“His father’s son.” “ Nut doesn’t fall far from the tree”, etc.
I am against the militarization of the police too
Rand Paul has shown to many what he truly is. I have never
liked that guy so my suspensions were justified. Praising Al, now. Mercy, he doesn’t know when to stop..
I was mostly OK with Rand Paul right up to the point he started outright lying to pander to low info voters about felon voting rights. After sinking to that low he seems to have become pretty adept at finding the lowest common denominator.
And dumb.
The Brown case has nothing to do with the issue of militarization of police.
He thinks he will somehow get some of the black vote and liberal vote while taking base conservative or Republican support as a given.
We had plenty of events in the past and not the police running around pointing guns at everyone trying to look tough.
The police in the past were way more professional and if they could not control it. Then the National Guard came in.
Sorry I don't want our streets to look like Afghanistan or some other 3rd world $hit hole.
Rand Paul is trying so hard to be all things to all people for the 2016 presidental run that he keeps sticking his FEET in his mouth.
The more he talks, the less he actually stands for.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled FORMER GEORGE W. BUSH SPEECHWRITER: RAND PAUL GAVE ‘AID & COMFORT’ TO RIOTERS, Jim Robinson wrote:
Look up “useful idiot” and you’ll see a picture of Rand Paul.
I agree Jim!
Rand is going to fit awkwardly into the Republican left.
I agree that we need to demilitarize our police forces, but can’t imagine a worst context or combination of wrong-headed thinking to frame it in.
His honeymoon is clearly over and he's letting his freak flag fly. Add him to the list of politicians who gave conservatives some hope, only to turn his back on us once he started to feel comfortable in Washington DC.
Never like Ron Paul nor his son Rand Paul.
Can’t we have a fair discussion on the militarizing of the police without unfairly suggesting that those against it are in favor of criminals and against law and order?
Rand Paul is showing that he is his father;s NUT!!!
I’m wondering why I should care what a “George W Bush speechwriter” thinks. George W Bush’s disastrous presidency is the reason Obama is president today.
Well, duh...that was political for Jeb’s benefit.
“De-paramilitarization” of police is obviously picking up a lot of momentum around the US right now, with the realization that police have no, zero need for belt fed machine guns, armored vehicles, explosive and incendiary devices, secret information provided by the feds authorizing warrantless and no-knock searches that cannot be cross-examined at trial, and SWAT teams brutalizing citizens and killing family pets over petty searches.
Yes, there are *rare* events like riots and mass shootings that need a greater police response. But that is it. In the other 99% of the US it is not needed, ever.
The logic that supports paramilitarized police could with equal justification say that there are little wars around the world, so obviously we need soldiers patrolling all of our towns, in case a war breaks out somewhere in the US.
Re: Rand Paul
Covered under the “Conclusions” section in a piece titled “FEDERAL TROOPS IN DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES” written in 1932 by then *Major* George S. Patton:
- - - - -
Warn newspapers, theaters, and churches that if they encourage the mob, they are guilty of aiding them and that their leaders will be held personally accountable.
Freedom of the press cannot be construed as “license to encourage” the armed enemies of the United States of America.
An armed mob resisting federal troops is an armed enemy. To aid an enemy is TREASON. This may not be “law,” but it is fact. When blood starts running, law stops. By the fact of bloodshed, law has demonstrated it’s futility.
- - - -
From within:
http://pattonhq.com/textfiles/federal.html