, it was obviously an irresponsible tweet. 

but whatever.

[Brisketexan 106656]

1 minute ago, bernorange said:

Rand was not "stirring people up with rhetoric about shooting tyrants".  It's disingenuous to characterize his tweet in that fashion.  It's clearly not a call to action or alarmist in any fashion.  It's clearly just espousing a justification for the 2nd amendment - one that has been discussed since the publication of the Federalist papers.

 

You're not wrong.  BUT, it's damned hard to juxtapose "we need to have guns so we can shoot a bad government actors" with "it's irresponsible to talk about shooting people in the government" without arching an eyebrow.  Hayden's historical perspective is actually pretty important to reading those two statements so that they don't create an absurdity.

Note that I don't disagree with you about much of our sacrifice of liberty (it's far from just 9/11 -- it's the war on drugs, etc.).  That just doesn't really tie into the conversation we're having above.

Bottom line, the common thread running through the Jeffersonian-era take on an armed populace, and the conversations happening now (and again, I don't espouse any violence against any gov't official) is the philosophical one of a government thumbing its nose at the will of the governed.  There is a danger in having a government that, at all three levels, was installed by less (in some cases, FAR less) than a majority of the voters.  Yes, I understand that's how our system works -- 30% of the population can elect 50%+ of the Senate.  Just understand that when that Senate majority, elected by a minority, imposes its will on the majority, significant friction can, will, and should be expected to happen.  No system is perfect, and while there are advantages to having a state-by-state Senate, in certain instances, that same structure can be a weakness.

Every government boils down to the consent of the governed.  Lose that, and you've lost everything.  Governing in a way that thumbs your nose at that concern is unwise.  For ANYONE, and ANY party.

[bernorange 8385]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're not wrong.  BUT, it's damned hard to juxtapose "we need to have guns so we can shoot a bad government actors" with "it's irresponsible to talk about shooting people in the government" without arching an eyebrow.  ...

Except that, Rand did not espouse the sentiment your second quote (at least not as quoted by Hugo and HJ).  "I really worry someone is going to be killed." != "it's irresponsible to talk about...".   Rand's tweet about the second amendment and tyranny is not even in the same ballpark as, for example, Maxine Waters openly calling for the public to harass and intimidate government officials.

Quote

Note that I don't disagree with you about much of our sacrifice of liberty (it's far from just 9/11 -- it's the war on drugs, etc.).  That just doesn't really tie into the conversation we're having above.

Yes, I know and that's the problem.  It's why I mentioned it.  HH's statement on perceptions of the tyranny of the majority is likely widely held by folks "on the left".  I tried to provide some context to illustrate just how absurd it is.  People don't wake up to true tyranny until it affects them personally.  Well, most people. You for one have been sensitive to the "papers, please" issue with law enforcement in border states, so I don't want to paint with brushes too broad here, but it irks me to see people describing a bit of political theater as tyranny when the real existential threat of tyranny doesn't effect the same consideration.  It's also a bit ironic that one of the few actors in Congress that is fighting against the pillars of real tyranny is the same guy folks are uncritically mocking here.

Quote

Bottom line, the common thread running through the Jeffersonian-era take on an armed populace, and the conversations happening now (and again, I don't espouse any violence against any gov't official) is the philosophical one of a government thumbing its nose at the will of the governed.  There is a danger in having a government that, at all three levels, was installed by less (in some cases, FAR less) than a majority of the voters.  Yes, I understand that's how our system works -- 30% of the population can elect 50%+ of the Senate.  Just understand that when that Senate majority, elected by a minority, imposes its will on the majority, significant friction can, will, and should be expected to happen.  No system is perfect, and while there are advantages to having a state-by-state Senate, in certain instances, that same structure can be a weakness.

Every government boils down to the consent of the governed.  Lose that, and you've lost everything.  Governing in a way that thumbs your nose at that concern is unwise.  For ANYONE, and ANY party.

I agree wholeheartedly.

oh, and...

Quote

A Minnesota special education teacher has resigned after she posted a message on Twitter exhorting her followers to kill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The teacher, identified by multiple social media users and local outlets as Samantha Ness, had been placed on paid administrative leave after the message was widely shared online.

Mark Zuzek, the superintendent of Independent School District 917 in Rosemount, confirmed that an employee whom he did not identify had voluntarily resigned and is no longer employed by the district.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/minnesota-teacher-who-tweeted-call-to-kill-kavanaugh-resigns

[sidis 9991]

3 hours ago, bernorange said:

People got pissed.  People voted.  No one pontificated that assassinations or taking arms against tyranny was justified.

People got pissed.  People voted.  No one pontificated that assassinations or taking arms against tyranny was justified.

But now elected representatives held a vote in accordance in with the rules and the result upset roughly half the public and it's OK to talk about assassinations and armed insurrection?  Really?  GTFO with that bullshit.

sure we survived it...and we are going to survive this.  however, you are revising history or having selective amnesia if you do not believe the political tone wasn't insanely charged and there wasn't a substantially larger reaction to all that than this.  you guys are freaking out about elevator encounters with shameless pieces of shit but lest you forget...

 

so if anyone is being disingenuous and wrongfully-sanctimonious over this shit...it is you and your ilk.  i didn't hear your indignation then.  and let's not forget that your perceived innocuous tweet from rand was made during the above litigation of cultural norms.

that said, it's all wrong.  anyone threatening violence such as the minnesota teacher in the story you cited should have precisely thing things that happened...happen.  and to fucking nutjobs like jared loughner, stephen paddock, and james hodgeskinson, they can all burn in hell and i will dance on their graves.

[sidis 9991]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

 

but it irks me to see people describing a bit of political theater as tyranny when the real existential threat of tyranny doesn't effect the same consideration.  It's also a bit ironic that one of the few actors in Congress that is fighting against the pillars of real tyranny is the same guy folks are uncritically mocking here. 

 

so voting to confirm a judge who is hostile towards the constitution and represents everything about the republican establishment you purport to despise is fighting against tyranny and his opposition is mere political theater?

Edited October 10, 2018 by sidis

[bernorange 8385]

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

... however, you are revising history or having selective amnesia if you do not believe the political tone wasn't insanely charged and there wasn't a substantially larger reaction to all that than this.  ...

I think you misunderstood my post.  That was precisely my point.  The current situation is a molehill.  We've already crossed mountains in the recent past.

2 minutes ago, sidis said:

so if anyone is being disingenuous and wrongfully-sanctimonious over this shit...it is you and your ilk.  ...

I don't know who my ilk are, but I'm not being disingenuous (or "trolling").  Fucktards who made theater about Obama being assassinated were rightly castigated.  No one outside of the extreme fringes of society championed their cause.  Certainly no one I respect on shaggy/surly.

16 minutes ago, sidis said:

so voting to confirm a judge who is hostile towards the constitution and represents everything about the republican establishment you purport to despise is fighting against tyranny and his opposition is mere political theater?

Now who is being disingenuous?

1. The popular opposition to Kavanaugh had nothing to do with his position on the issues.  It had to do with the handling of the sexual assault/misconduct allegations.  That is the political theater that I'm talking about.  If people were riled up over matters of principle, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

2. I am not championing Kavanaugh.  I stated my objections to Kavanaugh in the confirmation thread.

[sidis 9991]

dude, are you fucking kidding me?

1) fringe elements were not castigated.  they thrived and were championed to the point that the current president of the united states is...the president.  and he plays the buffoon role of championing them and legitimizing them.  gtfo with that bullshit.

2) the opposition to bk had nothing to do with his alleged sexual assault.  it was 100% an opposition to what most feared would be his rulings and judgments as a member of the ussc...ensuring the most corporate-friendly, governmental overreach-friendly and individual rights hostile court possibly ever seen.  the sexual assault play was a gambit, pure and simple leveraged by opportunistic slimeballs willing to throw a hail mary.  you can't possibly be naive enough to think that any of the ford proceedings had anything to do with an opposition to bv's character (he's one of them)...it was a grandstanding effort to undermine the confirmation because they don't want him on the court for his perceived judicial takes (or cowardly lack of takes if we're being honest).

3) then why do you champion paul and why do you continue to buy into his con over you and your libertarian ilk (didn't think i needed to spell it out) when he just goes along with the flow on literally EVERYTHING that that piece of shit mitch mcconnell informs him he is going to do...and he just says..."how high?" 

[Brisketexan 106656]

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

dude, are you fucking kidding me?

1) fringe elements were not castigated.  they thrived and were championed to the point that the current president of the united states is...the president.  and he plays the buffoon role of championing them and legitimizing them.  gtfo with that bullshit.

This.  Seriously, the leader of the Birther movement -- a hateful, racist belief -- BECAME PRESIDENT.  The "fringe" is now the MAINSTREAM.  They are chanting "lock her up" to imprison sitting US Senators for no reason other than they dared oppose the regime.  Come on, man -- the "fringe" is the leadership now.

[Js1 86975]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

3) then why do you champion paul and why do you continue to buy into his con over you and your libertarian ilk (didn't think i needed to spell it out) when he just goes along with the flow on literally EVERYTHING that that piece of shit mitch mcconnell informs him he is going to do...and he just says..."how high?" 

Rand Paul - the king of BUT MY BELIEFS until it comes time to vote or move legislation and he votes right along with what Mitch tells him to do.

[jimmyjazz 46988]

Let's not forget that POTUS has gone on record in the past couple of days expressing his outrage that anyone would presume BK guilty before proven so, yet he was the de facto leader of the "lock her up" movement, even AFTER no crimes were revealed.

Hey look, POTUS is a raging hypocrite!  Whodathunkit?

[bernorange 8385]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

1) fringe elements were not castigated.  they thrived and were championed ...

Link to any references where fucktards suggested or made theater about assassinating Obama were championed by me, my ilk, or anyone with half a brain at shaggy/surly?

1 minute ago, sidis said:

2) the opposition to bk had nothing to do with his alleged sexual assault.  it was 100% an opposition to what most feared would be his rulings and judgments as a member of the ussc...ensuring the most corporate-friendly, governmental overreach-friendly and individual rights hostile court possibly ever seen.  the sexual assault play was a gambit, pure and simple leveraged by opportunistic slimeballs willing to throw a hail mary.  you can't possibly be naive enough to think that any of the ford proceedings had anything to do with an opposition to bv's character (he's one of them)...it was a grandstanding effort to undermine the confirmation because they don't want him on the court for his perceived judicial takes (or cowardly lack of takes if we're being honest).

Good lord.  I said "popular opposition".  I'm referring to the unwashed masses that epxress their outrage on facebook, twitter and so forth - the masses of women so upset over K that they are going to vote in a massive blue wave next month.  The ones that are so mad, it encourages the extremists on the left to talk about assassinations.

I do thank you for acknowledging the reality of the theater being what it was though.  It's a sad commentary on America that K's opposition could not just state their reasoned objections on the merits.

1 minute ago, sidis said:

3) then why do you champion paul and why do you continue to buy into his con over you and your libertarian ilk (didn't think i needed to spell it out) when he just goes along with the flow on literally EVERYTHING that that piece of shit mitch mcconnell informs him he is going to do...and he just says..."how high?" 

There are precious few actors in DC that are willing to address issues that I consider fundamentally important.  Rand is one.  He's not perfect.  He doesn't have enough support to directly affect or effect legislation on the matters. But he is trying in his own way.