Quoted:




I will agree that PDS goes both ways as teh Botz can be some of the most annoying, zombie-like followers I have ever seen.

I personally never cared for the old man myself so I have no "family loyalty" other than the fact that Rand seems like a very pragmatic, limited gov type on most issues and I agree with that.

I also tend to agree with a lot of what he said in and after Ferguson. He purposely stayed out of the direct incident but did raise some issues that should be at least spoken about with reasonable members of the minority community. I hardly foresee him taking long, warm showers with Sharpton and neither do you.


Intransigence will not benefit them or us and as long as there are reasonable sorts willing to talk rationally, we should do just that.

I also agree that in too many instances, the cops are looking and acting way too much like the .mil.

I may cut him a little slack due in small part to his relative inexperience but that only goes so far. If yer gonna swim in the deep end and all but, there will be snipers on both flanks, front and rear, enemy and "friendly" so personally, I'll be doing a lot of fact checking before I kick him to the curb. I really think he might do us some good if he can get in there.

Or he might turn out to be just another dickhead, pandering politician but so far, he's OK to me.

YMMV

Quoted:
Did you read his Ferguson editorial?

Quoted:
I like Rand, but his pandering in Ferguson is unforgivable.  He won't get my support in the primaries.

Ted Cruz, 2016.

Quoted:
Did you read his Ferguson editorial?

Quoted:



You keep saying pandering.   It's not pandering just to disagree with you.   But you know that......

Quoted:


Yes, I DO know that.

Of course, I am not saying that he pandered because he somehow "disagreed" with me.

I am saying he was pandering, because he was quite clearly pandering.  But you know that...

Quoted:



Well why don't we see if he has any follow-on talks with minority leaders and who they might be and what they might or might not agree on before we string him up?

If he beds down with the usual suspects, we'll know he's FOS.

Then we can string him up an I'll take point.  

Quoted:
Does anyone really think what Rand said about the things going on is JUST about (and dependent on the facts of) this one case?  





Anybody?








I didn't think so.  

He's going after a bunch of serious valid gripes just like every other politician using this case to make a point.  Was the guy that got shot a saint?  Who cares?
Was the cop a JBT?   I don't know.  Neither do any of us unless we worked with him or experienced his behavior directly.  

It's not about him.   It's not about the guy that got shot.

It's about the issues surrounding those events, and those issues need discussing.   Seriously.   Rand might not be right on all of em either, but he's not afraid to stand up and say we need to talk about it, and THAT is what makes him more electable than ANYONE else the GOP has right now.

Quoted:




Says one of the neo-cons I was speaking of.  We now see that it makes no difference what we do. There is no pleasing you.    

Quoted:


If that's the one in TIME, yes, I read it and can't really find any grievous pandering or bedding down with Sharpton et al.

Quoted:



Here are some of his comments that are probably bothering people:

"If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot."
- here, he is actively selling the bullshit narrative that poor Michael Brown was just gunned down for "smarting off" to a police officer.  [url=http://
http://]

 
I saw that more as him admitting the contrast in the way he viewed police vs how they are perceived by those people today. Perception is key and if you're trying to strike up a conversation with what is typically a hostile group at a very high stress time, a little perceived smpathy for their "plight" might just help get it started. [/span]  

http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_thinking.gif" />  He doesn't seem to leave any room for error there, or question whether perhaps Michael Brown was violent or attacked the officer - but has completely BOUGHT the bullshit story that Michael Brown didn't attack the officer, but just "smarted off" and was shot for it. [span style='color: red;']You're kinda stretching it there Professor.   [/span] [span style='font-weight: bold;']
[span style='font-style: italic;']"The outrage in Ferguson is understandable"[/span][/span]
- while he pays lip service earlier to how rioting and violence is wrong, this statement then waters that down, and suggests that perhaps there is some justification, since the "outrage" is apparently perfectly reasonable.  And WHY is the outrage so reasonable?  Because of the bullshit story of Michael Brown just being gunned down for "smarting off" that he has decided to peddle. [span style='color: red;']Here again, you read into his statement something that he did not say. His point is that in the macro sense, not this particular incident. The only contextual conclusion I could draw from this item[/span]..."The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response." ... [span style='color: red;']was to bring into focus hisposition that the police are becoming too militarized.[/span]

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.


[span style='font-weight: bold;'][span style='font-style: italic;']"Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them."[/span][/span] Do you dispute the racial disparities? Remember, he's trying to start a conversation with these people.
- this just seems like blatant racial pandering.  Really, it's IMPOSSIBLE for blacks to not feel like their government is "targeting" them?  
[span style='color: red;']You may see it that way and you may yet turn out to be right but i think you're just a little quick on the trigger.[/span]
[span style='font-weight: bold;'][span style='font-style: italic;']"Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth."[/span][/span]
- this is a classic liberal talking point  [span style='color: red;']It may be but the whole WOD thing is past its prime. It has done NOTHING to stem the availability, quality or even the price of drugs for those who want them. I would argue that between the WOD and the WOT, we have been robbed of more of our freedoms in persuit of these "wars" than any external foe could have taken from us and in the process, we have created a whole industry of warehousing people which, if it all shut its doors tomorrow, would have a significant impact on the GDP of the country. Can you imagine? A lot of us are tired of this. [/span]    


By actively promulgating the story that Michael Brown was killed for "smarting off" to a police officer (essentially supporting the murder/execution accusation, if you take it to the logical conclusion), he HAS CHOSEN the narrative of the Al Sharptons of the world (before the facts were known).  He then CHOSE to follow that up with classic liberal talking points of victimization, in terms of how the outrage is "reasonable" and how it's "impossible" for black people to not feel targeted by the government, and how our prisons are full of black people who just made some minor "mistakes"  - that is pandering, plain and simple.

Quoted:


Says one of the neo-cons I was speaking of.  We now see that it makes no difference what we do. There is no pleasing you.    

Quoted:










If that's the one in TIME, yes, I read it and can't really find any grievous pandering or bedding down with Sharpton et al.

Quoted:


Again, what in the Hell are you talking about?

What does THIS mean:

"We now see that it makes no difference what we do. There is no pleasing you."  

"We"?

Who is this "we" you are speaking about?   I clearly and cogently explained why I am not satisfied with Rand Paul (R) as a presidential candidate.  What does that have to do with YOU or whoever this "we" might be?  

Bizarre politician worshippers.  

Quoted:
Your whole argument that Rand "went with Al Sharpton" is predicated on his statement that he wouldn't expect to be shot for mouthing off.

It isn't known yet and may never be how he came to get shot, especially since the stories about him robbing a store and breaking the officers occipital both turned out to be wrong.

What is known is that his community does expect people to get shot for mouthing off, and I know that doesn't surprise me.

I tend to agree with you wording of the opening statement of the Time article was an error in judgment, especially before enough facts had come out, but I also remember the state of the story at that time, and understand the points he was trying to make, rather than the ones being attributed to him that would lead anyone to associate him with somebody like Sharpton.

Paul's press secretary, Eleanor May, [said] the meeting with Sharpton is "another example of Sen. Paul's willingness to work across the aisle to solve our nation's problems."

Quoted:


Oh, lord, what a laugh. This is just another manifestation of your irrational loathing of libertarians.  

Quoted:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/546e232c6bb3f72954dac8f1-600-/rev.%20sharpton%20&%20senator%20rand%20paul%201.jpg

Quoted:


I stopped following the Ferguson thread once the first one got locked. So I am pretty much out of the loop.

Did it come out that the video of Mike Brown stealing from the store was incorrect?

Was it confirmed that the officer was not punched in the face?

Quoted:


Jesus, that hair.  

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well.....

His statements on Ferguson are clear as day, one can rationalize it all day long.  God forbid some other R made those statements....say a Romney and the same people defending and rationalizing them would be using them as ammunition for criticism, and rightly so.  We have some 'I stand with Rand no matter what derp comes out of his mouth' types here.

We don't need another Senator anyway, and after the lunacy that came out of him mouth on this and Voter ID....well he is dead to me as far as the primaries go. He is nothing but a naive useful idiot on social issues.

Quoted:



Is this the blasphemy of which you speak?


“I’m not really opposed to [voter ID laws]. I am opposed to it as a campaign theme,” Paul told CBS’ Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. “Republicans, if you want to get African American votes, they think that this is suppression somehow and it’s a terrible thing.”


Because if so...........your opinion on the subject no longer matters.

Quoted:

Link?

ETA

I'm all for voter ID and if there's an R up there with a hair on his ass and a brain in his head after what POTUS did, there'll be a border security bill on O's desk 1st thing when they take the majority and the 1st funding bill would have BIG $ in it for oversight committees and DAMN little else till he signed it and he'd BEST not veto it or that SOB would be thumbing to his next vacation destination..

But if they want to win, it's best not to push something a serious % of minorities despise. It doesn't matter if it;s true or not.

Get in there, educate them, get it done without alienating them needlessly.

Quoted:

Link?

ETA

I'm all for voter ID and if there's an R up there with a hair on his ass and a brain in his head after what POTUS did, there'll be a border security bill on O's desk 1st thing when they take the majority and the 1st funding bill would have BIG $ in it for oversight committees and DAMN little else till he signed it and he'd BEST not veto it or that SOB would be thumbing to his next vacation destination..

But if they want to win, it's best not to push something a serious % of minorities despise. It doesn't matter if it;s true or not.

Get in there, educate them, get it done without alienating them needlessly.

Quoted:
snip

Quoted:


His original statement in a NYT's piece was: “Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” he told the paper at the time. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”

He clarified by saying he is for Voter ID but doesn't want to make an issue of it.  What does that mean?  I am for it but not really for it?  This guy is now trying to straddle to many fences.  Voter ID is an incredibly popular issue with voters.  This is not his first instance of this.  I thought his appeal was that he was a principled guy, not a wishy washy Rubio type.  He is simply not ready for prime time IMO.

I will vote for him if he is the candidate, but not in the primary.

Quoted:


Dave was so much better at that than you are.

Have a nice day.

Quoted:



Is that not an accurate statement? How can a rational person interpret that an untruth or pander?

O.M.G. The man spoke teh TRUTH!  

You guys are your own worst enemies.

Quoted:


Do you believe voter fraud has been a significant determinative factor in national elections? Because his statements pretty much reflect my feelings on the subject perfectly.

The integrity of the democratic process is really important and I favor voter ID, but Republicans have been nuts on the subject for a couple cycles now, blaming all their failures on anything but.

I don't see the problem.