Rand Paul and Ron Paul are idiots! Sarah Palin is an idiot.

[ProSense]

16. Really?

"If you are not to be tarred as a RW nut for agreeing with every neo-con stooge on Syria then perhaps you should cease your long-standing 24/7/365 campaign of tarring everyone who disagrees with you as a Rand Paul sympathizer."

This is the simplistic nonsense that continues to drive the discussion.

Heritage Action Opposes Military Strike On Syria
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/heritage-action-opposes-military-strike-on-syria

I don't agree with RW idiotic tools because they are RW idiotic tools. Claiming that anyone who opposes or supports this action is aligning themselves with a certain group is silliness.

When I point out that I disagree with Rand Paul and Ron Paul, it's not to claim anyone else agrees with them. It's to express my opposition to their idiocy.

If you want to declare that you agree with them, that's on you.

As I said, 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'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