Comment: Nothing to interpret...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I struggled interpreting this (see in situ)

Nothing to interpret...

Words sometimes mean what they mean, there aren't multiple definitions to the word "is", and Rand just put his foot back in the poop bucket as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm old fashioned. I don't care much for armed drones flying overhead wherever whenever. Maybe Rand is just accepting the inevitable as far as technology and 'law enforcement' are concerned. I personally don't feel that connection of accountability with an unmanned drone controlled by whomever, versus a cop on the street withdrawing his weapon. Slippery slope much? What's the point of saying the military can't police it's own citizens if police are equally militarized to police said citizens? I'm waiting for Lindsey Graham to declare a WAR on ALL domestic crime....hook up state and local enforcement, ie MAFIA, with Abrams tanks and F-22 fighter jets to take out those dad-gum potheads and pick-pockets! Essentially this is what Rand is saying, "I don't care if Dirty Harry takes out a thug, or equipment developed for military applications does....after all, America, F(ck yeah!..." I personally am over this bullsh*t. I'm tired of watching Rand walk the tightrope. A month ago he had momentum on his side. He could have seized that opportunity to TRULY be the new great 'bald-with-toupee' hope and bravely STAND for something like his brave old man. That's great he's willing to play paddy-cakes with the neo-con politicians and media, but when push comes to shove he's got to put his foot down and say "goddammit this is what I stand for!" He's going for appeasement and satisfaction for today, but squandering the opportunity to incite the change we need if we ever want to have a future worth living for. I'm not a huge fan of Reagan or the propaganda surrounding the man but c'mon "Tear down this wall!"???? Genius. When Rand had the opportunity, left and right on his side- post-filibuster, he could have changed the dialogue altogether; he could have taken his father's route. Standing purely on principle. And all the media whores would have loved it. For better or worse. Why? Even public sentiment was on his side. I'm sorry, but I TRULY believe if your don't stand, immovable, FOR something, six weeks from now you're Paula Abdul or Vanilla Ice. In this day and age, who doesn't want to 'end the Fed'? Even ol' "Snowball" Sean Hannity would agree with that position! He had post-filibuster what his father never had- he had everyone from me to detestable Mark Levin on his side, but he's chosen to take the Mittens route, toeing and crossing the line to and fro.... When it's come to Rand, I haven't see-sawed this much since 3rd grade. My issue with Rand is this: If you try to please everyone, you'll please no one. I'm still waiting to be pleased longer than 30 days with Randall. Alas, only time will tell.