Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rand Paul and Ron Paul are idiots! Sarah Palin is an idiot. [View all]"No matter what, you're either going to agree with the Pauls or the neocons. "
Do you agree with John Bolton?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586304
I think they're liars. I don't agree with idiots because they say something. I didn't agree with Rand Paul on drones. I thought "Stand With Paul" was pathetic.
Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
By Steve Benen
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.
The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.
Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:
"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."
I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.
But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
119 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't have to declare I agree with them, it's simply a fact that I do in this case.
NuclearDem
Sep 2013
#55
"I stated my opinion, if you disagree with it and want to discuss it, fine."
R. Daneel Olivaw
Sep 2013
#38
I've got nothing against Britney. She's just not all that politically astute. K?
delrem
Sep 2013
#107
You think supporting the President is the only reason to reject hypocrisy and idiocy?
ProSense
Sep 2013
#5
Again, does supporting the President mean one can't reject hypocrisy and idiocy? n/t
ProSense
Sep 2013
#11
Prosense, do you ever feel like some are riding on a merry-go-round and thenbwonder why they never
Thinkingabout
Sep 2013
#106
You've been asked several times now for your personal position on a potential attack on Syria.
Dreamer Tatum
Sep 2013
#40
As a progressive I have no problem with agreeing with the Pauls that a Syrian intervention is a bad
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#37
What you're doing here is drawing a binary. I'm opposed to intervention in Syria and IDGAF about
Erose999
Sep 2013
#50
I was opposed to striking Libya too. And yeah, NeoLib Obama was all too happy to bomb Libya too.
Erose999
Sep 2013
#58
Also, Senators Boxer and Durbin voted against the IWR, but supported the Syria resolution:
ProSense
Sep 2013
#54
Ron Paul was right about Iraq, while Hillary and Kerry must live forever in shame with
HardTimes99
Sep 2013
#60
Without getting all misty-eyed about the past, at the time of the Afghanistan vote,
HardTimes99
Sep 2013
#70
Discredit WHAT? Your stance is vague at best, and curiously designed to move at will.
Dreamer Tatum
Sep 2013
#83
You asked: "So do you disagree with Ron Paul about the Iraq War?" I responded:
ProSense
Sep 2013
#110
So Obama is "scum" and "not even human DNA", and "evil", an "empty suit". Well. Aren't you
uppityperson
Sep 2013
#78
I "wish to conduct your life" by saying that Rand and Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are idiots. n/t
ProSense
Sep 2013
#69
Ron Paul was right on Iraq, and Hillary and Kerry were wrong. So your assertion rings false - nt
HardTimes99
Sep 2013
#72
Here is Obama waxing romantic about his agreement and friendship with Tom Coburn
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2013
#99