Skip to main content

View Diary: McCain hates Rand Paul's real filibuster (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If he's a Libertarian, why is there an "R"? (4+ / 0-)

    Same for his father.

    If these Paul clowns are so courageous, as everone keeps telling me, why aren't they actual Libertarians, running as Libertarians on the Libertarian political ticket?

    They are opportunists, frauds, liars, and, in the case of Ron Paul, racists.

    Just because Rand Paul performed as Jimmy Stewart yesterday doesn't change that.

    It was an acting job masquerading as conviction to promote a 2016 campaign.

    I'd sooner applaud "Bedtime for Bonzo."

    •  Probably for the same reason (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale, radmul, Smoh, 3goldens, MPociask

      true Progressives run as Democrats.  So they can get elected.

    •  Also, while I get all you said (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, 3goldens, cloud9ine, Jim Domenico

      and you are right....

      but Paul is ALSO RIGHT on this particular issue.

      Some things rise above party and the Constitution is one of them.

      Although --

      AG Holder DID answer Rand's written question.

      He said NO.

      A minor point that everyone seems to be missing, although I get that the Obama Administration should have been thoroughly clear from the jump.

      Thus the opportunity that Rand took.

      And I can agree with that.

      •  Ahhh Holder said no to this: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, joanneleon, MPociask
        "Does the
        President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in
        combat on American soil?"
        But remember that leaves open an American that they deem is engaged in combat.

        American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

        by glitterscale on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:17:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  drones and militias (0+ / 0-)

          If another militia forms and tries to blow up a federal building, I'm not so sure I oppose taking those assholes out with a drone.  

          Fuck Timothy McVeigh and the rest of the right wing nutjobs.  They want to pick up guns and declare war on the United States?  Then lets respond without getting good guys shot.

        •  Law enforcement and military always (0+ / 0-)

          have a right to force under certain circumstances.

          I can't get what's different about a drone, frankly. If a police officer or soldier is not put in immediate danger in order to stop the situation, it's somehow worse? I get that collateral damage and such should be considered (and whether or not it was illegal, it would be on American soil - should be everywhere - so that makes this more of a silly way to phrase the question anyway).

          I just don't think that "drones" are the actual problem. Who in the government has the right to wage war, what war is, what force that is not war is and who has those powers, what defines combat and what constitutes law enforcement versus military and so forth are all good questions, but whether it's manned or drone, what is the difference?

          •  War on our citizens maybe? n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

            by glitterscale on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 09:26:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  War on citizens has less to do with the tech used (0+ / 0-)

              and more to do with the laws passed. Again, my point is that it's not about "drones" but about what laws you make and policies you implement to fight global terrorism and where the limits to that should be. To pretend that it's worse when it's a drone than when there's a manned aircraft involved is strange to me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site