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

[ProSense]

92. Yes,

"So do you disagree with Ron Paul about the Iraq War?"

...as I said, I think they're liars. I don't agree with idiots because they say something.

In 2007, the House voted 218 to 212 to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24cong.html

Ron Paul voted no.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

In 2007, Ron Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007

Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for any planned similar acts or acts of war against the United States in the future.

States that no letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued without the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President determines sufficient to ensure the letter's execution.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr3216ih/pdf/BILLS-110hr3216ih.pdf

Of course when he introduced it in 2001, it was "for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator"

September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

<...>

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3076ih/pdf/BILLS-107hr3076ih.pdf

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.

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