Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Paulís Real Beef Isnít Domestic Drones (It's that pesky killing of Islamic terrorists he hates!)
Commentary ^ | 3/6/2013 | Johnathan Tobin

Posted on 03/10/2013 5:56:32 AM PDT by RaceBannon

As of this writing, Senator Rand Paul is still on his feet filibustering the nomination of John Brennan to be director of the CIA. But as he eventually made clear, his goal is not so much to actually stop Brennan, as it is to make a meal of the comments made this morning by Attorney General Eric Holder when he was pressed about U.S. policies on drone strikes on terrorists during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked whether the government considered it had the right to use an armed drone on an American citizen within the borders of the United States, Holder didn’t give the senators a straight answer. They were entitled to such an answer, as well as to the documents they requested. But those who are now saying that the dustup over using drones in the United States is the sole point of Paul’s filibuster hasn’t been listening closely to him as he held the Senate floor.

(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kentucky; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: libertarian; paul; rand; randpaulcritics; randsconcerntrolls; terrorism; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
And the start of the money quote is here:

Yet even if we concede that, as we should, Paul’s real beef is something else. The attempt to shift the discussion about drones to the fanciful suggestion that the Justice Department might target Tea Party members is a red herring. Paul’s core objection to the drone program remains what he calls the “perpetual war” against Islamist terrorists.

1 posted on 03/10/2013 5:56:32 AM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
IBID

But Paul does seem to oppose the drone strikes. Indeed, anyone who heard all or most of his several hours of talk on the subject heard a great deal that shows he thinks the “perpetual war” against the Islamists is the real problem.

The unfortunate fact is that Americans will have to continue fighting al-Qaeda. This is not because our leaders lust for war or are enraptured with drone technology, but because our enemies believe they are engaged in war that will go on for generations until we succumb. Winning that struggle will require patience and endurance as well as the will to seek out these enemies wherever they may be plotting. Targeted killings of these terrorists are necessary and effective. But Paul’s core critique of the administration is not about a theoretical drone attack in the United States but about this very tactic.

2 posted on 03/10/2013 5:59:36 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I mean...REALLY!

Sorry. You’ve lost me.


3 posted on 03/10/2013 5:59:42 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

BS article.

Rand’s queston was very specific about citizens NOT engaged in combat against the USA.

His position on radical islam has nothing to do with this. Video here:

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/06/video-rand-paul-on-the-rise-of-islamic-radicalism/

Your article is a disgusting hit piece filled with lies.


4 posted on 03/10/2013 6:04:57 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
>> he calls the "perpetual war" against Islamist terrorists.

Opposed to the "perpetual war against Islamist terrorists"

So maybe we should ask Paul if he's for the terrorists or against the terrorists. I was under the impression that he supported dispatching terrorists, but not necessarily US citizens without due process.

5 posted on 03/10/2013 6:05:16 AM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

I know, quoting PAUL statements back to PAULBOTS confuses them

I mean, REALLY!

Sorry, you lost before you ever read this, I guess...


6 posted on 03/10/2013 6:05:31 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
I regret that we no longer declare war on some specific entity, traditionally a country, and then go about destroying it. Now we have 'missions' where borders are irrelevant and the silent hand of death can visit anyplace, anytime, and with no consequences. Well OK then Skynet is US. Pop the bubbly.

I stand with Rand

7 posted on 03/10/2013 6:06:04 AM PDT by corkoman (Release the Palin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Funny, it was quite honest, yet, like a Ron Paul supporter, you attack the message instead of it’s contents

You RONULANS copy the tactics of the democrat party more than the republican party

The basic moral standpoint of Libertarians is to the left of moderate democrats, yet you claim to be republicans

Why is that?

And why is it that so many anti-Semitic persons, left wing CODE PINK, now Van jones, and soon to come DAVID DUKE supporters flock to the RONULAN point of view?


8 posted on 03/10/2013 6:08:19 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

“Like communism, radical Islam is an ideology with worldwide reach,” Rand Paul said. “Containing radical Islam requires a worldwide strategy like containment.”

Paul argued that adopting a Reagan-like stance in American foreign policy would better serve American interests.

“The truth is that Reagan used clear messages of communism’s evil and clear exposition of America’s strength to contain and ultimately transcend the Soviet Union,” he said.

Paul’s speech was delivered on Reagan’s 102nd birthday. More than 300 people attended the event, filling two auditoriums.

...............

Rand Paul is 100% correct. Not many politicians have the balls to say that radical islam is evil.


9 posted on 03/10/2013 6:10:39 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I guess you missed the part where Rand was leading the fight to stop the sale of F-16s to the goat humpers.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/01/31/Sen-Rand-Paul-Amendment-No-F-16s-To-Egypt

In defending holder, mcstain and obungo you've really gone around the bend to full on nutter.

10 posted on 03/10/2013 6:13:31 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
You RONULANS...

Yes, as always, the best way to advance your position is to start name calling. /s

11 posted on 03/10/2013 6:14:18 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

But Paul does seem to oppose the drone strikes. Indeed, anyone who heard all or most of his several hours of talk on the subject heard a great deal that shows he thinks the “perpetual war” against the Islamists is the real problem.

The unfortunate fact is that Americans will have to continue fighting al-Qaeda. This is not because our leaders lust for war or are enraptured with drone technology, but because our enemies believe they are engaged in war that will go on for generations until we succumb. Winning that struggle will require patience and endurance as well as the will to seek out these enemies wherever they may be plotting. Targeted killings of these terrorists are necessary and effective. But Paul’s core critique of the administration is not about a theoretical drone attack in the United States but about this very tactic.

FOR LEGAL DOPE!
FOR LEGAL HOOKERS!
FOR ENDING WAR AGAINST ISLAMISTS IN THIS PERPETUAL WAR THAT WE DIDN’T START!
FOR RONULANISM!


12 posted on 03/10/2013 6:14:58 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I know, quoting PAUL statements back to PAULBOTS confuses them

The two words “perpetual war” does not comprise a "statement".

13 posted on 03/10/2013 6:15:06 AM PDT by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Rand Paul and his father are not the same person and yet you are deliberately mixing up the two. I was never a Ron Paul supporter.

You should go read up on Rand Paul so that next time you don’t post anything stupid.


14 posted on 03/10/2013 6:15:36 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind

the second best way is to accept single statements that sound good while ignoring the 75% that are dangerous as not relevant

meaning, you aren’t paying attention to the rest of his life and history

such as voting for NDAA

The man is not a patriot, he is a libertarian


15 posted on 03/10/2013 6:16:15 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Lets see, on FR we have Paulbots, Ronulans, Palinistas...

I dont know why there is such an urge to generalize and attack between us Freepers. I suppose it really is true, we are not that different than the other side.

16 posted on 03/10/2013 6:17:25 AM PDT by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

That’s not what I heard.
I heard Paul say if the American takes up arms against the U.S. in a war zone(Middle East), shoot him. He relinquishes his Constitutional protections
when he takes up arms on foreign soil.

His question was what about doing it in the U.S.? Several officials have declared the War on Terror is worldwide and includes the U.S.
Does that make drone strikes on our soil legal?
The answers he got were, hypothetical, unlikely, only if the terrorist could not be captured any other way or it was too difficult.

And then the question as to whether said terrorist was actually in the act of a terrorist strike or merely sitting at a sidewalk cafe unarmed.
Collateral damage, convoys carrying the perp plus others came up also.

Who could be defined as a terrorist ‘worthy’ of having a kill order place on them?

I thought he was spot on.

The Bill of Rights refresher course he presented alone was worth the hours of watching. I couldn’t put it down.


17 posted on 03/10/2013 6:17:34 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
Rand’s queston was very specific about citizens NOT engaged in combat against the USA.

And it was answered.

In a two-sentence letter to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, Holder said he had heard Paul wanted to know if the president could use a drone to kill an American outside of an emergency situation.

"The answer to that question is no," Holder wrote.

18 posted on 03/10/2013 6:20:03 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: corkoman; RaceBannon

Not a Paulbot by any stretch.

I believe if a country is attacked then the attack should be visited upon the attacker thousands of times over. We should have carpet bombed Afghanistan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia till they screamed for peace.

Unfortunately Bush just went after the 1 person and not the nations that gave him free reign. Then tried to fix his daddy’s mess.

I link myself with a bomber Harris and Curtis Lemay kind of warrior. Not an LBJ/Nixon, GHW Bush/ GW Bush kind of morass warriors


19 posted on 03/10/2013 6:20:34 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

so you support his signing of NDAA?

So you support his voting in of all that is said here:
For years Ron Paul supporters believed that flying a blimp and googling Who Is Ron Paul would lead to the people coming over on September 11 being caused by American foreign policy. It hasn’t and it won’t. Every Paultard victory was an imaginary triumph that took place in their own bubble. Now the Republican Party is climbing into an even smaller version of that bubble.

And then a few years from now we can celebrate every one of the Paul clan’s publicity stunt complete with the No Drones blimp while losing by a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don’t win by abandoning conservative values.

You don’t win by going liberal on immigration.

You don’t win by going liberal on government spending

You don’t win by going liberal on social values.

And you don’t win by going liberal on national defense.

You either have a conservative agenda or a mixed bag. And Rand Paul is the most mixed bag of all, because the only area that he is conservative on is limited government.

If the new Republican position is open borders, pro-terror and anti-values, then what makes the Republican Party conservative?

Reducing conservatism to cutting the size of government eliminates it and replaces it with libertarianism. It transforms the Republican Party into the party of drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, terrorism... and spending cuts. And the latter is never going to coexist with a society based on the former.

This isn’t the popular thing to write. The popular thing to write is to praise Rand Paul for his political theater and to call it courage. And then maybe to timidly dissent in one or two areas, while praising him as the future of the Republican Party.

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party... then the party has no future.


20 posted on 03/10/2013 6:20:57 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vinnie

Then why is Rand against the war on Al Qaeda and why is he quoting CODE PINK, ANSWER, all the left wing anti-war groups, to include ADAM KOKESH THE TRAITOR by claiming

” it is perpetual war”

war that we didn’t start, yet RAND wants to stop fighting back

that means he is surrendering, he is a DHIMMI


21 posted on 03/10/2013 6:22:49 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
From about 700 AD to 1500 AD the West waged a war against Islam in Spain.

Most of the knights that made up the core of Western forces came from France, Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Cornwall ~ and maybe England but not all that many from there or the German speaking states.

If Paul imagines the last decade or so is a long time he wouldn't have stood up to the Reconquista very well.

Now, back to the Reconquista ~ a young knight growing up in most of the Western core of Western Europe who was anything but the eldest son could expect to take ownership of a horse, some hand me down or inherited armor, buy a good sword, and take off for Spain where he could hope to join a Christian force engaged in a continuation battle against the Moors.

If he were lucky he'd get a farm and some serfs. If he were unlucky he'd die, be maimed, or have enough sense left to make the long trek back around the Bay of Biscay to home.

700+ years is a very long time ~ that's a civilization's lifespan, not a mere battle ~ which is what makes it difficult to comprehend the impact of the Reconquista on The West ~

It's may not be over.

22 posted on 03/10/2013 6:23:19 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Spamming this website for John McCain must pay well. There’s no other explanation for your continual nonsense.


23 posted on 03/10/2013 6:23:28 AM PDT by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
The man is not a patriot, he is a libertarian

So, being one of those automatically excludes the other? I don't think it works that way.

24 posted on 03/10/2013 6:23:58 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Rand Paul and his father are not the same person and yet you are deliberately mixing up the two. I was never a Ron Paul supporter.

You should go read up on Rand Paul so that next time you don’t post anything stupid.


25 posted on 03/10/2013 6:25:10 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I was under the impression that he supported dispatching terrorists, but not necessarily US citizens without due process.

That was the clear impression I got. He did speak about collateral damage overseas but Paul's detractors don't have the courage to speak honestly about that either.

During the Bush administration we showed considerably more restraint in using the drones. On the other hand, Obama seems to love killing and more important, driving the most radical into power. After all, the very week Obama was on his European peace prize tour, he was quietly ordering cruise missile attacks into Yemen.
26 posted on 03/10/2013 6:25:43 AM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Islam is radical Islam.


27 posted on 03/10/2013 6:26:59 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, followed by DUE PROCESS.

Defend against all ememies, foreign and domestic. Non-citizens, at least until recently, were denied certain rights that are granted to citizens as a matter of course, one of these being, due process.

Targeting of US citizens on American soil CANNOT be done at the whim of whoever happens to be in the White House, or in the case of this regime, the White Hut.

It was not about the drones (true enough), but the usurpation of authority to KILL persons possing US citizenship without due process.

True, the person in question perhaps should not have been granted US citizenship in the first place, as he had chosen to become an enemy of the Republic, but there is also DUE PROCESS to be followed BEFORE execution takes place.

Otherwise we are back to the situations at Ruby Ridge and Waco.


28 posted on 03/10/2013 6:32:09 AM PDT by alloysteel (What is all too obvious, is not obvious to all. Until it is too late to reverse course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

IT took Holder days to admit that it was not constitutional. You would thing that a no would have been an immediate response. What I figure from that is that was an attempt to expand the Pres powers over all of us. And they can blow that out their Obama!


29 posted on 03/10/2013 6:33:23 AM PDT by DooDahhhh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I disagree with a ‘perpetual’ war against terrorists...We should kill them now and get it over with. Quit putting up with these ticky tack attacks.

I disagree with drone strikes on ‘terrorist’ citizens in this country....because the line is too easily blurred and they don’t give a crap about collateral damage.


30 posted on 03/10/2013 6:34:55 AM PDT by WCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Democrats stick by their own kind.

Fellow thieves. Fellow vandals. Fellow rapists. Fellow murderers (especially of children).

They dream of the day when they get to treat us the same way we would be treated in Pakistan or Somalia. Buy more bullets!


31 posted on 03/10/2013 6:35:41 AM PDT by Wanderer99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
The truth is that Reagan used clear messages of communism’s evil and clear exposition of America’s strength to contain and ultimately transcend the Soviet Union

Your problem is that "Message" aren't going to contain anything where Islam is concerned.

And in reality, it's not Radical Islam that is the problem, but just plain Islam, as shown by it's complete history of conquest and conquer.
32 posted on 03/10/2013 6:36:42 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh
It took Holder days to admit that it was not constitutional. You would thing that a no would have been an immediate response. What I figure from that is that was an attempt to expand the Pres powers over all of us. And they can blow that out their Obama!

And I figure we got played yet again. The sequester, the economy, was out of out the news cycle, and the eccentric Republican was in. Or do you think Holder actually somehow backed down? From what - the filibuster? Get real.

33 posted on 03/10/2013 6:39:57 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

>> FOR LEGAL DOPE!
>> FOR LEGAL HOOKERS!

This is often the argument used against libertarians which should really be directed at the Libertarian Party and the liberals that own it.

Rand Paul’s version of libertarianism, as in small govt, doesn’t necessitate the depravity encapsulated in “Legal Dope and Hookers” as far as I’m concerned.

We all should understand the difference between statism and libertarianism along with the impact these enforcement factors have on morality.


34 posted on 03/10/2013 6:43:16 AM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

>> On the other hand, Obama seems to love killing ...

Maybe he finds it empowering along with the other controls he’s putting into place.


35 posted on 03/10/2013 6:44:55 AM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
What we've been doing since 2001 - putting our soldiers in harm's way under kindergarten "rules of engagement", pretending that those who give physical and moral support to those who kill our soldiers are our "allies", establishing more and more "internal security" in what used to be a country where freedom of movement was once considered one of the main things that distinguished us from totalitarian states - does not constitute "war" as I think of it.

We've been fighting this not-quite-war for twelve years, twice as long as it took us to stamp out Hitler and Tojo, and both Bush and Obama are to blame for its failure. Yes, FAILURE.

Sir, when we start fighting with all our strength and with the determination to extinguish the enemy's ideology from the planet, then I'll consider it "war". Not before.

36 posted on 03/10/2013 6:47:36 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

While we have not yet seen the tactic employed I would consider some other thoughts in regards to the use of drones.

0bama ordered an American citizen killed in Yemen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?_r=0

Now, many here will dismiss this killing as he was an ‘enemy combatant,’ traitor, etc. And yes, to a degree I do get that, but was he never legally declared that through due process?

And this is indeed where I have my real big sticking point on this drone program as a whole. Let’s say you decide to go on vacation in a foreign land. Mexico maybe, the Carribean, or maybe Canada I don’t know...you are just out of the country for some reason be it business or pleasure. Consider in your mind that by being a member of the Tea Party, posting here on FR, going to protests, or make strong worded calls to your representative has somehow put you on ‘the list.’ We all sort of joke about being on the government list(s).

The drone program is a very neat and tidy assissination program on foreign soil, isn’t it.

We all more or less agreed that the idea of the drone program inside the U.S. would freak us out. You never know how the government defines radical/extremist/enemy combatant very well these days, do you?

Perpetual war and the battlefield is everywhere and the government has an ever growing kill list.

I don’t think Rand is against killing islamist terrorists. I do think he is against killing American citizens without some sort of due process of law.

” The missile strike on Sept. 30, 2011, that killed Mr. Awlaki — a terrorist leader whose death lawyers in the Obama administration believed to be justifiable — also killed Mr. Khan, though officials had judged he was not a significant enough threat to warrant being specifically targeted. The next month, another drone strike mistakenly killed Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who had set off into the Yemeni desert in search of his father. Within just two weeks, the American government had killed three of its own citizens in Yemen. Only one had been killed on purpose. “

Lawyers determined it justifiable, not a court, not a military court, lawyers and 0bama. That is a lot or power.

This is a very slipperly slope and there is one thing I do know in my heart, I do not trust my government with this kind of power here in the U.S. And if I am afraid here, but know I am protected from them here...why should that change if I need to leave the country?


37 posted on 03/10/2013 6:48:52 AM PDT by EBH ( American citizens do not negotiate with political terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

If Rand Paul is eccentric, then we need a LOT more eccentrics like him in the Republican Party. He certainly jarred the opposition, shook them to their very roots, as it were.

And that included the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams, also sometimes referred to as “RINOs”, those who are perfectly happy to keep the balance of interaction with the Current Regime on a cozy level of amity and what they believe to be mutual admiration.

However, the admiration only flows one direction. Bronco Bama really despises all and anybody who have the termity to call themselves “Republican”, no matter what stripe.


38 posted on 03/10/2013 6:50:32 AM PDT by alloysteel (What is all too obvious, is not obvious to all. Until it is too late to reverse course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DooDahhhh

you can accuse Holder of being stupid or of being an evil conspirator, but you’d be wrong ~ he is UTTERLY stupid. The man is a political thug. He couldn’t answer because his handlers hadn’t written up a position ~ a simple oversight on their part.


39 posted on 03/10/2013 6:55:14 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Except Rand’s eccentricity includes being pro-amnesty, which is the death to conservatism and the US.


40 posted on 03/10/2013 6:55:46 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero; RaceBannon
I've come to believe that there are those who deliberately desire that the war on Islamism be a perpetual war.

Those people are not friends to conservatism, or to the America that I love.

41 posted on 03/10/2013 6:57:05 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I agree with this response.

No one is proposing to kill innocent Americans.

But we can’t exclude the possibility it may be necessary to use drones to terminate Islamic terrorists here in America. I’d rather kill them first than see Americans dead.

Rand Paul wants to read them their constitutional rights. I don’t want them to mass murder Americans. For me, its not even a close call.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.


42 posted on 03/10/2013 7:02:11 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
there are those who deliberately desire that the war on Islamism be a perpetual war.

A key thought (above imho).

Mimic Vietnam and lose, or mimic Korea and wait for more war. Mimic Iraq and mimic Afghanistan. Mimic the past, reap the past. Perpetual war reaps perpetual profits for the weapons manufacturers. Peace means one side or the other won and profits have to be generated from other methods and by other means while weapons' manufacturing moves to back burner of the stove. Wars build economies as in WWII. Economics build wars as in prior WWII. Vicious cycles till one side has won only to rinse, repeat, rinse, and repeat. To paraphrase ... peace is constantly fleeting.

43 posted on 03/10/2013 7:07:45 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Lol. Yeah McCain boehner Graham and th other clowns really are the way forward. Geeeeeezzz.

I


44 posted on 03/10/2013 7:10:50 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave ofo attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I haven’t followed Rand Paul that much but do know he is not near the isolationist his father Ron is.


45 posted on 03/10/2013 7:13:55 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind

Lol. Seriously, dude needs to stand in front of the mirror and read that to himself.


46 posted on 03/10/2013 7:14:14 AM PDT by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Jonathon Tobin on any given day is full of chit. Why do you even post this carpola?

If you want to be afraid of something be afraid of the US govt. They are scarier than the terrorists. They are getting ready to terrorize you and me my misguided friend.


47 posted on 03/10/2013 7:16:15 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

You better go to his web site and rethink that thought. Spewing out words without knowledge is ignorance. Quoting from his web site:
Immigration

I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security. I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately. In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.

Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.


48 posted on 03/10/2013 7:20:59 AM PDT by Racer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

No matter how anyone spins it the issue is the US Constitution.

Is the Constitution still the law of the land or can Obama continue to ignore it and govern as he sees fit?

Paul had the guts to finally challenge Obama on his unconstitutional governance.

Obama finally had to back down and admit the Constitution still reigned supreme, but it was obvious he didn’t want to.


49 posted on 03/10/2013 7:24:24 AM PDT by Iron Munro (I miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
But we can’t exclude the possibility it may be necessary to use drones to terminate Islamic terrorists here in America. I’d rather kill them first than see Americans dead.

With the definition or "terrorist" constantly evolving and expanding, it is too easy to replace your "Islamic" modifier with the enemy du jour.

Start with, say drug dealers. Move on to Aryan Brotherhood types. Then the KKK, religious fanatics, child abusers....ad infinitum.

The American system is supposed to punish illegal acts under due process of law. Mitigating that "for the greater good" is not where we want to go. There's no good ultimate outcome to it.

50 posted on 03/10/2013 7:26:12 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson