Skip to main content

#StandWithRand? Really? His bit of political theater yesterday reminded me of all of the ridiculous, nonsense he supports. Honestly, Paul Rand can stand right over there, thank you.

And Adam Carolla wants to know what's wrong with black people.

On today's #TWiBRadio, we decide not to #StandWithRand and big surprise, it looks like some of President Obama's biggest opponents find his policies useful, and I get trolled hard in feedback.

Subscribe on iTunes | Subscribe On StitcherDirect Download | RSS

And this morning on #amTWiB, the #TheMorningCrew continues to discuss the Rand Paul filibuster, New York City is shaming teen parents, and L. Joy knows how to cure a migraine.

Subscribe on iTunesSubscribe On Stitcher| Direct DownloadRSS

(Cross-posted)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  i stand with wyden (3+ / 0-)

    rand is just his dad without the paper trail.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:17:19 PM PST

  •  I agree with Rand on the drones and (5+ / 0-)

    the shaky AUMF ties to drone usage.

    Other than that, he is ill equipped to be in the Senate on any other issue. Not that he is alone in that circumstance.......

  •  Rand Now Has Half His State Ready To Impeach.... (8+ / 0-)

    Obama because he's going to drone American citizens as they sit eating in cafes on American soil.

    13 hours of stoking hate groups who have grown by 800% since President Obama was elected was accomplished last night along w/ a mini discussion of drones.

    Hitler came up, of course.  

    Mitch McConnell was there, of course.  Funny how he never showed up to protest a single drone from 2000-2008.  Not a word.  

    •  I'm not a hate group, and he stoked me. (11+ / 0-)

      I'm bitterly opposed to the unaccountable police state mentality begun under George W. Bush and (VERY SADLY) continued under Obama, as we have seen from the recent memos.  Killing Americans on American soil without due process "under extraordinary conditions" quote-unquote is something we would not have tolerated at one time in this country, right or left.

      If it takes a right-wing loon to speak out about it and make people take notice, then that's not just fine, that's great with me.

      •  What American Has Been Killed On American Soil... (0+ / 0-)

        w/ out due process under extraordinary conditions?

        Who are you talking about?   Please name the victim who was killed.  Where can I go to get this specific information?  Do you have a link to the murder?

        Rand Paul stoked it up by saying, and I quote, "If I was at a Tea Party meeting.....please don't kill me".  He also said "if you have 7 days of food in your house or stains on your clothes or are at a cafe, you might have a drone attack while you are in your bed tonight".

        Glad to hear this is not just fine, but great w/ you, Dumbo.

         

  •  Does that mean you like Brennan? Nt (0+ / 0-)

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:57:16 PM PST

    •  I stand w/Cheney... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo, Sparhawk

      He created these monarchical powers.
      I think every President possesses ex officio the power to raze whole cities should he deem it necessary.

      And god help any who should stand in his way.

      /massive snark

      I'm a fan of the diarist but oppose these powers.
      And I agree, Adam Carolla sucks.

      •  Yup. (6+ / 0-)

        Rand Paul makes a speech comparing the power of the president to kill American citizens on American soil without due process akin to Nazis.

        And, snowballs must be flying in hell, because for once, he's not just right, he's fucking damn-straight right about that.

        And I'm very glad to see somebody on the right call this out for what it is.  They bitch all the time about big government but keep tight lips about the biggest and nastiest side of government, the ability of the government to kill or torture or silence its people and to do it all in the dark.  

        If I were a Republican, I'd be scared shitless of Obama having those powers, too.  Have you read all the comments about this that start, "Just imagine if President Christie had these powers!"  As if we have to imagine a Republican president with the same policies in order to feel any of the horror.

        •  Rand Paul is mess, though.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          progressivevoice

          I appreciate his opposition to the absurd authorities claimed by Holder, Brennan, Cheney and Addington. It's a healthy debate and happens to have opened up an ideological war in the GOP.

          Yummy for my tummy.

          But I do not support his suggestion, however indirectly, that what we're witnessing here is akin to Nazism.
          It's hyperbolic and dangerous.

          But I agree with the overall thrust of your comment, and I'd swap Guiliani or Gingrich to make your example extra, super, scary:

          Have you read all the comments about this that start, "Just imagine if President Christie had these powers!"
          •  Then what is it akin to? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kbman

            Try to give me the most apropos historical analogy you can.  

            Perhaps we should just compare it to the Yoo Bybee memos of the Bush era.  Which, strangely enough, many people in the mainstream press compared very directly to the Nazi era.  In particular, to Heydrich's written directive for "sharpened interrogation."

            It seems to me that we need to wake up and realize we're not standing on a slippery slope anymore.  We've already slipped.

            It doesn't matter what a mess Rand is.  Obama's a bigger mess on this than Rand Paul.  Simple embarrassing fact.

  •  Fuck it, I stand with Rand on this. (9+ / 0-)

    Stop the police state bullshit.  It's not good for any of us.  If it embarrasses Democrats that it's a Democratic president fostering this policy which is, in its bipartisan way, consistent with the Darth Cheney police-state of the previous Republican administration, then we goddam well should be embarrassed.  And mad.

  •  So you're a hate the sinner, not the sin sort. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    progressivevoice, kbman
  •  Rand Paul is an intelligence test for Democrats (10+ / 0-)

    as is every bad faith Republican stunt.

    He's not acting in good faith. He's not. You have to be so fucking stupid or naive to believe that Rand Paul would ever, ever, do what he just did to a Republican President who put the same policy in place.

    The Village fails this intelligence test becaues it's the Village. Because the Village is, at best, a useless conventional wisdom pimping machine crossed with a high school slambook, and at worst a propaganda machine for austerity and Oligarchy because, like wealthy conservatives, the pretty and/or packaged people reading you your news are rich and think of themselves as immune from the punishing pain. For them, austerity is a win/win. They are a part of Ameirca's aristocracy, so Oligarchy being ok is hardly a shock. They get to keep on keeping on, and they already have the ability to ignore squeegee men and panhandlers on the way to the studio.

    Rand Paul most certainly would not be doing what he just did if President Mitt Romney was currently in the White House.

    I don't like Obama's drone position. I wouldn't accept it from a Republican President, so I don't accept it from one I would and have voted for because I reject the "I trust him" narrative. Obama will not be President forever, and somebody worse than Bush will be taking the low bar that Obama sets in some areas deeper down the sinkhole. When challenged on it, by people like us, they will have the ready and right answer that they are merely expanding an Obama policy.

    Making future corrosion bipartisan, and since everyone is to blame so nobody is to blame, and universally accountability free is never a good place for a non-Movement Conservative to be.

    But Rand Paul? He wouldn't do this during a Romney Presidency, because he's not acting in good faith, nor is he putting grander visions above ideology.

    He's playing stupid and naive people who want to believe that a movement whose life's blood is bad faith is, somehow, somewhere, secretly a little less crazy than they appear. So they can sleep a little easier at night.

    I have no such delusions. I rather see the Right for who and what they are.

    That matters.

    I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

    by LeftHandedMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:38:21 PM PST

    •  And when he's back to saying (9+ / 0-)

      the vile racist bullshit he's known for about Martin Luther King and the civil rights era, or finding a way to paint Barack Obama as a fascist, all the I stand with Rand hashtag pimpery and the Not-so-Great Liberal Navel Gaze over not getting played by a scammer will be a mark of great shame.

      'I was a sucker for Rand Paul, who played me like a chump."

      I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

      by LeftHandedMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:42:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think this is that fucking hard (2+ / 0-)

        I don't care for the Obama Administration's drone policies, I oppose them, I reject the arguments, especially the "I trust him" narrative, in favor of having the same standards no matter who is in the White House. I'm not just putting my brain in the pickle jar of engaging in magical thinking about the 'best and brightest' being 'better than x, y, and z' just because there is a Democrat in the office. Lowering the bar is lowering the bar, and I'm not going to support a Democrat doing something I wouldn't accept from a GOPer.

        I'm a Democrat because I believe in the best ideals and policies of the party, not because I signed on to anybody's fan club or follow the Democrats like they are the New York Yankees.

        And yet, I can also see right the fuck through this piece of shit and not get scammed by him at the same god-damned time. He's not a fellow traveler.

        He's the guy who would either be calling drone opponents treasonous to defend the very same policy from President Mitt Romney. Or. He'd be the bad faith piece of shit staying silent while Senator Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson did.

        I am from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner wing of the Democratic Party

        by LeftHandedMan on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:01:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Perfectly put (5+ / 0-)

        I'm at my wits end with people on this site bending over backwards to 'standwithrand' and accusing people who express the sentiments in your post and in the diary of behaving like a blind, unprincipled, partisan hack.

        This was political theatre. He used a wedge issue, successively, to further his particular brand of anti-govt fear mongering. He then took to the airwaves on Beck and Rush today to sell it some more. FReepers are more active now, going by thread and comment frequency, than I've seen them since the election.

        I can't stand the Rand apologists who've said "well I disagree with him 99% of the time, but he's right here," then accuse us of being unprincipled. Guess what, Rand has a larger forum and more credibility today than he did before yesterday. And he'll happily use it to shovel the rest of his anarcho-libertarian BS - you know, that '99% other stuff I disagree with' - to a receptive audience, particularly the younger generation, whose disaffection towards govt has already pushed many of them toward a Ron/Rand Paul figure. I'm with you - when this little man with his anti-govt rhetoric now with more credibility picks up steam, I don't want to here people on this site complaining they were duped.

        If he was right, he was right for the wrong reasons. And I care more about his brand than finding common ground with him on this one issue. I give him zero credit.

        •  Re (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soros, cap76, progressivevoice
          If he was right, he was right for the wrong reasons. And I care more about his brand than finding common ground with him on this one issue. I give him zero credit
          If only there were Democrats who took his position as forcefully as he did. Then the rest of us wouldn't need the hash tag.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:57:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Paul had his answer in hand (3+ / 0-)

            His filibuster was completely baseless. I'll point you tothis diary

            Again, I reject the notion that democrats who didn't stand with rand are unprincipled partisans hacks. The whole point of his filibuster, the paranoid hypothetical question, had been answered before he took the floor and even mid-filibuster (by Holder via Cruz). This was anti-government grandstanding cloaked in high morality, faux outrage, and strict constitutionalism.

            So, on the contrary, my wish is that one or more democrats stand with MCCAIN and call this for what it was. Unnecessary, poltically-motivated fear-mongering.

            •  This reminds me... (4+ / 0-)

              ...of all the people who thought his father was the greatest thing ever during the Republican primaries.

              Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

              by moviemeister76 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:37:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                moviemeister76

                Rand is riding his daddy's coattails to earn support from the social liberals and disenchanted youth that have been abandoned by the religious, hawkish Republicans. Coupled with the teahadists and deregulators, and he's crafted together a very formidable coalition.

                Ron always had broad, if latent support. I got the sense that many in the center and on the right were just looking for an excuse not to vote for him. Rand is a guy they will not hesitate to get behind, if I'm right in viewing the past 24 hours as a reflection of the zeitgeist (I spent an unholy amount of time in right-wing media today). Rand is the frontrunner right now, and it's not even close.

                Also, this 'standwithrand' has legs.

                •  I do understand (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Moravan

                  I don't particularly like the Democratic Party. I think both parties have wrought evil. I just think that, currently, the Democratic Party is slightly better than the Republican Party.

                  A lot of people today are disenchanted with both parties and are desperate for someone else to vote for. Rand Paul's political calculation seems pretty smart to me. Too bad he's a total racist. Then again, it would appear that a lot of white people have no problem with that.

                  Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                  by moviemeister76 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:11:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  The very definition of a political hack: (0+ / 0-)
          And I care more about his brand than finding common ground with him on this one issue. I give him zero credit.
            •  You're welcome. (0+ / 0-)

              At least if people are aware that they're political hacks, they might be able to do something about it.

              •  If you want to offer something constructive (0+ / 0-)

                Then I encourage you. Otherwise run along.

                I contend that Paul had a sufficient answer to his initial hypothetical scenario. But he shrewdly used Holder's nuanced 'no' as a wedge to kick-off a long, slippery-slope indictment of the administration with fear-based and stupefying rhetoric, all designed to broaden his own personal appeal.

                If anyone was acting partisan it was Paul, along with a full roster of other 2016 GOP hopefuls looking for a share of the bright spotlight on the senate floor that evening, and my plea is that more of us stop being naive about it.

                And for the record, please don't consider me naive on the issue of targeted killing. My frustration with Paul apologists has nothing to do with that. Hell, I'll suggest that this talk of droning people in cafes distracts from the issue, and we shouldn't cede an inch of rhetorical ground to the black helicopter crowd.  

  •  I just wanna know (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dclawyer06, jan4insight

    what kinda roadkill that iz on his head...

    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

    by durrati on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:51:58 PM PST

    •  Chinchilla or Honey Badger, depends on his mood... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      durrati

      I saw him a few years ago going through security at Reagan Nat'l...
      I grabbed my cell phone b/c I hoped he'd freak out and protest the authority of the TSA. He was probably 30' away.

      Sadly, my timing sucked. He didn't have his meltdown until a year later.

      But, I was close enough to see that it was a chinchilla atop that head, at least on that day.

  •  Remember folks, Paul doesn't have a problem with (6+ / 0-)

    drones in general just with them doing things no one (but the clinically paranoid) has suggested they can do. Even Gram said the question of, whether the WH believed they could use drones to kill any American they want in the US, was not worthy of an answer.

    •  Bingo (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sviscusi, jan4insight, skohayes

      Rand Paul has no problems with drones being used overseas. He has no problem with drones being used to protect our borders. He just has this one narrow problem, a problem which even the Obama administration thinks is too much.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 08:17:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Not worthy of an answer" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soros

      It's worthy of an answer. A short answer like "No, we do not believe we have the power to do that" would suffice.

      We the people and our elected representatives (of whom Rand Paul is one) will determine what questions we need answers to. And our servant the President and his appointees will answer.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:05:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He got the answer. (0+ / 0-)

        The droning of an American citizen outside our borders concerned me, and it is not paranoid to ask, if there, then here, too?  Due process is being undermined every day.  This morning, Rand pressured Holder into drawing a needed line. A person can be wrong 99 percent of the time, and right once.

        •  The next question is (0+ / 0-)

          "Would you prosecute someone who killed someone in this fashion inside US borders?"

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:19:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Holder's answere is consistant to everything else (0+ / 0-)

          WH. It got more specific as the question go more specific. If Paul was actualy concerned about limiting the use of drones he could submit a Bill, he is a Senator after all. In the 13hrs he talked he never outlined even potential legislation.

  •  Yep. That damn Rand is out to fool ya'll. (0+ / 0-)

    Damn straight he's a ferret faced rootin' tootin' tea bagging son of an Repugtarian who doesn't give a rat's ass about yours or mine prospects in his dystopian wet dream of a fascist state let alone a drone strike at a plumbers picnic.

    But what IS THE FUCKING POINT? Why are you trying sooo hard to convince yourselves to never mind the message - the real point, the beautiful asymmetry of what we just witnessed. How McCain and Graham just had to affirm Obama's drone program as fitting to their playbook in the GWOT. What are you so afraid of admitting? That it took a fucking NUTJOB to point out to the American public that this is simply unacceptable. That Eric Holder can only stutter out his implausible, inane and frankly idiotic responses to legal pretensions on such an obvious mind fuck of the constitution? That by-golly Obama is the meanest, toughest Commander-In-Chief of Smoke-'Em quick draw McGraw Deciders there is and if he says he won't, then he just won't?

    In the last analysis there is no fucking justification for Drone attacks on American citizens ANYWHERE for any fucked up enemy combatant Bushwellian reason.

    LOL. Rand Paul, NUTJOB that he is, is not only out to fool ya but has done a grand job of making you out to be foaming at the mouth "reality-based" jackass fools.

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:24:11 PM PST

    •  Wow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Moravan

      First of all, Rand Paul only gives a shit about the idea of drones being used on innocent Americans in the US. He doesn't give a crap that we are killing innocent human beings outside the country, which I have a problem with.

      Second, the people at TWIB have talked against the drone program several times over the years. So what's your point?

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:31:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. Rand doesn't give a fuck about (0+ / 0-)

        Killing innocent human beings outside the country.

        Try for a moment to stop, just once to stop the foaming partisan caricatures of your horrible straw men and focus. Focus.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:39:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  *blink* (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Moravan

          Rand Paul actually endorsed drones being used in the past. I have a problem with that. Should I just fall in line because he questions drones being used in one instance, even though he's fine with them being used in all other instances? Why on Earth would I support that when all it does is once again show that many Americans believe that our lives are more important than those outside America?

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:44:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't understand the constitutional issue. (0+ / 0-)

            That simple.
            There is no constitutional issue with smoking foreigners.
            That's up to the Commander-in-Chief, the tribal leader to decide who lives and who dies in wartime.
            The AUMF is the almighty law of the land when it comes to the GWOT. Both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS decided that over 10 years back. The Obama administration keeps repeating that mantra over and over again.  AUMF.

            No constitutional issue there.

            What Rand Paul was speaking to was domestic use of drones.
            Follow? Understand the difference in constitutional terms? That's the only arena Congress has leverage over now that they've effectively abdicated their War Powers responsibilities.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:17:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Click here for the mobile view of the site