Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: rand paul is a stand up guy

Posted 1 year ago on March 8, 2013, 3:53 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

24 Comments

24 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

Where was Ronnie baby when they nominated G W Bush?

What was daddies complaint then? Silence, as I remember.

And if I remember correctly, and I do, the folks around here insisted it was a meaningless figurehead position.

Now they are up in arms.

That's most curious.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I'd say it has a lot to do with the remote controlled sky robots that shoot missiles. It's new it's growing. And they've targeted Americans for assassination with them. That and Brennan oversaw aspects of the torture program under Bush, has lied about civilian drone deaths, and thinks drones have no borders.

I was only 4 back in the day you're talking about, but I'm sure there was an anti-war movement that protested Bush and made a big deal about his role in the CIA. Maybe not as big... but internet maybe?

[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

That's technology, it's not going to go away.

What I do agree on, is that it's usage needs to be better defined.

Anyone who thinks there will be an absolute ban on their usage is being foolhardy.

Similar arguments were made when motor vehicles replaced the horse.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Kind of a sad but true issue.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

Here's another sad but true fact.

As our technological ability to wage war has advanced, more and more innocent non-combatants are killed with each "advance".

Perhaps drones, which have the capability to perform all kinds of peaceful duties, unlike say, a longsword, should be declared "robots" and the robot rules of order applied to them, whether they are autonomous or RC controlled.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"In an instant, industrial warfare can kill dozens, even hundreds of people, who never see their attackers. The power of these industrial weapons is indiscriminate and staggering. They can take down apartment blocks in seconds, burying and crushing everyone inside. They can demolish villages and send tanks, planes and ships up in fiery blasts. The wounds, for those who survive, result in terrible burns, blindness, amputation and lifelong pain and trauma. No one returns the same from such warfare. And once these weapons are employed all talk of human rights is a farce." - Chris Hedges

[-] 2 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

And centuries ago a siege could starve and entire city to death.

I'm well aware of our savagery.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

people often forget what you just mentioned actually.

The bomb and the gun doesn't have to kill someone for them to die in a war. Starvation, lack of health care, lack of running water, and a lack of essential infrastructure commonly displaces millions and kills civilians during times of war.

My favorite quote from Battle For Hadditha was "this used to be the place people would go on their honeymoons."

[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

More and more robotics are coming.

Can we find a way to apply the rules of order?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"What was daddies complaint then? Silence, as I remember"

Actually he was vocal at every chance he got.....people just weren't listening to him. If you watched him in just about any interview in that time period he chewed out bush all the time....there was no silence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

Vocal about the patriot act....Iraq war....his spending...unconstitutional use of troops across the world....just about everything.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

That was after the fact.

He was also mad at him when he beat him at his run for the Presidency.

So it was mostly due to political expediency.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

No it wasn't after the fact....it was during it....for proof just check is voting records...he voted against the patriot act and everything else i just listed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7qvpS5zbqA

Paul never ran against Bush junior....so that doesn't make any sense either.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

I take it you weren't born yet?

I voted for Mr. P during that election.

Before I understood who he rally was, and what he really wanted.

As for his son?

Apples don't fall far from the tree, it's said, and Rand is mostly political theater, with a heavy dash of dominionism.

Just like daddy.

Here's a few words on his latest antics.

Disingenuous?

Yes.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/rand-pauls-wrong-drones-just-everything-else

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"I voted for Mr. P during that election."

You're talking about Bush senior...noticed i said Bush junior.

So you're saying that because he lost to Bush he was upset with both him and his son some 15 years later and that's the only reason he went against Bush while Bush was president? Common.

How about Romney? How did the grudge against Bush persuade Paul to not back Romney? Pretty thin argument.

"Apples don't fall far from the tree"

That's a bogus statement used to try to compare Rand to Ron...there is no comparison.

It's obvious you really dislike Ron and that's fine...but don't be dishonest about it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17832) 1 year ago

You're the on who brought up W, not me, I have no idea why you even went there.

No, Mr. P infiltrated the Republican party and became their foil.

He spent his career doing it, all the while pushing them in the desired libe(R)tarian directions.

You are correct in that Rand and Ron are not alike.

Rand is a much bigger threat to freedom from inequality.

He is the second coming of Ayn Rand, and every bit as repellant..

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

So you're on Lindsey Graham's side on this issue?

Lindsey Graham says allegations are now above the law! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFygkHgi34

Or what's your deal? Are you pro-the government having the ability to strictly act on allegations in regards to killing and indefinitely detaining Americans? You do know the CIA is the "intelligence" behind this? You know how they've never been wrong about anything before.

Other supporters are John Brennan, a man who oversaw torture programs under the Bush administration.

You should check out Chris Hedges' court case on this issue and see who came out against him. Lindsey Graham was one of them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

When did I mentiuon LG ? or JB?
why cant you respond to a post without attacking me or changing the subject. Do you think rand is sane?
benito made the trains run on time.
would you vote for him?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Because you are a propagandist and you attack all of us with your propaganda you constantly post on this forum.

You tried to justify these provisions earlier by bringing up 9/11 and the civil war. Even though none of those were the question at hand. Can the president order someone to be murdered based on CIA allegations of connections to terrorism? Please keep in mind the CIA has been wrong many times. A good example is that German guy they picked up and tortured for months until they realized it was the wrong guy.

Also I do not like Rand Paul. He supported Romney who supported the very same drone program he's discussing.

You don't want to be the guy that supports killing people based on allegations. You don't want to be the guy making excuses for it because of party allegiance either.

Do you support John Brennan? Keep in mind he over saw torture programs during Bush years.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I support and post facts
The civil war is relevant because the president ordered the killing of Americans without a declaration o f war - thus proves president killing Americans is not a "new" power
I support military action ( including droines ) by the military - not the CIA Does Brennan support that?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

the civil war is not relevant to this -Can the president order an American to be murdered based on CIA/military allegations of connections to terrorism?

The answer is NO. Allegations do not trump due process. It's different if you catch them in the act. If they got away and you found them a month later, you cannot blow up his house and several civilians with a drone strike.

Do you really support this process?

For the love of god go read something from the ACLU on this issue.

The World is not a battlefield.

Bensdad supports killing Americans without due process, as long as the military does it... is that what you just said? Because it seems like you said that and then asked if Brennan supports that.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Yes Lawrence O’Donnell is a model of honesty all of us should strive for <cough>. To prove his point he has to show Graham and McCane.....two of the biggest clowns in congress.

You don't have to like Rand or even agree with him about much of anything....but this was worth the stand and I'm glad someone did it.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

IF rp's only goal was to get the drone answer, why did he NOT stand up and filibuster bush appoinments to get the answer?
IF rp's only goal was to get the drone answer, why did he NOT use the fake filibuster?
because he wanted a stage to perform for his tp masters
do you disagree? "Lawrence O’Donnell is a model of honesty all of us should strive for <cough>. To prove his point he has to show Graham and McCane.....two of the biggest clowns in congress"
you must know this was newsworthy because it was a rare example of an r hitting an r.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Rand wasn't in office during bush's presidency...i don't know what you're talking about.

I don't care if someone has an R a D or a J in front of their name...when someone is dishonest they're dishonest.