Skip to main content

View Diary: Rand Paul's Disengenuous Fillibuster Stunt Has Some Progressives Swooning (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nope, he answered the question by saying: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shippo1776, Larsstephens, vernonbc
    As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.
    Let me highlight the phrase: "We reject the use of military force".

    Let me highlight the word: "Reject"

    •  let me highlight: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      "well established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means'

      and again:  'provide the best means'

      So you don't think that full statement can be parsed at some other time when they decide not to reject military force?  

      And their reasoning would simply have to be that law enforcement, in this case, was not 'the best means' to deal with the threat - and it would fit just fine with this answer that you think is so complete.

      "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

      by MRA NY on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:35:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point here is they said they "reject" the use (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larsstephens, vernonbc

        of military force. This is bananas. You are actually intimating that the President could decide to attack Americans with drones?

        As I asked earlier. For decades Presidents have had the use of nuclear weapons. To take your reasoning, or maybe Rand Paul's, what's to stop him from nuking some city with out door cafes? Has this ever been an issue before the Presidency of Barack Obama?

        It's possible you might just be playing devil’s advocate, but really?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site