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

[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.