Rand Paul’s Isolationist Paranoia
I wonder how the defenders of Rand Paul’s paranoia about drone strikes attacking U.S. citizens feel about his bill to withdraw the United States from the United Nations?
Paul appears to be following in the footsteps of his father — former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) — in advancing the call to have the U.S. completely pull out of the United Nations. The elder Paul was the primary sponsor of the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” a bill introduced periodically from 1999 to 2009 that would ban the U.S. from membership in the U.N. Despite this antipathy towards the United Nations, Ron Paul recently turned to the U.N. system to help him gain control of a website bearing his name.
But the Republican senator from Kentucky is no stranger to using U.N. paranoia to burnish his right-wing credentials. In 2011, he sent a conspiratorial email to his supporters, warning of a supposed U.N. plot to confiscate and destroy U.S. citizens’ guns via a “Small Arms Treaty.” In reality, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is only just now being developed and in no way will effect civilian ownership of firearms.
Of course, the two issues are connected in Paul’s black helicopter addled mind. Those defending his ridiculous filibuster need to be cognizant of this, not to mention the fact that Paul is in fact clearly to the right of Obama on drones and civil liberties.
Given how the same people shat all over the UN during the Libya operation, I don’t think they’ll find this embarrassing at all.
Given the Libya operation resulted in the murder of four brave Americans, a civil war that has killed thousands of Libyans, the sexual assault and murder of the country’s former leader, and a precedent that will lead to more sheltering of terrorists in the future (as we double crossed a leader who made a deal with us), I would say it deserves to be “shat” on.
Like you give a shit about Americans or Libyans. There was no number of Libyans Ghadaffi could have killed that would convince you it was worth lifting a finger; they’re just poster children for your crusade for that great “former leader.”
You think the UN caused the civil war? That’s even less tied to reality than the Benghazi trutherism you seem tied to.
But props on learning since yesterday how Libya is spelled.
The UN, like the Libyan popular uprising, had the temerity to be on the same side as the United States.
Ergo, they’re eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.
Go easy on Dilan.
He’s very upset that 4 Americans dies in Benghazi…
instead of 50,000 Libyans.
Like you give a shit about terrorism, either.
First act of terrorism ever!
Wait, Kdaffi was ass raped? By whom? Pics or it didn’t happen. On second thought, no pics even if it did happen.
This needs a citation or at least a firmer grasp at straws.
World War II resulted in the death of more than 400,000 brave Americans, so I’m afraid letting Hitler conquer and occupy most of Europe was something we should have let happen.
[To preempt any willful misreading, my point of course is not that Libya was a comparable situation or obviously the right course of action, just making the obvious point that citing a small number of American deaths as a knock-down argument against a military intervention is incredibly stupid, and that goes triple when it's not obvious that the military intervention even caused the deaths in question.]
If you ever agreed with Rand Paul (or his dad) on any issue – EVER – you must then answer for every other position he takes.
Yeah, you noticed that too, right? Interesting logic, or lack of logic.
You mean when the two positions are directly connected? Yeah, it’s worth thinking about.
If we want to talk about Paul’s economic ideas, then no, they are not so relevant. But when the two things are part and parcel of the same viewpoint, it must be noted.
But Erik! Anti-UN paranoia is the result of a NWO, libertarian conspiracy theory, while thinking that Barack Obama is going to launch drone strikes against his domestic opponents is just plain common sense.
Yeah, this is at the crux of the whole issue. If Paul thought Obama would not use drones against conservatives, but only scary brown people, commies, and gays, he would be perfectly happy. These are manifestations of the same delusion.
See, I don’t think that’s true.
I’ve seen absolutely nothing to make me think that Rand Paul, or even George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, would support using drones against their domestic political opponents.
This whole subject is based on fever dreams, and it’s ridiculous that we’re even discussing it. Out of 100 US Senators, there are 0 who would do that. Out of 435 US Congressmen, there might be one or two, but probably not.
Exactly. That’s crazy talk. It is as crazy as imagining that a mayor of a major US city might call in an air strike on his own city. That could never ever happen.
Yeah, it might be painting things with slightly too broad a brush to rule out any domestic misbehavior whatsoever, which is why DrDick’s formulation is slightly safer; I suspect Rand Paul wouldn’t give two shakes of a red heifer’s tail about the MOVE bombing, either.
Who ruled out ‘any domestic misbehavior whatsoever?’
And yet, I’m sure like most conspiracy-theorizing gun nuts Paul probably thinks the very similar Waco fire was a horrible disaster caused by big government trampling on individual rights (to stockpile illegal weapons & rape children) – I wonder what shade of difference between the MOVE and Branch Davidian cults might color opposing reactions to the two similar incidents.
As it turns out, being able to find any case of any variety of misbehavior, for which the city was found liable in court and punished, does not actually make the trendy conspiracy theory of the day plausible.
And also, it’s perfectly reasonable to worry that Barack Obama is going to put white gun owners into FEMA camps. Haven’t you ever heard of the detention of the Japanese?
eyeroll
Or the record number of deportations in the first two years of the current Administration.
There’s plenty of reason to worry. You might cavil about the specifics, but law-enforcement overreach is pretty commonplace.
It is as crazy as imagining that a mayor of a major US city might call in an air strike on his own city.
Actually, it’s rather crazier than that. I am quite prepared to believe that, at some point in the next 20 years, armed drones will be used in the US to kill US citizens. (After all, rifles, pistols, gas, batons, Tasers etc have all been used to kill US citizens already.)
But using them to kill domestic political opponents is an entire other level of crazy.
My point is not that Paul would necessarily support such moves against not conservative white people, just that he would not oppose them. Ultimately this reflects my take that the whole performance was primarily targeting his lunatic black helicopter/militia/white supremacist base and stoking their paranoia (which he may well share), rather than any real broad policy concerns.
I agree on both points.
Let’s say that something happened – several 9/11s over the course of a month, or a city or two nuked – that made actual horror-show, black-car/black-hole abductions and assassinations of “radicals” and “sympathizers” start happening, while the Preznit enjoyed 90% approval for his strong hand.
There would be some leaders who stood up. I don’t see Rand Paul being one of them.
Rand Paul would be pushing for having the state militias deal with it, or at least issuing letters of marque and reprisal so that unaccountable private corporations could get in on the action.
Erik – I make common cause with those who differ from me politically when our interests coincide, NOT when I agree with their justification 100%. Because if I wait until I find someone whose justification and ideology I agree with completely, I’m basically saying I should never cooperate or compromise with anyone.
Then perhaps it would behoove you to work on figuring out when your interests actually coincide. Because “Can federal law enforcement ever kill someone in the US for some reason? … Sometimes? Well, what if it’s a white conservative male who’s not even suspected of anything, HUH? … No? All righty, then, I’m done” is a pretty idiotic cause.
Rand Paul, as dumb as he can be, is at least making the point that Executive authority over targeted killings of American citizens ought to be subject to judicial oversight.
Only if these killings are by drones on US soil.
Except he actually said the name “Abdulrahman al-Awlaki” on the floor of the Senate. He may have been grandstanding on the issue of domestic drone strikes – which, I’ll admit, is clearly a red herring – but it’s not like that’s the only thing he talked about. I don’t think it’s stretching the truth to say “Rand Paul expressed concern about targeted killings of US citizens abroad during his filibuster.” And I think that’s laudable.
Whoops, this is me.
And mostly to gin up paranoia among his already paranoid black helicopter base.
His already paranoid black helicopter base.
When those people are doing it, they’re just crazy, but when it’s the right sort of people, it’s just common sense and a knowledge of history.
Given the actual record of federal dealings with rightwing terrorists overall (largely ignoring them and withdrawing reports dealing with their danger to the republic), yes it is paranoid. Nice trolling.
How about the actual record of using drones to kill domestic political opponents, or of believing that such a thing was legal?
Tell Naomi to send me a postcard from the camps.
No, I’m not going to treat black helicopter bullshit in a respectful manner because it’s coming from someone wearing my team colors.
No, I’m not going to treat black helicopter bullshit in a respectful manner because it’s coming from someone wearing my team colors.
Huh? Sorry, but I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, especially since you agreed with me on this upthread.
Not you, Doctor; the comment in my link.
I’m with you on this.
Well, targeted killings of white american citizens at burger king should have judicial oversight.
Non-white, non-citizen, anybody overseas, meh.
Oversight is an interesting word. Like sanction.
If they’re at KFC, judicial oversight.
If they’re at Church’s, let ‘er rip.
I know there are people out there who get this joke.
I see what you did there, and I sanction it.
See, he isn’t actually making that point at all, since he’s finished showboating about it. And even at the time, that wasn’t actually the point he was making, either. He was making the point that executive authority over targeted drone strikes on American citizens inside the United States, even if they’re not considered an “imminent threat” ought to be subject to the oversight of having the Attorney General say “Oh, in that case, we wouldn’t do that.” An American citizen targeted in Yemen would be hunky-dory. Targeted killing of non-citizens by the metric assload here and abroad would be hunky-dory. And an American citizen in the US dragged away and locked up for listening to certain sorts (*cough* Muslim *cough*) of “inflammatory speaker” would be totally awesome, so long as he wasn’t literally assassinated by drone strike at his goddamn breakfast table.
It’s absolutely worth thinking about, I agree, Erik. But as Aaron B. says elsewhere on this subthread, practical politics requires one to make common cause on particular issues with folks with whom one doesn’t otherwise agree. If one forgets the basis of such coalitions, one can indeed get into trouble. But it’s self-defeating purism not to make strategic alliances with folks who agree with you about individual issues simply because their beliefs on those issues are connected to other positions with which one dramatically disagrees.
See, for instance, the New Deal, which was built by Congressional majorities that not only included white supremacist, Southern Democrats, but reflected in many ways their commitment to white supremacy (as Ira Katznelson emphasizes in his latest book). While this made the New Deal worse than it would have been in a fantasy world in which it didn’t rely on the votes of whote supremacists, it didn’t make the New Deal a bad thing, nor did it make support for the New Deal among Northern, liberal Democrats mere foolishness.
Pushing back against the national security and surveillance state will almost certainly involve an alliance with right-wing isolationists. Progressives need to be very careful about such alliances, but we can’t afford to simply foreswear them on account of the fact that right-wing isololationists have many crazy and distasteful beliefs.
A thought on alliances: it matters who’s doing the driving.
Your well-selected example of the New Deal was about – if I understand correctly – working out who could be induced to be on board, despite the fact they were unreconstructed racists. But those unreconstructed racists leant their support to somebody else’s less-racist vision (no doubt for a quid pro quo or two). They weren’t in the driving seat.
So it is with the rollback of the security state. Crafting a measure that manages to snag Rand Paul’s vote is a very, very different kettle of fish to granting his grandstanding filibuster any measure of legitimacy by supporting it (for example).
The first one is him supporting your vision. The latter is you appearing to support his vision. And his vision isn’t very nice at all.
I don’t see why it’s so difficult to make common cause with libertarians on issues where we tend to agree – civil liberties, the drug war, military adventurism – and opposing them in other areas. Isn’t this just another instance (like the ongoing Iraq War discussion) where we’re criticizing Paul for having “the right opinion for the wrong reasons”?
That can be a tricky dance. Lou Dobbs might have been making great points about the messed up trade system and use of undocumented workers, but he quickly went off the nativist deep end, promoting explicitly racist conspiracy theories.
This too. If Rand Paul supports ending opaque killings on the grounds of humanitarian concerns, then wonderful. If he supports it because he thinks it’s part of a UN conspiracy, well, it makes it hard for the unconvinced to listen to him.
This is pretty fair on tactical grounds. But I think I’d much rather spend my time and energy attacking Charles Krauthammer for being, well, Charles Krauthammer, than trying to tear down Rand Paul when he gets a little bit of positive press for a publicity stunt on one of the issues he’s remotely good on.
Senator Charles Krauthammer?
Dear god, don’t even say that sarcastically.
Not even funny, Citizen.
I’m going to spend a little time huddling under my desk now.
a name to conjure with, alongside Senator Limbaugh, and Rep Hannity of the great State of Fox
I think it would help if you stopped misusing the word “tactical.”
As has been said here many times, there isn’t anyone who thinks it’s a bad idea to make common cause. The problem is that Paul and others like him are interested only in the PR hit from something like his filibuster. When he actually gets down to legislating, it’s BS like the above listed bill, which would almost certainly hurt progressive causes.
If Rand Paul introduced a bill I agreed with, I would certainly press my local politicians to support it. As long as he confines his common cause with progressives to PR stunts, he gets no love from me.
I think Erik Loomis pretty clearly doesn’t support making common cause with Paul over the targeted killings issue. Obviously I wouldn’t support the above bill, and it doesn’t become harder for me not to support the above bill when I acknowledge that at least Ron Paul is making a fuss about targeted killings.
As said down thread, you’re crediting Paul with positions he doesn’t hold. He clearly only cares about targeted killings of American citizens, on American soil – as he stated in his question to Holder, as the legislation he brought to the floor shows us.
Not to speak for Professor Loomis here, but I’m willing to bet that is Rand Paul brought a “No more targeted killings of anyone anywhere” bill up for consideration, he’d support it. The problem is that this will never happen. The point of all of these posts is to make people who think Rand Paul should be supported by liberals realize that when he actually tries to make substantive changes, it’s in support of crackpot ideas like withdrawing from the UN or providing personhood to fetuses.
I get the sense that Paul wouldn’t oppose drone strikes against Occupy hippies; it’s the anti-government survivalist gun nuts he’s agitating to protect.
Therefore, fuck him.
If I’m not mistaken, Paul has specifically supported curtailing first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights for Muslims in the U.S. So, yeah. DROOOOOOOOOOONES!
Not the Third? B&B time for the troops!
As said down thread, you’re crediting Paul with positions he doesn’t hold.
It doesn’t matter how many times you point this out, it will never, ever sink in.
Hypothesis: the people projecting their position on drones onto Rand Paul are the same people who fervently supported Barack Obama in 2008, and then felt betrayed and lied to when he didn’t immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and cease all use of force against al Qaeda.
I take it that part of the point of these posts from Erik and Scott is that Rand Paul doesn’t really agree with you on civil liberties or military adventurism.
He doesn’t agree with my justifications, but there are a lot of issues on which we do agree. For example: Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War. And I’ll always give him credit for that, even if he is an old racist isolationist crank who opposes the Civil Rights Act.
You can argue all you want, but you’ll never get me to agree that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are the same person, despite them both being racist cranks who oppose the Civil Rights Act.
Since Senator Paul’s position on any issue – EVER – almost certainly (1) is based on intellectually and morally bankrupt batshit reactionary reasoning, often involving something for which “strawman” is too complimentary a term; and (2) includes at best a fucking stupid “solution” to the perceived problem in question, I’d say you’ve come up with the framework of good rule of thumb, JG**. We can amend it on a case-by-case basis on worthy matters where he provides the key vote if it proves necessary – EVER.
**Though I’d suggest a little more subtlety: Rand Paul (or his dad) might agree with progressives on an issue by accident, and it’s okay in that case, as long as they aren’t singled out or lionized for their ass-backwards agreement. And as long as they actually agree.
Yeah. We all know that when Chomsky spoke out against the Iraq war, we were suppose to constantly bring up his positions on the Khmer Rouge.
Well I think it was settled quite some time ago that there’s a segment of internet lefty commentator who feels the validity of an “expert opinion” is whether or not it agrees with the opinion of said internet lefty.
“Expert opinion” is bring up even more variables. I can appreciate Al Sharpton speaking up for DC statehood at the 2004 DNC even if I disagree with how he handled the Tawana Brawley case. I don’t know if he’s an expert on the issue, or if I agree with the reasons why he spoke about it, but I’m glad he did. Chomsky brings up good points sometimes, and is well informed, but certainly has his biases and I wouldn’t assume any analysis of his is true just based on face value. At the same time, I don’t feel the need to bring up his previous positions on the Khmer Rouge every time he opens his mouth.
That happened a lot. I remember it.
OK, I’m totally confused: Noam Chomsky described the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and overthrow of the Khmer Rouge as the greatest humanitarian military action in history.
Forget it, joe. It’s Cambodiatown.
The myth that Chomsky somehow supported the Khmer Rouge will not die. What he did say was that, due to the amount of propaganda generated over the wars in Southeast Asia, we should not be too quick to believe atrocity stories coming out of Cambodia. Once he received word that he found reliable, he condemned the Pol Pot regime. (Contrast that with Margaret Thatcher and her comments about “good Khmer Rouge”.)
The Right has many active little beavers in the James O’Keefe mold who have pored over the records of that time; if Chomsky had written anything in support of Pol Pot, we’d have heard about it in great detail by now. As it is, no one posts any links that demonstrate anything but Chomsky’s delay in calling out the genocide.
I the problem some people have with his positions at the time were what “he found reliable.” Others just don’t like Chomsky, so they bring up a position he had to dismiss all of his other arguments. (unrelated to the topic at hand, of course)
I feel like I should post an obligatory KILL YOUR PARENTS.
Don’t matter. If it turns out to be too unpopular The Thing Beneath the Hairpiece will claim he only introduced it “to start a conversation.”
Meanwhile his father supports the move by Texas to start hoarding gold.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/22/texas-takes-step-toward-secession-with-rick-perrys-plan-to-hoard-gold/
Because I suck as a person, I imagined every thief on the planet sitting up and saying “Hello!” at the news someone is proposing to move massive amounts of gold around.
Harrumph!
Donald Sutherland is crackling his knuckles as we speak.
But will he lie on top of the dead cat in a coffin again?
Too bad Benny Hill is no longer available.
To be fair, I also support any and all efforts of Texas to secede.
I’m sure a reasonable accommodation could be made.
For instance, they have to take Oklahoma with them.
Alright, both of you! That can only happen after my son (in Oklahoma) and grandsons (in Houston) are evacuated.
Omelettes and eggs. It is for the Greater Good. Sorry.
Actually, if we can evacuate the descendants, I would support nuking both of them back to the protozoic (they are already back to the Stone Age on their own efforts).
I know you guys are kidding when you say this, but hell no, they don’t get to secceed. They don’t own Texas–the whole country belongs to all of its citizens collectively. If they don’t like it, they can move to Niger, and herd goats.
Well, since Operation Grand Slam didn’t work at Fort Knox, maybe I can try it in Texas.
Daniel Craig is more muscular than Sean Connery. He might beat up Oddjob too much.
Yeah, I just can’t handle a man who dares to question the status quo…in fact, I get paranoid of ideas that don’t come from Lindsey Graham and McCain.
That Rand Paul – FINALLY, someone speaking truth to power about the UN coming to get you!
Reminds me of a vintage sign I saw recently.
I’m not interested in why anyone does anything. Talk about motives in politics are largely used to excuse bad behavior by one’s partisan allies and to ignore (occasional) good behavior by one’s partisan opponents.
I won’t be voting or donating any money to Paul, but the list of reasons for that is already plenty long. I won’t praise him in general, for the same reasons.
But of course, “you’re crazy” is what people always say to dissenters. Why it was only 10 years ago I was paranoid for thinking there were no WMDs or that Bush would actually take us to war.
To paraphrase the late Carl Sagan, it’s also what they say to actual crazy people.
Clearly, the prudent measure is to assume that anyone being denounced as crazy is demonstrating brilliant foresight and exceptional perceptiveness.
The crowd booed me when I spent 90 minutes slamming paint cans together while recording of fart noises played in the background, but then, they booed Dylan and Newport, too.
Of course that wouldn’t be prudent.
Nor is equating ZOMG Drones! paranoia with opposition to the Iraq War on the grounds that they were both denounced.
Since it’s not prudent, you should stop doing it.
Wow, you’re involved with the latest Blue Man Group show at the Charles Playhouse?
Well, did you go electric too? That would explain it.
Is that why the paint cans hurt so much?
Ohhhhhhhhhh…….
As a supporter of using military force against al Qaeda, and of Barack Obama’s performance in general, I live in mortal fear that my political opponents will publicly join forces with Ron Paul and the Tea Party in general.
No. No. Stop.
Even better: Ron and Rand Paul.
Is Rand’s son named “Rendition” to continue the linguistic trends of the names?
I feel it’s as stupid as everything else that Rand Paul thinks. But the drone war is stupider than Rand Paul, so there we are. I don’t care that his tactics, motivation and ideals are terrible, he at least made noise against it by attempting his little filibuster.
The fact that it got covered in the media as “Senator questions drone war” not “Crazy isolationist does crazy things for crazy reasons” is ultimately a positive, perception being reality in politics and all.
And if the attention encourages The Thing Beneath the Hairpiece to run for PotUS, resulting in political pratfalls a-plenty, so much the better.
Rand/Rubio 16!
Rand Paul fully supports the drone war.
That was my impression, but I don’t think it matters. He made a bunch of noise that seems to have been filtered through the media as if he didn’t. So good.
Jewish Steel Sovereignty Restoration Act
My new ploy for ducking household chores. I’ll let you know how it goes.
I wonder if I could adapt this to get out of grading.
Back in 2008, the standard reply from nominal liberals with Ron Paul crushes was that his really stupid, crazy ideas don’t count because it’s not like he could get those enacted. So probably that, again.
This nitwit is the future of the Republican party?
Yep. Paul II along with Munster Ryan & Blondie Rubio.
If the GOP weren’t a bunch of vicious shit weasels, I might sort of feel sorry for the GOP.
Bwahaha.
“Say what you will about Mussolini, he made the trains run on time.”
“Say what you will about Rand Paul, he kept white people from being killed by drones.”
It’s not Godwinning if it’s a perfect analogy.
Needless pedantry alert:
(1) Technically, if the analogy is made, it’s still Godwinning.
(2) White American citizens inside the US who aren’t considered a sufficiently imminent threat to be killed by drones at cafes.
(3) No, he didn’t, because there were no persons of any variety who were being killed, or in danger of being killed, or even might have been killed, or even might have been considered legally subject to being killed, by drones while sitting at a cafe.
Let’s all cheer Rand Paul for his courage at helping to organize the Bear Patrol.
Also, Mussolini didn’t actually make the trains run on time.
Not a perfect analogy because the Bear Patrol was organized in response to an actual bear.
You’re right: a bear there was.
Technically it’s not Godwinning because Mussolini wasn’t Hitler.
Maybe we call it Godwinson instead?
I don’t think so.
Good point on Item #1.
I propose we start calling “the Godwin Fallacy” what was previously known as “Godwinning”; similar to the way ad hominem is only a fallacy if it’s a fallacy – the rest of the time it’s legitimate.
So (barring UserGoogol’s point of order) I Godwinned the thread, I just didn’t commit the Godwin Fallacy.
And since Mussolini didn’t actually make the trains run on time, this is a perfect analogy.
I couldn’t have said it better myself … three minutes later. So, what Joey Maloney said.
I wonder how the defenders of Rand Paul’s paranoia about drone strikes attacking U.S. citizens feel about his bill to withdraw the United States from the United Nations?
I don’t support this bill.
Next question?
I don’t support his stupid UN bill.
I do support the fact that he actually got the mainstream media to report on drones as anything other than cool techno baubles.
I feel sorry for him because the fact that he has that hairpiece strongly suggests he has no real friends to tell him how stupid it is.
Are any of these difficult decisions?
Straussian bullshit.
It’s good to lie, because the common folk who aren’t as enlightened as me need to be led around.
I’m pretty sure you don’t understand “straussian” if you think it means I can’t support the truth when it is told just because an odious person is telling it. Would I rather support Obama in having an open administration and no secret targeted assassination policy? Ummmmm yes. But that isn’t an option I’ve been given b
I think jfL is indicating that since what Rand Paul was saying wasn’t the truth, calling attention to the administration’s targeted assassination policy under false pretenses isn’t necessarily beneficial. E.g, AG Holder was able to address Senator Paul’s stated concerns with a terse response in which you could almost see the ostentatious eyerolling.
Good thing I don’t think that, then. Good thing I think, as I just wrote, that it refers to supporting the telling of lies on the grounds that it’s ok to lie to the lower orders for their own good.
Again you’re suggesting that I have to agree with everything he said which is wrong. But let’s put it this way, even if Paul’s drone focus was excessively narrow I appreciate that it was NOT the position held by a top level poster here, that the targeted assassination policy is really just a ho hum extension of the fact that the FBI can kill someone who is posing an imminent threat considering that the last time we publicly used that loophole we drove the whole Iraq war through it.
So ON THIS ISSUE the lies being used are in Obama’s defense. And the water being carried isn’t by Paul.
that the targeted assassination policy is really just a ho hum extension of the fact that the FBI can kill someone who is posing an imminent threat
I think you need to read that front line post again.
considering that the last time we publicly used that loophole we drove the whole Iraq war through it.
And that goes triple for this.
First we kill the UN. Then the federal government. Then the states?
I think there might be a bone of contention if all power should devolve to the states or the counties or the towns.
“All power to the soviets”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soviet
We had a delegation from a Russian city visit Lowell when I worked there in the early aughts.
I was floored to find that they still called the local planning board and neighborhood committees “soviets.”
What are they supposed to call them? It just means committee.
I thought it was a fancy word for a napkin.
Seriously? The great engine of revolutionary socialism was the committee? I’m surprised they lasted as long as they did…
PTAs, the ultimate expression of the people’s authority.
my take on rand paul is that he’s the stupid fuck son of his father. he cares about nothing so much as what it can do for rand paul. his “beliefs” are whatever gets the even stupider voters in his state to vote for him. aside from that, his only “belief” is in getting whatever he can out of being in the senate. he’s a “true believer” only in the sense that he truly believes in whatever is best for rand paul. to some extent, this makes him like every other pol, he just has a whackier than normal voter base to contend with. when he thinks he’s pretty much siphoned everthing he can out of being in the senate, he’ll not run for re-election, choosing to go back into the private sector, and start raking in the profits, from “speaking” and “books”. at least he won’t be forced to create his own “accrediting” entity for that.
I don’t think he’ll ever introduce a bill. But wouldn’t a hupothetical Paul drone bill, while to the right of what most reasonable people want, be better than no bill, and an important incremental step for any legitimate civil libertarian?
[...] noting the horrible foreign policy and civil liberties views of brogressive favorite Rand Paul, IB says: It’s absolutely worth thinking about, I agree, Erik. But as Aaron B. says elsewhere on this [...]