This message was self-deleted by its author

[paulbibeau]

This message was self-deleted by its author (paulbibeau) on Tue Dec 15, 2015, 06:52 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[still_one]

1. Declaring war should be under the authority of Congress not the executive branch

[lumpy]

60. Duh.....

And thats the way its always been.

[still_one]

81. it can be argued that Viet Nam and Iraq were wars?

[TommyCelt]

133. Even if it sounds, smells, tastes, and kills like a war

...I guess we'll just call it a "police action" then?

[BootinUp]

2. Rand Paul is a snake oil salesman just like his Daddy

and half the repuke politicians (at least). Listening to him too much will rot your brain.

[paulbibeau]

9. I agree. It's moot. He's still about this...

... and we need to take the issue ourselves.

[JaneyVee]

3. He's not arguing against using drones on American soil, he wants clarity as to when.

The Left is against using drones anywhere.

[paulbibeau]

8. Then we need to make the stronger argument. LOUDLY.

[JaneyVee]

17. People want jobs, healthcare, education, better wages. This drone talk is becoming just paranoia.

Pres.Obama will send them a letter stating his interpretation and this issue will disappear. GOP is just distracting from their incompetence.

[paulbibeau]

23. We need more oversight and restraint... not a letter telling us what he's going to do.

[JaneyVee]

26. Hey I'm all for oversight/restraint but republicans created this mess. Now they're pointing fingers?

I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of Rand Paul taking this on. Someone who says businesses should have the right to discriminate based on skin color cares about civil liberties? He's most likely just making sure no CEOs will be harmed by drone strikes.

[paulbibeau]

92. I'm sure he is.

Agreed.

[99Forever]

16. I didn't realize "the Left" had...

... appointed you to speak for us. Congrats on your new position.

[JaneyVee]

20. It's actually my old position.

[99Forever]

33. How does that relate to your claiming to speak for "the Left?"

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

I'm "Left" (VERY Left) and you damn sure don't speak for me, not even close.

[JaneyVee]

88. So then you're FOR drones?

[99Forever]

90. What I am "FOR" isn't the question.

The problem is YOU claiming to speak as to what anyone other than yourself thinks without their consent. Your lameass bait stinks.

[JaneyVee]

101. I'm the one saying the Left is anti-drone, you're claiming I don't speak for the Left.

I think it's a reasonable conclusion that if 1-I'm saying the Left is anti-drone 2-You're saying I don't speak for the Left, then 3-You believe the Left isn't anti-drone?

Or are you just into arguing semantics? I actually DO speak for many on the Left through various organizations & coalitions I've formed and others I belong to. I've dedicated a HUGE part of my life speaking for, advocating for, and fighting for marginalized voices in society and for those who share in the struggle. I grew up so poor I used to bring home & eat left over produce & vegetables I confiscated from dumpsters behind supermarkets in my old Brooklyn neighborhood. I've organized day laborers into mini-unions. I've been beaten bloody by police at anti-war protests. I turned an urban vacant Brooklyn lot into an organic farm that fed my fellow poor neighbors and those struggling to survive and buy groceries. I worked for Food Not Bombs during my teens. I belonged to stage troupe's tackling issues of racism, classism, sexism, & conflict resolution at NYC theaters. I belong to several environmentalist groups that are currently engaged in anti-fracking of NY. The list goes on & on.

So please, instead of trying to pick an internet fight with someone who has dedicated their life to numerous left-wing causes I'm sure their is a RWNJ troll out there on the world wide web who is more worthy of your argument about semantics. Maybe on a Rand Paul message board or something.

[paulbibeau]

104. Wait. He's arguing with you, not me?

Oh Jesus, I'm sorry. I'm going to go have a drink then.

[JaneyVee]

108. I don't even know what the argument is about. I agree we need oversight & restraint, I just don't

believe Rand Paul's sincerity about it. Call me crazy, but Rand is a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, conspiracy theorist who is worthy of no praise. Also, he ISN'T against using drones on American soil (I am), he just claims to want clarity as to when they can be used against Americans on American soil.

[99Forever]

109. I'm not "claiming" anything at all, beyond that...

... you have no call to be speaking for others without their express consent. Period. Trying to filibuster me, changes nothing.

[JaneyVee]

111. When did I claim such a thing ever? I said The Left is anti-drone. You told me I don't speak for

The Left. I'm not speaking for anyone, I'm making an obvious observation about the position of the Left. It's not a mystery. And obviously you can't NOW agree with me about the Left's position on drones because then...well...it would seem that maybe I actually was speaking for you. Can't let that happen! Jeez, some of you will go out of your way to tear others down.

[paulbibeau]

91. You know what? I'm totally sorry if I said...

... I claim to speak for the entire Left. I'm arguing with a small crowd of people here, so maybe I misspoke. Nope. I, Paul Bibeau, speak for me. And me alone.

Now, can we get back to the issue of killing people with flying robots on US soil, or is there some other turn of phrase I made that seems more important to you?

By all means, let's hear it.

[99Forever]

93. I wasn't even commenting to you.

I lean heavily toward your position on the issue. Sorry for the mix up. I find the use of drones to be very disturbing and dangerous for the very survival of this Nation. I find even more offensive that people claiming to be Democrats, not only aren't up in arms about it, but are cheering this evil Fascist horseshit on.

[paulbibeau]

112. No, it's totally me. Sorry.

Everybody was yellin'. Stuff got broken. The cops are at the door now, and I still haven't found the line to the bathroom.

[99Forever]

113. Thanks for the smile.

Made my day.

Peace Brother.

[paulbibeau]

114. Exactly. Peace!

[paulbibeau]

21. The truth is what it is. It doesn't matter who says it.

[99Forever]

37. Not my argument.

I happen to agree with you, the truth is the truth, regardless of the source. But making broad brush statements as to what others think and believe, who have neither asked or authorized you to speak for them, is nothing but strawman bullshit.

[paulbibeau]

69. I don't remember taking on a spokesperson role here.

So I don't know what you're talking about. I don't see enough Democrats speaking out on this issue, and I want to do whatever I can to encourage this. I think the spectacle of Rand Paul playing the Mr. Smith role ought to goad people.

No straw men involved.

[TommyCelt]

107. This....THIS RIGHT HERE.

The monolithic "Left"/Progressives/Democrats are the ones needing to speak up on this issue. That a social conservative like Rand Paul is doing so irks me...what irks me far more is that people I would expect to defend this posotion are quiet.

What irks me far worse than THAT is that, as I've mentioned elsewhere on DU, if Bush's AG had come out with this press release, these forums would be up in arms with torches and pitchforks screaming fascism. We've become what we accuse Republicans of being...against any idea, even a good one, if we believe the messenger is an ass-hat.

[paulbibeau]

110. I agree with your sentiment, taste in music, and ethnic heritage.

I'm totally going to go listen to Vicious right the hell now.

[progressoid]

75. The Left is against using drones anywhere???

Some one should let the White House know then.

[JaneyVee]

103. They may be left-wing but I wouldn't consider them The Left.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

4. Do we really need another topic kissing Rand Paul's ass?

There's nothing unique at all in this OP that hasn't already been said 50000 times.

[paulbibeau]

6. Then obviously it needs to be said 50001 times... because nothing has changed.

[demwing]

35. +100%

[bigtree]

5. If he's being hypocritical, and he is, he's wrong. Plain and simple.

It's one thing to approve of some stated pov of his on drones. But, Paul's problem is that he's associated himself; ensconced himself in a republican party which has absolutely no intention of moving an inch toward anything he's proposing without being forced to by responsible members of the Democratic party.

Moreover, if he was sincere, he'd move his own party to repeal the 9-11 AUMF which is being used to justify their armed assaults abroad. He's not going to, and shouldn't be used as a platform to encourage ANYTHING which our party is serious about.

It doesn't take an inch of compromise to leave Paul out of any discussion of anything meaningful. Try that.

[paulbibeau]

7. I want him in the discussion, because it ought to shame us...

... that we our guys didn't do what he just did.

[bigtree]

10. I'll never be 'shamed ' by opportunists/hypocrites like Paul and his ilk.

[paulbibeau]

14. Are you going to write to your Congressperson today on this?

If yes, good. I will too.

If no, then Rand Paul just did more for the cause of freedom than you did. Which should sting.

[bigtree]

22. whew

. . . that's an awful lot of hubris you're assuming you have to spread around from this pathologically long speech of his.

[paulbibeau]

24. I'm just pointing something out that's obviously true.

People do that all the time. That's not hubris.

[bigtree]

31. consider the object of your praise

. . . pure bullshit.

[paulbibeau]

32. Not praising him.

[bigtree]

41. ah, commending him, then, for his superior defense

. . . of 'freedom's cause.'

Whatever.

[paulbibeau]

82. No. Not even that.

Not at all. Read the title again. It's only four words.

Let me give you an example:

Rand Paul: 2+2=4
Me: Rand Paul Is Right
A pile of DUers: No, he's not! He's terrible. He doesn't even mean 2+2=4, and what kind of troll are you to agree with him?

Me (arguing with 20+ people simultaneously, over and over and over):

2+2=4
2+2=4
2+2=4

Let me paraphrase from something I read somewhere:

The truth - no matter where it comes from, or who says it, or why - shall set you free.

That is the great strategic advantage Democrats have. We don't shut out the truth. We don't ignore unpleasant facts. That's why it wasn't our operative sputtering on Fox News like he just discovered math exists.

We embrace reality. Let us never ever do otherwise.

[bigtree]

95. past the op

reading your response to me:

' . . . If no, then Rand Paul just did more for the cause of freedom than you did.'

Preposterous. You've yet to understand that I'm not going to be persuaded or inspired into a discussion or action on drones by your champion, Paul. He forfeits that expectation by virtue of his life and times as a bigoted, republican stooge.

Try and come at the issue (outside of this sordid thread) without any mention of Paul at all, and I may well be persuaded in all of that. You don't imagine, do you, that there are many folks here who were waiting for Paul to make his opportunistic filibuster and speech to take a position or action against drones?

[paulbibeau]

98. I'm not saying he did more for freedom over the course of a long period of time...

... like he's better than you. I think I made my anti-Paul views clear with the first couple of sentences of my post.

No. What I am saying, and still saying, that when a jerk like Paul ends up doing something good - for whatever twisted reason we could name - good people should look at him, and think damnit, I have more self-respect than to let him be the guy fighting for freedom while I just sit here.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

[Mojorabbit]

157. Bravo!

[SidDithers]

11. Fuck Rand Paul...

My three words are better than your four.

Sid

[paulbibeau]

15. Are you going to write to your Congressperson today on the drone strikes?

Put up or shut up.

[snooper2]

51. which drone strikes?

[tridim]

156. LOL

That's how crazy this debate has become.

Rand Paul must be using some bad-ass jedi mind tricks to convince DU'ers that drone strikes have already occured.

[lumpy]

58. Freedom of speech. Remember ? Put up or shut up ?

You running for Dictator ?

[paulbibeau]

85. It's not a command. It's an observation on his relevance.

[Capt. Obvious]

78. Or the MP of his riding?

[Schema Thing]

12. If he was making noise about the deployment of drones, then yes

THAT is the discussion we need to have. But he's not, he's specifically keying in on the killing of a citizen after we're already a drone state.
He's grandstanding - start.to.finish.


We already do that (just not with drones), and no one questions it. If you could stop a Tim McVeigh from driving into a populated area, you'd do it with the best tools available.


This is almost like the gun debate; should we limit our firepower and tools? (answer: in some cases, absolutely, because not limiting them comes at too high a price in freedoms and lives).

[paulbibeau]

18. So we need to start questioning the bigger problem. We. Democrats.

[lumpy]

57. Yes indeed, we have killed US citizens just using different tools, not drones.

Good post.

[spanone]

13. i shit paul

[paulbibeau]

19. I thought I made my position on the man clear.

But he's right about this. If anything he doesn't go far enough. Are we willing to go far enough?

[DeadEyeDyck]

25. I just love the smell of troll bait in the morning.

[paulbibeau]

28. I've noticed everybody makes this about the personalities...

... Can't we just admit we need to deal with the issue here?

A bunch of citizens write to their reps and say, hey, we need more restraint on drones, we need review, we can't have this permanent war going on, because it's not what we're about as Dems and Americans. And we don't want to get outshined by Rand Paul on this.

Seriously... WHY IS THAT THE FUCKING TROLL OPINION?

[lumpy]

64. I venture to say that the issue of drones is being dealt with legally just as any other issue

regarding use of weapons. Do you really believe we are a dictatorship ?
What permanent war are you referring to, Iraq Afghanistand ?

[paulbibeau]

94. I definitely don't think we live in a dictatorship...

... I think though that Holder's letter ought to make everyone stop and say we need more oversight. Signature strikes scare me as well. And the expansion of the definition of imminent threat.

As far as "permanent war," we have special operators and drones running classified missions to kill people all over the world. But I also think there's a more long-term problem - our network of military bases all over the world and our interventionist foreign policy puts us in a state of constantly being involved in someone else's backyard struggles. This predates Obama and even W.

We should start talking about it, about dialing it down. More specificity is kind of beyond a post. But those are my thoughts.

Thanks for asking.

[lumpy]

136. How does our membership in the UN affect our foreign policy ? Does this have any

bearing on our foreign policies ?

[Comrade Grumpy]

100. "What permanent war are you referring to?" Uh, the ongoing one...

You know, the forever war on terror. Timeless, limitless, endless, lawless.

[paulbibeau]

102. Did you read the Esquire article on the guy who killed bin Laden?

In it, they mention all these other really terrible, violent operations he took part in. And I'm sure many of his "targets" were bad guys. But damn, we don't know about any of the places where those guys have been out killing people. Civilians don't have any control or oversight on this stuff.

[reformist2]

27. It's an embarrassment that more Dems aren't taking a stronger stand against drones.

[paulbibeau]

30. Yes. Thank you.

And if we just act on this, it won't be an embarrassment anymore. That's what I think.

[lumpy]

67. The real embarassment, speaking about weapons, is that the Republicans and their offshoots

are not taking a stronger stand regarding gun control. That is a much stronger concern then the thought of the president going amook with drones.

[DainBramaged]

29. And so is a broken fucking watch twice a day

fuck Rand Paul.

[BklnDem75]

34. You might have a point if...

Rand cared to do anything about the law that made this possible. He has no intention of changing the AUMF, so why bother to listen? It's just another excuse to delay or block another of Obama's appointees, disguised as protecting the people. He's filibustering an appointment, not trying to pass legislation. Think about that. He doesn't care about us.

[demwing]

36. Clearly, Dems have better motives

but clearly, on this issue, Paul has the better message.

[paulbibeau]

39. On this... and only this...

And all we need to do is get it together, take the issue away, and act like the good guys.

Because we're goddamn good guys, aren't we?

Thanks for the post.

[demwing]

48. Agreed

thanks for the thread.

Don't let 'em get you down.

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

[lumpy]

71. The issue isn't going away. There is always the issue of the GOP trying to get control

of the White House and Congress using any means possible, fear mongering, lying and convoluting to the detriment of this country. I think you must be a good guy who is fearful of the boogy man.

[paulbibeau]

38. It's not about listening to Rand Paul.

It's about being shamed that such a tool is actually right, and letting that inspire us to do better on our own.

You're using his failings as an excuse to ignore the fact that he's right on this. Who cares what his intentions are? You want to argue me into believing Rand Paul is an asshole? I'm already on that page.

I think we as Dems should make this our issue. And that's true no matter who says it. The fact that it obviously bothers so many people is evidence of that.

[BklnDem75]

44. How can he be right about something he has no intention of changing?

Wake me up when he actually works towards changing or ending this law. Saying something you want to hear doesn't make him right.

[demwing]

50. And truth coming from an opponent is difficult to accept

it stings, and it should.

[paulbibeau]

52. It's nice when someone gets what you're trying to say. Thank you.

[demwing]

55. Trust me, this gives me no pleasure.

Paul is high on my list of senators most likelyto be confused with a bag of dicks.

[paulbibeau]

70. Wait... you mean bag of dicks is a separate thing?

I thought that was just Rand Paul's other name!

[demwing]

73. It's also his senate email address ([e-mail])

and his college nick name

[lumpy]

77. No, it doesn't sting at all, demwing. What gives you that idea ?

n

[demwing]

80. Because it stings me

strictly a personal reflection. YMMV

[BklnDem75]

97. It don't sting. He's playing people.

Pitiful is what it is.

[demwing]

115. YMMV

obviously, not all people feel the same about all topics - DUers are no exception.

[JoePhilly]

40. Rand Paul does not care about Drones.

He cares about obstruction, in any form.

Period.

[paulbibeau]

42. Sure. But that's moot.

[JoePhilly]

46. Maybe to you.

Not to me.

He's not trying to have a serious discussion, and I won't be taking him seriously.

[paulbibeau]

83. Will you take Eric Holder seriously? That's the issue.

[Chorophyll]

120. +1

Big time.

[paulbibeau]

43. Yes he doesn't mean it...

Yes he doesn't care about what's right. Yes hes a jerk. Yes I'm a jerk. No I'm not the guy who's an expert.

It's
still
the
fucking
truth.

[Schema Thing]

45. Actually, no, it's not the truth.

If President Paul Bibeau could fire a drone to stop Tim McVeigh's explosive laden truck from reaching a populated area, Paul Bibeau would blow the shit out of that motherfucker.


Rand Paul is acting as if he's shocked that anyone would consider shooting the hostage taker to save the baby. SHOCKED I tell ya!

Grandstanding, start to finish.

[JoePhilly]

47. +100

[paulbibeau]

49. Dick Cheney used that argument all the time to defend torture.

[LeftyChristian]

63. If...

If President Paul Bibeau could fire a drone to stop Tim McVeigh's explosive laden truck from reaching a populated area,

The hypothetical is flawed. The assumption is that knowledge of the plot to blow up the Murrah building was known. If law enforcement knew that McVeigh was in an explosive laden truck, why would they not send a SWAT team on the ground to arrest him? What if the drone targeted the wrong truck?

[Schema Thing]

65. oh please.

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2013, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

It's an analogy, not a one for one mirror example. Tim McVeigh was caught on a fluke. In a similar situation, an American terrorist gets out of the jail that Tim was caught in, we have his identity, and have drone on him driving a rented truck towards a high population area; just minutes away.

FBI chief LeftyChristian orders the strike. No one gives him or her any shit about it.



The real debate should be about using drones over America at all, and if we do, what are the severe limitations on their use for surveillance?

[lumpy]

74. Jesus Christ !!!!

What if the swat team went to the wrong address ? What if .....

[woo me with science]

53. Of course you are absolutely correct.

This is an issue on which the corporate rhetoric of deflection and blind partisanship will be relentless, however. The corporatists have no other option:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2472046

[paulbibeau]

54. You see? I knew there were Democrats on this site!

[lumpy]

79. Woo me with science not political rhetoric.

n

[TwilightGardener]

56. No, he's not. We're not killing people with drones here. The President didn't

change the Constitution. It's a total strawman. It's no different than Freepers insisting that he's going to use the Department of Homeland Security or the military to round up everyone's guns and put them into camps. "SAY YOU AREN'T GOING TO ROUND US ALL UP AND SEIZE OUR GUNZ!!! SAY IT!!!" Same thing. Holder saying an attack in progress on our soil would be stopped is not a green light for the President to order assassinations without due process. Edit to add: Paul's been planning this filibuster for weeks, no matter what Holder said in his memo.

[paulbibeau]

150. This is a good point.

The fact that the Freepers and Rand Paul ONLY started caring about this issue when it became part of their narrative of the New World Order is part of why this is an opportunity for Democrats.

We're supposed to care, not only about Eric Holder's memo, but about the lack of real control and the violence of the foreign drone program as well. Aren't we supposed to care about them killing kids in Pakistan in our name, with no end in sight?

Plus, Eric Holder's memo really was pretty scary. C'mon. I'm not saying he invalidated the Constitution, but he's asserting something that needs to be put under a microscope. Especially since the administration has redefined "imminent threat" to mean whatever they want it to mean.

[graham4anything]

59. David Duke likes ALL the same thing Rand Paul does. David Duke hates all the same people Rand does.

Justin Raimaldo likes and hates everything Rand and Ron and David does, with limited exceptions.

David, Rand, Ron, Justin. Four who would go back to wanting exactly what Thomas Jefferson said.
All men that look and act like Thomas Jefferson are equal.

In their world, Barack Obama wouldn't be free, wouldn't have a vote, and would not be President.

David, Rand, Ron and Justin all one of a kind.
BTW, why did Rand need to take a bathroom break?
Every word out of his mouth is doing that already.

[Arctic Dave]

61. But Obama is the King of King's!!!

Now shut up and get in line and praise him and ALL that he does.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Exactly right. Those four words sting because they should.

Unchecked executive power is a huge problem, even if we're slow to recognize it when our guy is pulling the levers.

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. Even John Cusack is asking "Where are the Democrats?"

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/06/john-cusak-on-rand-paul-filibuster/

[Robb]

68. John "Is the President just another Ivy League asshole?" Cusack?

Knock me over with a feather.

[backscatter712]

72. A stopped clock is right twice a day. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Party before country...sickens me

And yes, he is right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2472906

[Nye Bevan]

84. The definition of an "uncomfortable truth". And it's much too uncomfortable for most DUers. (nt)

[paulbibeau]

89. Right now it's painful, but I honestly think...

...that if we embrace our role of more strongly criticizing drone strikes and some of the other questionable counterterrorism tactics (maybe even - gasp - criticize the degree of our interventionism), we're going to gain by this. The president feels the pressure, his stance "evolves" and we get some responsive government. And then we have this issue to be proud of, in addition to our other achievements.

Rand Paul is not right on anything else. And many, many Republicans are unthinking hawks about this stuff. They want four more wars, and they don't care where.

Politically, this should be a layup for us. Not to mention it's the right thing to do.

[roxy1234]

86. Winner quote

Don't let Rand Paul be the good guy in this.

We cannot let him to own this issue. We need democrats to be real champions of civil liberty and drown his voice out. This is his only ticket to National prominence.

[paulbibeau]

148. Yes. Thank you.

It's also the right thing to do!

The people freaking out seem to be willfully ignoring this, which is bizarre.

[ProSense]

87. The only way

"Don't let Rand Paul be the good guy in this."

...that could possibly happen is to buy into Paul's bullshit rhetoric instead of exposing him as a fraud.

Rand Paul supports "swift drone action" based on a "reasonable suspicion" of an "imminent danger"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022472789

Rand Paul: "If the President is not going to kill them, why won't he say he's not going to kill"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022470090

[sabrina 1]

96. Well, either he's right, or Democrats were wrong when Bush was president.

The silence of the 'left' since Bush left office on human rights issues has been deafening. Shameful really.

I don't care who is saying it, giving the government the authority to kill anyone, especially Americans on American soil without due process is so glaringly wrong it is astounding to see anyone calling themselves a democrat, even considering condoning it. It is un-Constitutional, it was when Bush was proposing it and it's amazing how wrong becomes right depending on who is in office, no, it's tragic.

By remaining silent on these issues, Democrats have opened the door to someone like Paul to step through and do what I know I expected Democrats to do by helping to get them elected.

Now cue the voices desperately trying to defend these policies. It's not working, all over the internet today, Paul is being praised, mostly by Progressives, for what Democrats should be receiving the praise for.

To be afraid to stand up for what is right because you might step on some toes here, is cowardice of the worst kind. I am very leery of anyone who claims to be a Democrat supporting Bush policies. They wouldn't have dared during the Bush years.

Finally, it has nothing to do with Paul, but using him as a distraction, riling up emotions of democrats who naturally oppose all Republican ideas, is a ploy being used to blind people to an issue that was and should still be a huge issue for Democrats.

[paulbibeau]

99. Yes. Especially the last part.

It should be our issue. I think we can show some resolve, and get the White House to change on this, and put some more controls back in the hands of Congress.

Maybe even pass on a political system with - dare we hope?! - a few more safeguards against open-ended war than the one we inherited.

[KamaAina]

105. Yep. Far right.

[paulbibeau]

106. That's pretty funny. No one even mentioned that.

I'm totally applauding.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a clusterfuck to get back to.

[demwing]

116. For those who see no problem with extra-judicial assassination

what will you do if you or your partner are targeted?

What happens if the far right gets a loon in the White House, declares a "War on Abortion," and starts targeting clinics, abortion providers, and recipients?

Clinics have already been targeted privately, it's not a great leap to have such a program become institutionalized under some future psycho.

[paulbibeau]

117. Have you just seen the front page of HuffPost? nt

[demwing]

119. I have

shameful

[BklnDem75]

121. What's really sad is...

the right wing loon that may do all of those things is the very one some are praising in this thread.

[demwing]

123. That is extremely sad

and speaks directly to the comments mad by myself and the OP about how Paul's position stings.

I dislike this man intensely. It's painful to hear him take this position when no Dem has stepped forward.

[Chorophyll]

118. The idea that Rand Paul gives a shit about *anything* is ludicrous.

If he's so concerned about the safety of American citizens, he should stop supporting the death-by-a-thousand cuts that is sequestration. The people of Kentucky are far more likely to die from lack of healthcare and decent food than they are from a drone attack.

[tjwash]

124. He's a bullshit artist, and he voted in favor of the NDAA - fuck him

...and you are absolutely correct - if anyone is stupid enough to think that rand paul gives a flying leap at a rolling doughnut about anything but rand paul, just give him a phone call - there is a nice bridge in New York he is willing to sell you for a good price.

He's just another looneytarian charlatan doing kabuki theater for popularity...the apple didn't fall far off of the tree. Everyone here is just eating it up sadly.

[Ikonoklast]

122. Fuck Rand Paul, and all his apologists.

Paul is full of shit on this subject, he is grandstanding for the gullible.

Paul has not done one thing to stop or change the AUMF.

If Mitt Romney was currently in the White House, Rand Paul would be all for the use of drones by local police for traffic stops in this country.

[OwnedByCats]

141. Oh you mean

how Dems were against drones when Bush was president but now it's OK under Obama?

Hypocrisy swings both ways evidently.

[RoccoR5955]

125. Rand Paul is a cretin! n/t

[sabrina 1]

128. So he's a cretin for opposing Bush policies? Then what does that make all of us

who used to agree about Bush policies?

I'm confused, do you care more about WHO is talking about policies Democrats USED to oppose, or do you care about the issue itself?

You didn't say whether or not you support the Bush policies we used to oppose on the Left, or whether you are just talking about Paul himself. Iow, are you saying that we were all wrong, 'cretins' like Paul because we used to agree with him on this issue? I don't know about you, but I still oppose Bush policies and if Paul does, that has zero effect on my previously Democratic position on the issues.

Did you change your mind? Did you support Bush's policies? Are you influenced on policy regardless of how important it is, simply because you hate someone who happens to be right for once?

Please explain. Knee jerk reactions are always confusing to me.

[RoccoR5955]

129. Get off of the Rand Paul bandwagon.

He's a cretin, and even a stopped clock is correct twice a day!

No concern for ANY of the issues he speaks about, he's merely a cretin. Literally.
Look it up in the dictionary, then tell me he's not.


I don't care if we agreed on opposing the Bush Crime Family policies. He has too much baggage, and he's a racist pig, and a Libertardian. He worships Ayn Rand, which is cretinous.

All else about him is trivial.

[sabrina 1]

137. Lol, and another failed attempt at using Paul

to get Liberals to abandon their principles. Sorry, but iif someone's principles are so easily undermined by a Republican,and I suspect this is the goal, use Rand Paul to get 'Liberals' to abandon their principles, speak for yourself.

Neither Paul nor Cheney nor Bush nor any other Republican will ever succeed in forcing me to abandon taking a stand on what is right.

But they got you, it seems. Abandoning due process is a crime against the Constitution and even Rand Paul will not succeed in changing MY mind about that.

[RoccoR5955]

158. Why do you think

There are so many, "Libertarians" these days who worship this numb skull and his dad?

All they want is to have free weed, and free sex. They don't care about the rest of the repercussions of this policy of idiocy.
So they wheel out another schmuck, who might get one or another issue. Big freakin' deal. Like I said, Rand Paul is a cretin, nothing more, nothing less.

[sabrina 1]

159. Like I said, if getting Paul to support an issue that has long been supported by

Liberals wasn't a sure-fire way to turn them against it, I'm sure they are taking notes.

Just get a Republican to stand up for SS and see what happens.

What a fantastic way to get everyone on board with Bush's policies! Fortunately there are few who are not so easily manipulated, hopefully enough to keep opposing wrong policies.

[patrice]

126. Make NO assumptions about what I believe. nt

[U4ikLefty]

127. I see the usual subjects are obfuscating for the Administration.

drowning out the rational voices with shilling spam.

[Chorophyll]

130. Or perhaps "the usual suspects" believe that Rand Paul is far more dangerous to

the well-being of American citizens than "the Administration" is. In which case, "the usual suspects" are absolutely right.

I never thought I'd see the day DUers were shilling (nice word, btw) for Rand Paul. Has everyone forgotten how he had his thugs beat up protesters at his campaign stops? Pounding a woman's head into the pavement?

[TommyCelt]

131. It's the ISSUE, Chorophyll

...not the ass-hat!

Now that the AG has clarified the administration's position and actually concurred the federal gov't does NOT have the right to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil (RP accepted the clarification), RP can once again don his ass-hat.

He was right. The administration knew it and agreed. Even if only to get Brennan confirmed, it is now, however, a matter of public record.

Case is closed!

[paulbibeau]

132. Just to be clear about my OP...

I'm not trying to support Rand Paul at all. I want to ultimately beat him. That's secondary to getting on the right side of this issue, but beating him will be a nice side benefit.

How? We're going to beat him by reclaiming the only thing he's right about.

It's not just right and good. It's smart politics. For liberals.

[U4ikLefty]

135. ^^^case in point

[Chorophyll]

138. Yup that's me, a "usual suspect." I've never seen you before, but I guess you've been

following me around. By all means, go on cheering for Rand Paul.

[just1voice]

147. So true, their ad-hom attacks overwhelm their ability to think about the issue

They are total loyalists, to the point of not being able to rationally view an issue as blatantly clear as blind drone assassinations of their own citizens.

It doesn't surprise me 1 bit though, the U.S. population is massively propagandized and therefore almost incapable of a rational discussion about anything.

[JTFrog]

134. Fuck Rand Paul.

/facepalm

[NNN0LHI]

139. Rand Paul is a Timothy McVeigh wannabe

He isn't my type.

[Cha]

140. Not according to Al Giordano..

Al Giordano

Gullible people who think that Sen. Rand Paul’s song-and-dance on the Senate floor has anything to do with “civil liberties” or “peace” or anything good and decent need to read the transcript of him on the Rush Limbaugh show today. It’s show business, that’s all, and it plays to weak and lazy minds. Listen to how Limbaugh – a man who never met a weapons system or a violation of civil liberties he didn’t like – fawn all over the Senator, not because of the merits or demerits of any issue, but only because of his demagogic obstructionism.
Read it and wake up.

http://www.facebook.com/algiordano

[sabrina 1]

142. Yes, a ploy. And it has worked. Now Liberals have abandoned Civil Rights because of

Paul's pretend support for them. We are so gullible, well some of us anyhow.

Lindsey Graham otoh, sides with Obama on droning Americans. He's not happy with Paul. So what is a Liberal to do? Ignore the games, intended to get support for the War Machine, or stick to their principles and be accused as being on the 'Paul Bandwagon'.

For me, it's easy. I don't give a rat's ass who says what in DC. Droning Americans on US soil, abondoning due process, in fact droning anyone, anywhere for 'secret' reasons, is as wrong as it was when Bush wanted to do and we on the Left went ballistic.

Fuck Ron Paul, Fuck Lindsey Graham. What is wrong is wrong and their games do not impress me at all. I oppose Bush policies and did not support him, ever. I still do not support Bush policies and could not care less what games they play in DC to try to manipulate me into a knee jerk reaction to abandon taking a stand for what is right.

[paulbibeau]

143. Do you know the so-called Frontline program to take the House for Dems?

What if I started an effort to get people to pledge targeted donations to candidates in races that are crucial in exchange for some kind of promise to get the drone program under control?

It wouldn't be getting people to vote third party or vote GOP or anything like that. Just people would promise to give X amount of money to the take back the House effort - over and above what they would normally pay - to make this a priority for Dems.

Huh?

[Kolesar]

154. Link that show, man

Inquring minds want to know.

[paulbibeau]

155. Not a show - but here.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/democrats-launching-plan-for-2014-at-risk-members-88402.html?hp=l2

The Dems have a tough race to win control of the House. I would like to see that. I'd support that. But the idea is, maybe we could get people to say publicly... I will donate X more dollars than I usually would, if you get on the right side of the drone program.

I'm being vague on what the right side is. People can disagree. But I think we can get a solid group who can get behind the idea that we need more controls, that we're killing civilians and radicalizing the next gen of al-Qaeda.

[RBInMaine]

144. Paul is being an IDIOT. "Promise you won't attack a person in a cafe with a drone." FUCKING CRAZY !

[creeksneakers2]

145. Rand Paul is a kook

Even cops have the power to use deadly force in certain situations. Does that mean the end of due process? Can't the president have as much power as a cop?

If there is enough of a threat and law enforcement can't handle it and no other alternative exists then deadly force has to be used. What difference does it make if its a drone or bullet? Perhaps the drone is the best tool for the situation. Suppose one of those right wing paramilitary groups goes to war. We might need military style weapons to stop them. All the administration said was there are extreme situations that are possible.

Rand Paul is trying to get people all riled up over nothing new.

[RBInMaine]

163. Your entire post is VERY well said. Rand Paul is being NUTTY, and the whole issue is being HYPED.

[donheld]

146. So you made a thread telling us the broken clock was right a couple of times today?

Well aren't you sweet.

[paulbibeau]

149. I said he was wrong, bad, and a hypocrite in the OP.

BUT the fact that he's right to challenge the administration on the drone program should inspire us to do the same, only in a better and more effective way.

Totally said all that.

Why do people refuse to acknowledge this point? Or act like it doesn't matter?

It's like the truth of the statements and the crappitude of Rand Paul are like Godzilla and Mothra fighting in the Tokyo in your head. The violence and destruction are so intense, you can't think straight.

[orpupilofnature57]

151. What's his take on tax shelters to the wealtiest Americans ?

Would he call the administration to task on anything ?

[paulbibeau]

152. Yes... but...

if he says something true, that thing does not magically stop being true because he said it.

Even if he doesn't mean it. Awhile back a bunch of stone hypocrites got together and said we were all created equal, and endowed with life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness.

They didn't mean it. Not fully. Many of them were actual owners of human beings.

The words were still true. You see?

The words. We could take the ideas Rand Paul expressed, make them better, move forward and have the important discussion about limiting the use of flying killer robots. Because when our country starts resembling the bad guys in the Terminator movies, it is time to fucking RETHINK policy.

Or we could whine about what a jagoff Rand Paul is. Which he is. And I want to beat him with this issue, not support him. But we have bigger things to discuss now, don't we? Can't we be bigger people about this? Can't we see the truth?

[sabrina 1]

160. Good post, but don't expect it to be understood.

This will most likely fly right over the heads of some people:

Even if he doesn't mean it. Awhile back a bunch of stone hypocrites got together and said we were all created equal, and endowed with life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness.

Unbelievably we even quote a few of them on a regular basis and swear oaths to protect their ideas!

[paulbibeau]

161. Absolutely.

When Malcolm X said "I have studied your books as well" it was a devastating condemnation of the Founding Fathers, and at the same time, it was a stunning affirmation of their ideas.

I'm a writer. One thing I know is that every great story is an indictment of its author. Maybe every great idea is always going to be an indictment of its creator as well.

[Kolesar]

153. Rand Paul didn't state anything. He just bloviated a loaded question

He thinks he's so fucking clever.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

165. "Grandstand With Rand" !!!

[OwnedByCats]

162. Ok, forget about Rand Paul

and look at the ISSUE. We're talking about drones killing people, some of which are innocent. It's bad enough we use them in the ME, do you really want drones here?? Are you guys really trying to say that the use of drones is fine with you? If Bush did exactly the same thing as Obama, you'd be furious and don't try to say you wouldn't because I don't believe it for a second. I didn't like them being used at all ... period. I don't care who votes for it, and I don't care who is President, where and who we use them on, I'm still against drones. You all should be angry too, but it seems complacency, denial or whatever you want to call it is the new cool thing to be as long as Obama is president. It's damn scary. The more we use these in the Middle East, the better the likelihood that we'll either have blowback sometime in the future, or an all out war. Them wanting to use drones here should scare the living daylights out of you. This is not right folks, you should know better.

And by the way, it's blatantly unfair to say that just because we oppose this, we must love Rand Paul. Seriously? No, we just happen to agree with him on ONE issue, big deal. This isn't about Rand Paul, this is about right vs wrong. Some of you seem willing to gamble on the lives of innocent people just because you would not be caught dead agreeing with him about this one important issue. That truly blows my mind. Something like the use of drones to kill people with no due process is something I would not think that us Dems would be ok with.

[paulbibeau]

164. Yes.

And I think that this whole argument is about not destroying the taboo against agreeing with Paul, in order to make sure he doesn't own this issue.

Didn't realize it until after, but it's true.

Democrats shouldn't be cool with flying killer robots. That doesn't say "liberal" to me.

[OwnedByCats]

166. Yeah I get what you mean

Feels kind of like the Twilight Zone. Our side should be out there saying this isn't right, not Rand Paul lol

I don't know what's going on with everyone. I mean do we really have to agree with EVERYTHING Obama does? It doesn't mean we don't support him in other ways, but you can't agree with everything, that's just not natural. You're always going to have something here and there that you don't agree with. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous, and that would just make you a sheeple.