March 11, 2013

Rand Paul made being against the drones... cool.

13 comments:

Lem said...

Yea.. but his hair, as titus accurately pointed out, was not cool at all.

Joe Kidd said...

FO SHIZZLE.

Rusty said...

The dog and pony show isn't for the likes of you two. It's for the party loyal.

Dante said...

Glad to hear a faint echo of the idea of a hole in the constitution dealing with terrorists. It needs to be sorted out somehow, with some very smart people. Too bad the political climate is the wrong climate for that, as we continue down the stupid march towards "Fairness."

Second, this idea that every citizen is accorded due process of the law is wrong, Ann. There are situations that arise all the time when the cop is cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and sometimes even ordinary citizens must play that role.

We shouldn't be scared of it. We ought to embrace these ideas, especially now that there are so many tools to reconstruct what has actually happened.

The real issue here is should an American citizen be killed by presidential edict by using the military. The obvious answer is "No." Even the situation Bob makes up, in which some guy has his hand on a nuclear button. If we are worried about it, get some drone people in a civilian task force, say the FBI. The good news about drones (I've met some of them), is they can operate from almost anywhere.

edutcher said...

They've been pushing the idea Choom is cool for 5 years now. Whether it's drones or being half black, or whatever.

Rand Paul got up and did something cool. He took a stand.

There's a big difference between being cool because you did a particular thing and being cool because you're your own man.

Rand Paul is cool.

Inspector Callahan is cool.

Even the Romster is cool.

If we have to be told Choom is cool because of this or that, then he's not cool.

phx said...

If you gotta be cool about something . . . you're barking up the wrong tree.

Robert Cook said...

Nobody in Washington is cool.

wyo sis said...

I can't believe I agree with Robert Cook.
The problem is that some people in Washington THINK they're cool and the media goes along with it. This creates a Jr. High cool kids situation with all the problems that go with that.

grackle said...

Rand Paul got up and did something cool. He took a stand.

He did pretty well at the Benghazi hearings too. So did Cruz. We need fighters. Romney was too nice of a fighter. McCain and Graham couldn't fight their way out of a soggy paper bag. They're too busy talking to Obama.

On the drones it looks like Bush established a bad precedent. We now have a President who assassinates American citizens. On the one hand Obama treats terrorists like any American citizen who may have run afoul of the legal system and on the other treats American citizens like terrorists.

Freder Frederson said...

Too bad you weren't so concerned when the Bush Administration was committing war crimes.

RazorSharpSundries said...

The heading is correct and true I can verify this from personal experience. My 19 yr old nephew who voted for Obama and comes from a suburban Twin Cities Dem-Lib family-unit got behind the Rand Paul filibuster 100%. He got into a highly charged Facebook debate with my big sister (his Mom) who's a knee-jerk lib of the first order (although I love her dearly). He's a BMOC at the U of M and will soon have that campus in good political order.

tim kr said...


Blogger Freder Frederson said...

"Too bad you weren't so concerned when the Bush Administration was committing war crimes."

Ahh, the old logical fallacy of imputing hypocrisy upon one's opponent to discredit their views. It succors the weak-minded and inures to a non-existent position of complete stasis...deflated of all usefulness with one simple question:

Now that we are concerned, why are you no longer concerned?

One would think that if you were truly still concerned about the issue, you would be happy at the prospect of so many new issue allies with which to wage this fight. However, your apparent truculence now leads me to believe that your previous concern was never about human rights abuses under Bush, only that he didn't have the right moniker after his name. Now that the moniker has changed from an 'R' to a 'D' there is no need to worry about human rights abuses, amiright?

Look, I never supported the Patriot Act although I did support removing a genocidal tyrant in Iraq and the removal of the sixth century barbarous regime in Afghanistan. I realize that these views did not come without a cost in human lives. However, despite all of the allegations of war crimes made against Bush, I do not recall any of them accusing Bush of choosing which American citizens to liquidate with drones...as we have now. I do not remember anyone accusing Bush of waging a constant war of attrition against the citizenry of foreign nations through the use of drones...as we have now. That being said, I could see how the weak-minded might discern some manner of moral relativity between the two.

Perhaps a return to secondary school and some formal education in logic would do you some good.

Synova said...

I don't know that the question of "courage" is relevant at all.

And yet, it's come to the point that someone taking a stand on something that doesn't even take courage is unusual.

But complaining that this was too easy? Why? I suppose that if you can't be against something, that you can still find fault in some other way?