Trump and Venezuela.
- Thread starter ele
- Start date
If we didn't have emotions we would not draw our first breath....
I still resent that fastidious home nurse who slapped me when I popped out to look around.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
No one is arguing for the removal of your ability to have emotions. When it clouds you judgment of reality, that's the problem.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
And yet, when they do, it's worthwhile to point out.
Where It's At
How's it going, where's it at, all that sort of thing. Consider, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asks, "If a country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?" and, well, Secretary Rubio, well, I mean:
Do we really believe Rubio just recently became this way, only in the last year or so, or maybe he's always been this way.
I mean, it's easy enough to criticize Rand Paul in a certain way. If social media is alight with nauseating blaxploitation about police violence right now, it is nonetheless true that black people in the United States have been telling us how this goes for a long time, so we ought not be shocked at an escalation that is not so much escalation but spillover.
But if, in that context, some significant portion of white people really are coming to understand, &c., we might also take the moment to suggest that Sen. Paul is learning about his fellow Republicans what the proverbial everyone else has known and had to deal with for a while, now.
In that way, sure, it's nice to have another voice on the issue, but this is also Paul's wheelhouse, so we don't really know if it's this particular circumstance, or maybe we could have some Republicans in larger discussions of principle.
Rubio's performance is only new in its depravity; Paul's outrage might well be contained to this particular application of such depravity. One thing to remember in all this is an old idea from before alternative facts; when medicine and law demanded certain outcomes in American society, conservatives complained on behalf of sincerely held beliefs. And that's the thing we might Sen. Paul picks up on, Rubio's most definitive statement began, "We just don't believe …". They're hiding in belief, and the longtime expectation that sincerely held beliefs provide exemption.
How's it going, where's it at, all that sort of thing. Consider, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) asks, "If a country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?" and, well, Secretary Rubio, well, I mean:
SEN. PAUL: So I would ask you: If a country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president, and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?
SEC. RUBIO: Well, I think your question is about the c―; and I will acknowledge you've been very consistent on all of these points your entire career, so, um, let me, let me, uh no matter who the, who's in charge. So, I will point to two things. The first is, it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, and wanted with a fifty million dollar bounty―
PAUL: My question, my question would be: If it only took four hours to take our president, very short, nobody dies on the other side, nobody dies on our side, it's perfect, would it be an act of war―?
RUBIO: We, we just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of a war.
PAUL: But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties, they're in and out, boom! it's a perfect military operation, would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war! I'm probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument; one-way arguments that don't rebound, that you can't apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments.
SEC. RUBIO: Well, I think your question is about the c―; and I will acknowledge you've been very consistent on all of these points your entire career, so, um, let me, let me, uh no matter who the, who's in charge. So, I will point to two things. The first is, it's hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about four and a half hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don't recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, and wanted with a fifty million dollar bounty―
PAUL: My question, my question would be: If it only took four hours to take our president, very short, nobody dies on the other side, nobody dies on our side, it's perfect, would it be an act of war―?
RUBIO: We, we just don't believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of a war.
PAUL: But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies, few casualties, they're in and out, boom! it's a perfect military operation, would that be an act of war? Of course it would be an act of war! I'm probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument; one-way arguments that don't rebound, that you can't apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments.
Do we really believe Rubio just recently became this way, only in the last year or so, or maybe he's always been this way.
I mean, it's easy enough to criticize Rand Paul in a certain way. If social media is alight with nauseating blaxploitation about police violence right now, it is nonetheless true that black people in the United States have been telling us how this goes for a long time, so we ought not be shocked at an escalation that is not so much escalation but spillover.
But if, in that context, some significant portion of white people really are coming to understand, &c., we might also take the moment to suggest that Sen. Paul is learning about his fellow Republicans what the proverbial everyone else has known and had to deal with for a while, now.
In that way, sure, it's nice to have another voice on the issue, but this is also Paul's wheelhouse, so we don't really know if it's this particular circumstance, or maybe we could have some Republicans in larger discussions of principle.
Rubio's performance is only new in its depravity; Paul's outrage might well be contained to this particular application of such depravity. One thing to remember in all this is an old idea from before alternative facts; when medicine and law demanded certain outcomes in American society, conservatives complained on behalf of sincerely held beliefs. And that's the thing we might Sen. Paul picks up on, Rubio's most definitive statement began, "We just don't believe …". They're hiding in belief, and the longtime expectation that sincerely held beliefs provide exemption.