Do you think it is sound logic that whatever Rand Paul is for, you should be against?

[quinnox]

There is a certain group on DU who always raises the specter of Rand Paul and what his political position is as some sort of argument-killer. The implication (sometimes stated clearly) is that you must be a libertarian or have a screw loose if you agree with R. Paul on whatever the issue happens to be. So, for instance, if R. Paul is against the NSA spying, then you should be for it. Or, if R. Paul is against the Syrian intervention, then you should be for it (as a recent infamous thread made this argument), otherwise, you are not being a good and loyal Democrat, or something. Personally, I think this logic is, well, pretty dumb. And it also puts R. Paul on some sort of bizarre pedestal, almost like an obsession with him.

It makes me wonder - following this weird logic - that I bet Rand Paul is against torturing cute little puppies, so does that mean I have to be for torturing those adorable puppies?

Or, I bet Rand Paul is for the first amendment and freedom of speech, does that mean I have to be against it? (No more freedom of speech for you! )

I would wager Rand Paul is for the imprisonment of criminals who commit violent acts, does that mean I have to be against putting these criminals in prison?

I think I have made my feelings clear.

[cali]

1. nah, it's not logic at all, just moronic as hell.

[ZombieHorde]

2. I saw him wearing clothes, so now I always go naked. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. PICS! Or this post is worthless!

[NuclearDem]

12. I've been refusing to breathe ever since I heard he does.

[whatchamacallit]

3. It's what assholes do when they run out of arguments. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. And yet those same voices find themselves aligned with Rove, Cheney and Rummy.

Those using false association to defend their War for Ego are as selective about casting false associations as they are about which international laws we ought to enforce.

Their arguments grow thinner by the minute.

[JoePhilly]

7. Thanks for making my point BEFORE I made it.

Although not that you intended to do so.

[JoePhilly]

5. No ... now let's hear what Dick Cheney thinks ... and McCain, and Graham too ...

... after all ... there is a "certain group on DU" who raises the specter of those guys, as some sort of argument killer.

And isn't that how discussion on DU is supposed to work these days?

Or did I just kill this argument?

[Lurks Often]

8. It's an idiotic approach to take n/t

[msanthrope]

9. Your argument is facile, because you conflate things that have relevance to the political sphere

with things that don't.

Cute little puppies aside, can you show me any sort of track record that Rand Paul has in the political sphere that indicates that this is a man to be trusted to make serious, informed decisions?

Aligning yourself with a clown who may be correct on a few issues means you are still aligning yourself with a clown. In the case of Rand Paul, can you honestly make the case for trust in his judgment????

[markpkessinger]

24. So what you are suggesting . . .

. . . is that even on those few issues where Rand Paul might happen to be correct, it is necessary to take the opposite view for fear of "aligning yourself with a clown?"

This isn't about "trust in (Paul)'s judgment" -- it's about the absurd suggestion that Democrats should necessarily take the opposite view from Rand Paul on any issue, merely because it happens to be Rand Paul's view.

[msanthrope]

28. No--what I'm suggesting is that to put Rand Paul in the same league as John Kerry or President Obama

or Elizabeth Warren, or Howard Dean, or Bernie Sanders is a fundamentally flawed logical exercise.

I don't really care what Rand Paul has to say on anything. Writing OP's on Rand Paul's opinion on anything strikes me as needlessly pointless, and all too often, defensive.

[markpkessinger]

31. I haven't seen anyone put Rand Paul "in the same league" as the others you mention

What I HAVE seen, however, is people who are trying to defend the President's position on Syria trying to discredit those who oppose that position by pointing to the fact that Rand Paul also opposes it. THAT has been the recent context here!

[Skidmore]

32. Thank you.

[onehandle]

10. Well, it should make you think twice, at least. The Pauls are self-important scumbags. nt

[brooklynite]

11. I'd say both sides are equally guilty...

...of throwing out unattractive names of people who share the opposing viewpoint.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I agree.

I feel pretty passionately about war, but I will try to not "sling mud" at those who disagree with me.

[NuclearDem]

13. Absolutely not.

In fact, guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. Follow no man.

And that incl. BHO.

[Erose999]

15. The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. Rand Paul is an idiot, but he's a useful one sometimes.

It will take some GOP support to stop this war, especially if progressives like Warren and Sanders get on Obama's war bandwagon. If tolerating the Rug Doctor for a week is what it takes to stop this assfuck of a war, then thats what it takes.

We can go back to crapping on him next week after his usefulness has run its course.

[Initech]

16. Rand Paul is definitely a batshit crazy extremist.

[winter is coming]

19. Not sure whether he genuinely believes that shit, or is merely an unprincipled opportunist. n/t

[winter is coming]

18. No, but it's definitely amusing to see "Rand Paul" and "sound logic" appear in the same sentence.

[pampango]

20. Not necessarily. Now if Sanders and Warren turn out to be for something that Paul is against,

I would take a second look if I was against it too. Doesn't mean I would necessarily change my position, but it would make me uncomfortable if two liberals that I respect disagreed with me while I was on the same side as Paul.

Now if Sanders and Warren end up reaching the same conclusion as Paul, I would feel much more comfortable. So far Sanders and Warren have not announced how they will vote. I trust they will vote No, but we won't know till next week unless they announce their positions before the vote.

[tkmorris]

21. No

[markpkessinger]

22. It's called PDS . . .

. . . see my post from yesterday.

[woo me with science]

23. It's ABSURD. It's second grade logic.

Actually, it's a shamelessly dishonest rhetorical turd lobbed for the purpose of disruption and distraction. Of course it's not a serious argument.

[ProSense]

25. Is it "sound logic" to be opposed to anything Heritage is for?

This is the simplistic nonsense that continues to drive the discussion.

Heritage Action Opposes Military Strike On Syria
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/heritage-action-opposes-military-strike-on-syria

I don't agree with RW idiotic tools because they are RW idiotic tools. Claiming that anyone who opposes or supports this action is aligning themselves with a certain group is silliness.

When I point out that I disagree with Rand Paul and Ron Paul, it's not to claim anyone else agrees with them. It's to express my opposition to their idiocy.

If you want to declare that you agree with them, that's on you.

I think they're liars. I don't agree with idiots because they say something. I didn't agree with Rand Paul on drones. I thought "Stand With Paul" was pathetic.

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Rand Paul and Ron Paul are idiots! Sarah Palin is an idiot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023603275

[liberal_at_heart]

26. no it is not sound logic.

[Blue Owl]

27. ABSOLUTELY YES if you're feeble-minded

n/t

[Skittles]

29. well they can't say they are always for whatever Obama is for

so they try rephrasing and it sounds just as ridiculous

[SummerSnow]

30. He's for toupees. I'm totally against it.

[NightWatcher]

33. Same goes for McSame, Boner,Graham, and the other Chickenhawks whom Obama has gone to

for support for this strike

[alc]

34. D=good, R=bad

Very simple logic and takes very little effort.

Not everyone wants to go through the trouble it takes to have an independent thought.

And if we think about every issue by itself we may come up agreeing with someone (e.g. Obama) on one thing (e.g. ACA) and disagreeing on another (e.g. Syria). Then how should we feel? It's so confusing and discomforting. More logical to stick with the good old rule of "D=good, R=bad" and leave the details to the geniuses we send to DC.

[MNBrewer]

35. Of course it isn't, in the real world

But on DU it is!

[SidDithers]

36. No. But neither should "progressives" be promoting him...

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Here is Obama in Time Magazine waxing promotional of Tom Coburn.

We co-sponsored the “Google for Government” act, which made government more transparent and more accountable to the American people. We worked together to cut down on earmarks. And we continue to agree on the need to reduce wasteful spending and close tax loopholes that benefit only the well-off and well connected.

The people of Oklahoma are lucky to have someone like Tom representing them in Washington — someone who speaks his mind, sticks to his principles and is committed to the people he was elected to serve.

http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/tom-coburn/


Funny how Obama spends so much time calling for bipartisanship and lauding homophobic right wing twits and you adore him for it, but if anyone else behaves in a bipartisan manner, you attack and castigate them for it. Hypocrisy on a grand scale. Self serving and self indulgent twaddle.

[SidDithers]

45. So, I'll put you down as "OK to promote Rand Paul"...

Awesome.

Sid

[HooptieWagon]

37. If the Pauls come out in favor of dental hygiene...

...then I'd rather not have any face to face encounters with the BOG.

[JustAnotherGen]

38. No

But if you are one of the groups that have been the target of his nasty hateful divisive politicking - you are allowed the opinion that he is too wet to step on and too low to kick.

I don't like David Duke either. You all can go hug and kiss on this ilk ALL you want. I'm one of the black 'folk' that give no quarter, no comfort, not one word of kindness to a man who would brush it off if his Klan Man campaign guy curb stomped me.

And we all know that at his very core - this is WHAT Rand Paul is.

So go on ahead and put lipstick on that nasty old pig. He's still just a nasty old pig.

Rand Paul is against black American woman (I'm one) just like his daddy is/was. . . so since he and his ilk are against me - well . . . he's kind go got it coming.

[bemildred]

39. It is an abstract as hominem. It assumes Paul is always wrong.

This would make Paul a sort of anti-genius. You could use him to get rich in the markets. You could use him to outsmart our enemies. Just ask him what to do, and do the opposite, guaranteed you win. The idea has lots of possiblities, if only it made sense.

And if you agree they can attack any position you hold that Paul happens to agree with, like say foreign interventions.

[JVS]

40. If Rand Paul and Ron Paul disagree on something, does that mean that there is no correct take on it?

[LiberalAndProud]

41. Does Rand hate pizza?

I luv pizza. I really hope Rand hates it so I don't have to change my mind about luving it. Damn him for agreeing with me on anything, because every time he does, I have to disagree on principal. Principle. Yea, you heard me. Principle.

We must sort people into absolutes. We must not ever agree with our political adversaries on any issue for any reason. Because they are BAD.
[font size="1"]--removing tongue from cheek[/font]

I disagree with Rand on mostly everything, but that does not mean that we do not share some small parcel of common ground. Will I ever cast a vote for the man? NOT.

The need to introduce these polarities tends to underline, for me, the glaring absence of reasoned arguments for intervention in Syria. The call to arms has been almost exclusively an appeal to emotion. I reject that appeal. I reject it wholly and absolutely.

[deutsey]

43. Only if you're a Marxist

...of the Groucho variety, that is.

?1348139211

From Horse Feathers

[Groucho]
I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

[chorus] He's opposed to it.
In fact, indeed, that he's opposed to it!

[Groucho]
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!

[sabrina 1]

44. No, it is just plain stupid to put it mildly and I don't know why it hasn't occurred to them so far

that it has failed spectacularly to do whatever it is supposed to do. But I guess when you cannot defend your position, what else can you do other than try to distract with silly arguments?