Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The concern is that drones are used for surveillance as well as state-sanctioned murder. They are a new weapon in the government's arsenal and there is no clear policy on their use.
A resonable person would know that. The fact that it must be explained to you should tell you something.
How is it any different from a helicopter or manned aircraft overflights? And since when did the police need to use force in certain situations become murder?
They are unmanned, as you managerd to comprehend, thus moving the operator one more step away from direct contact. That is how they are different.
Why would you assume that the policy on their use would be the same as anything else? Is the leap from the general to the specific too difficult for you?
Is it merely coincidental that a drone was used to kill American citizens overseas? Using your twisted attempt at logic, we could surmise that it's perfectly alright to kill them over here, too, no?
How is killing American citizens overseas any different than killing them over here?
We know that the Attorney General of the United states has opined that Obama can kill anyone he damned well pleases. Of course, asking for clarity is not allowed by the looney left.
Did you know that if a muslim american from Tonontaka NY (whatever) was flying a piper cub into a nuclear power plant Obama could order him killed by an F-16 with a sidewinder? I am shocked. I fearful. My safety, my freedom ... why I dare say me very life essense is offended and compromised by the outrageous excess of power.
Did you know that if a muslim american from Tonontaka NY (whatever) was flying a piper cub into a nuclear power plant Obama could order him killed by an F-16 with a sidewinder? I am shocked. I fearful. My safety, my freedom ... why I dare say me very life essense is offended and compromised by the outrageous excess of power.
You're simply mis-informed. No one disputes the responsibility of government to defend us from attack. That's exactly what we want them to do.
What we're talking about is state sanctioned assassination.
Did you know that if a muslim american from Tonontaka NY (whatever) was flying a piper cub into a nuclear power plant Obama could order him killed by an F-16 with a sidewinder? I am shocked. I fearful. My safety, my freedom ... why I dare say me very life essense is offended and compromised by the outrageous excess of power.
You're simply mis-informed. No one disputes the responsibility of government to defend us from attack. That's exactly what we want them to do.
What we're talking about is state sanctioned assassination.
You guys would have more of a point if you argued that the CIA, which has no audit trail, should not be militarized.
Instead..your basic fear..is to have a President you don't like, militarized.
And sorry dude..that's exactly what the Constitution allows.
It is amazing that Rand Paul could view the results of the last election and conclude that the reason Republicans lost is because they are not more like him
Totally. I mean why would he recognize that Romney won independents and lost the base and think it might be a good idea to send out a good message that energizes the base. Totally crazy.
You're simply mis-informed. No one disputes the responsibility of government to defend us from attack. That's exactly what we want them to do.
What we're talking about is state sanctioned assassination.
You guys would have more of a point if you argued that the CIA, which has no audit trail, should not be militarized.
Instead..your basic fear..is to have a President you don't like, militarized.
And sorry dude..that's exactly what the Constitution allows.
Wtf???
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Rand Paul's stand on fiscal issues that directly effect the poor, aged, and the sick is not going to attract Democrats. Paul's attacks on Medicare and Social Security may play well with fiscally conservative Republicans but will be a loser with Democrats as well as most older Americans.To pull Democrat votes, he's going have to swing pretty far to the left without giving up his base support. I don't think he is enough of a centralist to pull that off.If Paul runs he will prolly be President. Paul will pull Democrats and independents and heading into the primaries he will have an easy 30% support day 1 that would be near impossible to take from. Money will be easy for Rand to gain as well.
Leave it to progressives to be upset that the Republican party might change for the better. I see it as Progressives are upset because the Libertarian ideas represent the majority of Americans, bring that message under the Republican banner and you destroy the fake Democrat message.
You don't know Rands positions very well if you think he needs to swing to the left. The problem is the left according to you is as you described, affirmative action, telling who can marry who and other nazi crap like that. Paul's position that will attract the left is his stance on foreign policy, something Obama and the DNC have left their party out in the cold on. Rand will also be social liberal in many areas that both the left and the right can accept, like being against Obama's expansion of the patriot act with the NDAA, for the second amendment, leaving marriage as a privet matter, not over spending.... And Rand has the policies and votes to back it up, Obama only had words and he switched his position once he became President, just like Bush did.
What you're not seeing is that while there is a large movement in the Republican party to change the Democratic party is headed the way of the Republican party under Bush. Obama lost 4 million voters in 2012, that has never happened to Dems before.
You fear Rand because he represents many of the important things you used to claim to be. Now you're the run of the mill war loving Progressive Neocon.
The fun part would be replacing "drones" with "guns".
And watching the hootin and hollerin.
Common sense tells you that there are circumstances where people break laws and refuse to submit to law enforcement officials that justify the use of guns to stop their criminal activities.
Why is it that that Obama arms Libyan and Syrian insurgents to fight against their own government but we have no right to protect ourselves against ours?!?!?!?!?
.
.
Our government is nothing like Syria's. As far as I know, our government is not blowing up whole cities here. But let me check outside my window just to be sure...
Nope. None of our cities are in flames. You can come out of your bunker (mother's basement).
.
Uh oh:
Rand Paul Has Found A Brilliant Way For The GOP To Dodge The Gay Marriage Question - Business Insider
"I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."
Will this dodge be good enough, or is Paul next to be called a RINO?
.
So glad we have you to tell us what we think of his suggestions.
That's funny, since neocons can't think.
Paul says we don't need "new ideas". We only need LIBERTY.
.
.
Uh oh:
Rand Paul Has Found A Brilliant Way For The GOP To Dodge The Gay Marriage Question - Business Insider
"I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults I'm not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn't mention the word marriage, then we don't have to redefine what marriage is. We just don't have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don't we not define them by marriage? Why don't we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don't have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don't have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral."
Will this dodge be good enough, or is Paul next to be called a RINO?
.
Not legally, in fact it further exhibits Pauls comprehensive ignorance of the Constitution.
Whether marriage law as contract law is referred to as marriage or not is immaterial; marriage equality as mandated by the 14th Amendment recognizes the right of all citizens to have access to all laws. Same-sex couples seek only to have their unions acknowledged by the state as being of equal value to that of opposite-sex couples, having nothing to do with the state endorsing homosexuality.
Separate but equal marriage laws would be just as un-Constitutional. And that a given part of the Nation is uncomfortable with citizens being afforded their equal protection rights is irrelevant.
Rand Paul's stand on fiscal issues that directly effect the poor, aged, and the sick is not going to attract Democrats. Paul's attacks on Medicare and Social Security may play well with fiscally conservative Republicans but will be a loser with Democrats as well as most older Americans.To pull Democrat votes, he's going have to swing pretty far to the left without giving up his base support. I don't think he is enough of a centralist to pull that off.
You don't know Rands positions very well if you think he needs to swing to the left. The problem is the left according to you is as you described, affirmative action, telling who can marry who and other nazi crap like that. Paul's position that will attract the left is his stance on foreign policy, something Obama and the DNC have left their party out in the cold on. Rand will also be social liberal in many areas that both the left and the right can accept, like being against Obama's expansion of the patriot act with the NDAA, for the second amendment, leaving marriage as a privet matter, not over spending.... And Rand has the policies and votes to back it up, Obama only had words and he switched his position once he became President, just like Bush did.
What you're not seeing is that while there is a large movement in the Republican party to change the Democratic party is headed the way of the Republican party under Bush. Obama lost 4 million voters in 2012, that has never happened to Dems before.
You fear Rand because he represents many of the important things you used to claim to be. Now you're the run of the mill war loving Progressive Neocon.
If the GOP is to gain control of government, it's going to have to reshape it's stand on a number of issues.
Rand Paul's stand on fiscal issues that directly effect the poor, aged, and the sick is not going to attract Democrats. Paul's attacks on Medicare and Social Security may play well with fiscally conservative Republicans but will be a loser with Democrats as well as most older Americans.You don't know Rands positions very well if you think he needs to swing to the left. The problem is the left according to you is as you described, affirmative action, telling who can marry who and other nazi crap like that. Paul's position that will attract the left is his stance on foreign policy, something Obama and the DNC have left their party out in the cold on. Rand will also be social liberal in many areas that both the left and the right can accept, like being against Obama's expansion of the patriot act with the NDAA, for the second amendment, leaving marriage as a privet matter, not over spending.... And Rand has the policies and votes to back it up, Obama only had words and he switched his position once he became President, just like Bush did.
What you're not seeing is that while there is a large movement in the Republican party to change the Democratic party is headed the way of the Republican party under Bush. Obama lost 4 million voters in 2012, that has never happened to Dems before.
You fear Rand because he represents many of the important things you used to claim to be. Now you're the run of the mill war loving Progressive Neocon.
If the GOP is to gain control of government, it's going to have to reshape it's stand on a number of issues.
And what are those stands on fiscal issues? What attacks on Medicare and Social Security?
Rand Paul's stand on fiscal issues that directly effect the poor, aged, and the sick is not going to attract Democrats. Paul's attacks on Medicare and Social Security may play well with fiscally conservative Republicans but will be a loser with Democrats as well as most older Americans.
If the GOP is to gain control of government, it's going to have to reshape it's stand on a number of issues.
And what are those stands on fiscal issues? What attacks on Medicare and Social Security?
I don't think there's any denying that libertarians like Paul would phase out such programs if they could. And their views on limited government will make them unappealling to many liberals. They face similar challenges from traditional conservatives who would never vote for a candidate considered "weak" on defense. But it would be a mistake to "move" to the right or left to appease these people. It's the stand on principles that don't fit neatly in the current left/right status quo that makes libertarians worth considering in the first place
