"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
For the second year in a row, Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, earning 30 percent of the vote. The Texas congressman, known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.
And in 2013:
Mini Me follows in his dad's footsteps:
Quoted Text
Rand Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, edging out fellow Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), 25% to 23%, Roll Call reports.
Other top finishers: Rick Santorum at 8%, Chris Christie at 7%, Paul Ryan at 6% and Scott Walker at 5%.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Its scary Rubio made it that high and Santorum made 3rd
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens
By David Weigel | Posted Monday, March 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM
A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.
Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.
The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.
(The kind of drone strikes that killed terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki)
"A clear majority of Americans say the U.S. government should use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) think the U.S. government should use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists. Americans are, however, much less likely to say the U.S. should use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists (41%); to launch airstrikes in the U.S. against suspected terrorists living here (25%); and to launch airstrikes in the U.S. against U.S. citizens living here who are suspected terrorists (13%).
Here is how it works box...Al Awlaki was a U.S. citizen living abroad and a suspected terrorist. Now if you read the polling data accurately without the box-a-rox bias, you will see that 41%(a minority) of Americans SUPPORT drone strike on citizens suspected of terrorism living abroad, while 52% OPPOSE (a majority) drone strikes against Americans suspected of terrorism living abroad.
I know it's tough for you to see America's public opinion turn against the death penalty for Americans suspectrd of a crime and living abroad without due process.
(The kind of drone strikes that killed terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki)
"A clear majority of Americans say the U.S. government should use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against suspected terrorists."
because they AREN'T THERE....AND THEY DON'T F'EN CARE....as long as toilet paper at the local walmart goes on sale, they don't have to break a sweat and the birth control and viagra are free......oh....and what is happening to the fu**in' virgin bachelor.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Randy Paul changes his tune... prepairing for his "Presidential Bid"!
Quoted Text
In the past, Sen. Rand Paul's "has called for abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service. He's urged an audit of the Federal Reserve. He's questioned the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act." "He's even suggested there's a risk Americans could soon become like Germans of the 'Weimar Republic in 1923' and need wheelbarrows full of money to buy groceries because of hyperinflation triggered by excessive debt. Adolf Hitler, Paul warned, gained power as a result."
"Now that he's considered a possible Republican candidate for president in 2016, Paul isn't emphasizing any of that."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Too bad fact check didn't come out with this earlier. Then Holder wouldn't have had to send a letter to Paul and have the WH Press Secretay announce the Administration's position on the subject. And Graham and McCain could have went ape sh*t on Obama instead of Paul. It's amazing how all these people didn't know this before now. It would have saved them the aggravation and embarrassment. Not to mention the 50 point swing in public opinion about the drone program against Americans.
This came out yesterday and from the constant attacks on Rand since his filibuster I call bs on the story. The fact is Rand Paul is getting a lot of attention and everyone knows he will be running for president, so basically this is just a attempt to attack him. Funniest part is how they say he is irrelevant but yet they take the time and effort to attack him
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Too bad fact check didn't come out with this earlier. Then Holder wouldn't have had to send a letter to Paul and have the WH Press Secretay announce the Administration's position on the subject. And Graham and McCain could have went ape sh*t on Obama instead of Paul. It's amazing how all these people didn't know this before now. It would have saved them the aggravation and embarrassment. Not to mention the 50 point swing in public opinion about the drone program against Americans.
Actually this is a two part answer: The original question was answered long before the now infamous "Randy Rant" on the house floor.
Since the question was already answered BEFORE the Randy Rant, Holder's response was to cleare up some Rand Paul 'confusion' on the issue.
The letter:
Quoted Text
The Attorney General Washington, D.C. March 7, 2013 The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
Can't even stand to listen to him.
"Presidential Bid"!
