Rand Paul's goon stomped a woman's head into the gutter

[stg81]

And they all pretty much laughed it off.

I will never forget that - no matter what he says about anything ever.

[MineralMan]

1. Yes. That did, indeed, happen.

Rand Paul is not someone who I'll praise, under any circumstances. If he says something I agree with, I'll go find someone else to quote, for sure. The Pauls, both pater and fils, are simply execrable human beings whose voices should not appear in this forum, IMO.

Just as a reminder of Rand Paul's character, I present this:

[stg81]

3. exactly. I do not know why anyone in this forum would ever cite him with approval.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Well ...

you have plenty of folks around here to ask.

[Xyzse]

9. I have a hard time doing that.

When I agree with a point, I tend to agree with the point, no matter who said it.

However, that strategy of "If he says something I agree with, I'll go find someone else to quote, for sure", I may have to adopt more often.

That is awful.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, what President Obama said today will satisfy nobody.

He put some limits on the NSA, but didn't disband the agency. Between those two positions, you'll find people who agree and disagree with almost anything. The NSA has been around since 1949, and is tasked with obtaining electronic intelligence from international sources. In doing that, it has gone too far in collecting information that originates here in the United States. That has caused a lot of people to jump to the conclusion that the NSA is spying on us all. It's not, but in its attempt to follow connections from legitimate sources outside of the US, it managed to collect metadata that included just about everyone.

Communications today is international in nature, especially on the Internet. Lots of people in the US communicate with people outside of the US today. In 1949, that wasn't true. Today, who even knows where someone is located, really? So, the NSA tried to keep up in a situation that made that very difficult without collecting records of a ALL communications, so it could look for the stuff it's supposed to look for. That cause alarm, and should have caused alarm.

However, some think that the answer is just to shut the NSA down. That, I guarantee, will not happen under any administration. There are legitimate reasons to collect international intelligence, so the agency will continue to operate. Some of its habits will have to change, and that's what President Obama is talking about. Some people, however, will continue to want the whole thing shut down. Somewhere in there is a balance that may or may not be reached.

Very few people, and not including the President, actually know about everything the NSA or any of the alphabet agencies are doing. President Obama knows, generally what those agencies are doing, but not the details. Presidents have never really known the details of intelligence operations. They just read the briefings and get a general description of those activities. It was that way back in the 1960s, when I was working inside the NSA while in the USAF, and it remains the same.

Will the NSA change its activities. Perhaps, to some degree. However what is not known about how it does what it does will remain a secret, even to the President of The United States. I doubt if there is any single individual who knows all of it. Truly.

[Xyzse]

18. Well, I tend to prefer nuanced views on a subject any how.

In regards to the NSA, I have a hard time feeling outraged about it, nor do I support the extent of what they are doing.

I agree that there should be changes, as I thought the Patriot act is an overreach.

I actually am not sure if I agree with Rand Paul's assessment on this matter.
I was just commenting on how, if I agree with someone's point, I will agree with it, no matter who says it. It doesn't mean I would agree with anything else they say, and I will always take what they say with a grain of salt.

Though, you did provide a decent strategy of trying to look for another person espousing the same point.

[herding cats]

12. Dear God!

They were like a pack of animals attacking their prey.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes. That is the depth of depravity of that wing

of the Republican Party. We should always remember that video when thinking of Rand Paul and his cohort. They are all toxic and dangerous. They would have their boot on the neck of anyone who attempts to thwart their plans. Beware.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Yep they sure did

[Dawson Leery]

4. Rand Paul opposes the usage of drones against terrorists in foreign lands

but he does approve of them to be used against robbery suspects in the United States.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Folks display ...

such inconsistent policy positions, when you don't understand or believe what you are saying.

That's my general issue with that mythical philosophy called libertarianism ... you just have to make sh!t up on the fly.

[Cha]

7. The Asshole who Claims Misinformation Works..

Yeah, ron and ayn's spawn is definitely the one to start salivating over.

[baldguy]

8. And so many on DU see Rand Paul as a champion of freedom & liberty.

What a crock.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. Nope, no one on DU considers Rand Paul a champion of freedom or liberty

Where'd you get such an idea.
He's right about the NSA, of course, even if for all the wrong reasons.

This is about as bright as protesting against someone because they breathe air, just like Dick Cheney breathes air.

[MineralMan]

15. I believe you are incorrect in that.

No many on DU would admit to it, but I believe there are some here who do, indeed, consider that vile person a champion.

[baldguy]

16. You haven't been paying attention, then.

Rand Paul has a large following on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022473412
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023602936
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024228799
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288261
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023609823
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024347724
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251326292

And they all try to qualify their support by saying, "He's right about the NSA, of course, even if for all the wrong reasons."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

17. You got me. I've been an undercover Freeper here since 2001

That's what you brought? I'll try to be kinder to you in the future. I'm sorry. I didn't know.

[Ratty]

21. Ah yes, the old broken clock thing

Puzzles me no end why so many people here enamored of one broken clock when we have so many perfectly fine, functioning clocks to choose from.

[baldguy]

22. A wise poster on DU asked why so many were willing to forgive Rand Paul his many errors

But weren't willing to do a little bit of the same to Obama for his very, very, very few.

[ProSense]

11. Paul: jobless aid ‘weakens’ U.S

Paul: jobless aid ‘weakens’ U.S.

By Steve Benen

A couple of weeks ago, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) reemphasized his opposition to extended emergency unemployment benefits in a rather startling way. To continue to provide assistance to these jobless Americans, the Republican senator said, would be to “do a disservice to these workers.” He repeated the line a week later...for Rand Paul, cutting off aid to those struggling to find work during a period of high unemployment is actually doing those folks a favor.

He continues to believe this.

Paul, who’s openly considering a bid for president in 2016, said in a Friday interview with NBC News that extending unemployment benefits past 26 weeks will hurt workers – and that paying for it without raising taxes weakens America.

“Does it make sense for our country to borrow money from China to give it to the unemployed in America? That is weakening us as a country,” Paul told NBC News.

It’s important to understand how misguided his argument really is. For one thing, China owns only a small percentage of U.S. debt. For another, there’s no reason policymakers necessarily have to borrow the funds needed to help the unemployed (though borrowing costs are low and it makes perfect economic sense to do so).

But the notion that helping the unemployed “is weakening us as a country” is plainly ridiculous. Will the nation be stronger on Sunday when 1.3 million Americans lose their purchasing power, costing the country as many as 300,000 jobs in 2014?

Indeed, it’s not unreasonable to consider this a binary choice. Under which scenario is the United States better off: helping these 1.3 million jobless or cutting them off? Paul believes the latter, but every shred of evidence points in the opposite direction.

- more -

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/paul-jobless-aid-weakens-us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024232195

[whatchamacallit]

19. Obama's goons droned a wedding

Not defending that idiot Paul, but the OP is a silly tactic.

[astral]

20. uh, welcome to DU, stg81

how did you find this place?