General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

23. Wait

Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:46 PM

Mar 2013

"When a guy like Paul has those on both the right and the left cheering for him about his stand. If both sides can agree like that, it means something. And it really should be easy for a presidential administration to say, "No, we accept the Constitution as our guide, and no drone strikes would be legal on any citizen in the United States within our borders". The fact that this is danced around is just ridiculous. So, an event like Pearl harbor would mean the president can go on a killing spree of U.S. citizens? Riiiiiight. Maybe someone needs to mail a copy of the bill of rights to the White House and have the legal folks take a look at it. "

...you support this:

Should the Senate pass the Cruz, Paul drone bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022480661

Maybe someone should read up on the President's Constitutional authority, and no it doesn't authorize the President to bomb Americans sitting at a cafe.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

*It's not about Rand Paul!* [View all] whatchamacallit Mar 2013 OP

Well, when Rand gets droned on... RobertEarl Mar 2013 #1

Heh, I won't hold my breath... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #2

Yes, it is about Ron & Rand Paul and his BFF David Duke & his John Birch Society backing. graham4anything Mar 2013 #3

Tell that ProSense Mar 2013 #4

You won't be able to ride this latest wave of Greenwald/Paul derangement much longer whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #5

Have you ProSense Mar 2013 #7

I haven't read it, but I will now n/t whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #8

Any Democratic Senator who wants to undermine Rand Paul can step us and oppose Obama's drone policy. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #32

O.k. Get rid of drones Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2013 #46

So the best that you have is a straw-man argument while relying upon ad hominem fallacy? AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #47

Hey, while you're at it... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #26

Message auto-removed BO 08 Mar 2013 #27

I think you may have missed my point... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #28

Is there ProSense Mar 2013 #29

"There are people validating Rand Paul" ljm2002 Mar 2013 #30

No ProSense Mar 2013 #68

So your worry is... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #69

No ProSense Mar 2013 #70

No ljm2002 Mar 2013 #71

Wait, ProSense Mar 2013 #74

"Didn't I already respond"... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #75

OK, ProSense Mar 2013 #76

I must say... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #78

This ProSense Mar 2013 #79

Here's a quick logic lesson... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #81

That's not ProSense Mar 2013 #82

Well thanks for demonstrating... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #83

LOL! ProSense Mar 2013 #84

Maybe what you need is an English lesson... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #85

Maybe ProSense Mar 2013 #86

"what you need is a hobby" ljm2002 Mar 2013 #87

Oh, ProSense Mar 2013 #88

"I have a hobby"... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #89

LOL! ProSense Mar 2013 #91

You say "No means No"... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #90

Here: ProSense Mar 2013 #92

Avoiding the question again, I see... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #93

Yes, ProSense Mar 2013 #94

So the "No, to the first"... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #95

So ProSense Mar 2013 #96

Here: ljm2002 Mar 2013 #97

. ProSense Mar 2013 #99

. ljm2002 Mar 2013 #100

Captain Double Standard strikes again! /nt Marr Mar 2013 #34

Thanks for posting this... I had not seen this:"If you happen to be the son of a bad person, is that midnight Mar 2013 #51

They were supporting Bolton's position in this thread: NOVA_Dem Mar 2013 #54

I never once had concerns that Obama would drone us. Or shoot us, or bayonet us, etc. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #6

I agree re: Obama, but fear potential others, both now since it doesn't say it must be Obama Lionessa Mar 2013 #10

That's reassuring. 99Forever Mar 2013 #11

Why is this an issue now? I was never in a panic that any President would do this. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #13

Is English not your first language? 99Forever Mar 2013 #25

Right, because before drones, there was no way an evil President could kill people stevenleser Mar 2013 #31

Minimizing and condescending garbage. 99Forever Mar 2013 #44

You realize your only response was in the form of a logical fallacy, right? stevenleser Mar 2013 #63

Here is some help, read about the guilt by association fallacy in this link stevenleser Mar 2013 #64

That's right Steve, make it about me personally. 99Forever Mar 2013 #66

Your assertions were fallacious. I'm sorry you are having problems accepting that. stevenleser Mar 2013 #67

No one needs to be concerned about the use of physical force against those who wish to speak up? AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #35

Police brutality and oppression of peaceful protest are a concern, but not quite in the same league TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #39

You have to be patient. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #40

Stories of Police overseeing OWS were doing just that... Plotting Assinations.... midnight Mar 2013 #55

Your argument is no more than: "We should trust our government!". Romulox Mar 2013 #73

Heh. zappaman Mar 2013 #9

You know nothing of Zappa do you? whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #12

Pretty sure he would have said zappaman Mar 2013 #14

As he may have been a libertarian, probably not whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #15

He didn't like ANY politicians zappaman Mar 2013 #16

Brilliant! whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #17

You're welcome! zappaman Mar 2013 #18

Guess you didn't bother to read or couldn't comprehend the OP whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #20

I'm sure he appreciates your support! zappaman Mar 2013 #21

Intellectual dishonesty whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #22

That would slow things down. n/t AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #36

Simpleton Underground bobduca Mar 2013 #77

It just shows the moral bankruptcy of the drone thing quinnox Mar 2013 #19

Wait ProSense Mar 2013 #23

Here is the key text of the bill... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #38

My take is different whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #24

That's more accurate, yep. /nt Marr Mar 2013 #37

The executive branch doesn't have enough power. Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #33

It is always about who and not what with some, it is their entire measure. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #41

the fact that many do not see this.... dtom67 Mar 2013 #42

Not a Rand Paul fan at all Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #43

Good question whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #45

Where was Sen Warren? She was spending her time trying to actually do something about the banksters AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #49

I'm glad to hear that. What was she doing about the bankers? n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #52

You're not keeping informed about that? AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #53

Actually, I just looked it up for myself n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #58

I agree we need others besides Rand Paul.. But Paul Wellstone warned us that their are those in midnight Mar 2013 #48

They seem to be in ascendancy right now whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #50

When you use his arguments, it is. baldguy Mar 2013 #56

Oh brother... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #59

You're saying "It's not about Rand Paul", but you don't even know what he's saying???? baldguy Mar 2013 #60

I know he asked questions many of us have been asking for some time whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #61

and it is about those who didn't ask many, many questions G_j Mar 2013 #57

You're correct. It's NOT about Rand Paul. And he's only a gift of shovels truth2power Mar 2013 #62

Of course it isn't about Rand Paul, MadHound Mar 2013 #65

Paul was pandering to the black helicopters/militia/Ruby Ridge/McVeigh geek tragedy Mar 2013 #72

That's his constituency mwrguy Mar 2013 #80

fuck rand paul. he cares about rand paul. spanone Mar 2013 #98

Ok whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #101