Eric Holder states obvious, Rand Paul uses it to troll gullible liberals

[geek tragedy]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/609809-holder-response-to-rand-paul.html

Here is what Eric Holder actually wrote.

On February 20, 2013, you wrote to John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the Administration's views about whether "the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without a trial."

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

If you read the examples cited, he cites as an example of where military force could be used within the United States those where it would be "necessary to protect the hoeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001."

If you disagree that a President would have the authority to use the military to repel a Pearl Harbor/9/11 type of "catatrophic attack" where the attackers included American citizens, please state your reasons why this is such crazy talk from Holder.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. The problem is the openness of interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances"

For me its not about Obama, its about other presidents we could have, who could misuse that. If there is some clear interpretation of "extraordinary circumstances" means, that prevents these extraordinary powers from being used frivolously that I haven't seen, than good. I apologise. But if there isn't, there should be.

[geek tragedy]

2. That power has always been there. You can't have an interpretation

of "extraordinary circumstances" that covers every hypothetically possible scenario.

Holder was stating the obvious. That power has been there for US presidents to abuse for 200 years. That's why it's important to screen out the crazies in the political process.

[napoleon_in_rags]

8. I made this post a few minutes before you posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2463431

A lot of this legal mess comes from the Bush admin, but its left over. But anything that makes Obama look all powerful, like a dictator, helps Republicans right now with this sequester business and all the rest.. It makes it look like the current policies are purely Obama's ideas, not a product of a congress unwilling to compromise.

You say:

That power has been there for US presidents to abuse for 200 years. That's why it's important to screen out the crazies in the political process.

But the fact is, most Americans reject the Nixonian idea that "Its not illegal if the president does it" so we better make damn sure we have a good president. People loathe presidents who have the appearance of taking on extraordinary powers, Bush was the last example. So I think the Obama admin being extra careful on defining the limits of its power on this issue really is a good move.

[stevenleser]

9. I think that is the key. We the people are supposed to screen the crazies out. Not elect them.

There is inherent power in the head of state of virtually every country that can be abused by the wrong person.

[geek tragedy]

10. Yep. If there's a military, the power to abuse it exists.

Whether on paper or not.

[HiPointDem]

12. He didn't say that though, did he? He didn't say "We've always had the authority to kill people

during an attack, a civil war, or a rebellion".


Because *during* is the operative word, and he doesn't want to pin it down to that extent.

For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

"protect the homeland"
"in the circumstances like"

does not rule out preemptive targeted assassination.

[geek tragedy]

15. He wasn't asked about "preemptive targeted assassination."

He was asked whether

the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without a trial."

Was he supposed to answer the question you wish Paul had asked?

[HiPointDem]

11. That's not the only problem. The language of that letter is not specific enough to rule out

preemptive strikes for *any* reason.

All you have to do is say that Mr. X was plotting another 911.

"To protect the homeland in circumstances of threat of a second 911 our drones targeted Mr X."

[geek tragedy]

13. How many hypotheticals was he supposed to run through?

Perhaps you should read his first long paragraph.

[HiPointDem]

14. I read his first paragraph, thanks.

[HiPointDem]

17. perhaps he should have simply ruled out preemptive assassination, period. much clearer and to the

point.

[geek tragedy]

20. Problem is, that wasn't the question that was asked.

the question was whether:

the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without a trial.

Holder's letter made it pretty clear that the way to neutralize terrorist suspects on US soil is via law enforcement--that was his stated policy. Only in the circumstances of catastrophic attacks--note he didn't say to prevent or preempt.

[HiPointDem]

24. It's the context of Paul's question, as the US is presently doing targeted, preemptive

assassinations overseas, on both US and non-US citizens.

In the absence of imminent 'threat to the homeland' or any such bullshit.

[jeff47]

31. "Overseas" is an important distiction

The US can only respond with law enforcement within US jurisdiction.

The FBI can't arrest someone in Yemen. The best possible option would be for the Yemeni police to arrest the person and then hand them over to the US. That's not gonna happen - The Yemeni government would be overthrown for cooperating with the US.

[napoleon_in_rags]

18. I think it makes for a political trap.

These policies (which really are ill-defined in the powers they grant) can be pointed at to say "Oh look, Obama thinks he's all powerful! While Obama, who doesn't have that much power as far as domestic policy, (due to congress) takes the blame for the products of congress, as he is seen as having these king-like powers. I wonder if something could be done to rule out absurd uses (like you mention) without harming the presidents ability to act in an actual catastrophe.

[HiPointDem]

22. no president has ever had any trouble 'acting in an actual catastrophe' & little trouble making

fake claims to justify action *without* an actual catastrophe, either.

gulf of tonkin, incubator babies, huns bayoneting babies, wmd, etc.

the actual danger is not that presidents will be unable to act during catastrophes, but that they will act when there is *no* catastrophe and no reason to act except to take out dissidents and official 'enemies'.

historically, that's the pattern. there's no reason to believe anything has changed today.

[geek tragedy]

57. That danger has existed since 1789.

Nothing Holder said changed that, and quite frankly nothing he could have said would have changed it. You think President Rubio would give a fuck what Eric Holder's letters said?

[HiPointDem]

61. Holder's statement does not rule out preemptive assassinations of americans in the US. That's

the take-away.

and that *does* change something, as before this was beyond the pale.

at least it was not officially sanctioned.

[geek tragedy]

62. So by not saying something he said the opposite? Nt

[HiPointDem]

63. If your aim is to rule something out categorically, you do that. If your aim is to leave the door

open, you do that.

He chose the 2nd option.

He's a lawyer & knows how to use words to do both.

[geek tragedy]

64. His intent was to say as little as possible.

Posse Comitatus covers terrorism suspects inside the US. No military operations without express Congressional authorization to use force within the US.

[ProSense]

3. It's what the Pauls do:

Troll.

It's sickening that assholes like Rand Paul get to demagogue these issues. He doesn't give a fuck about people and their lives.

Making hundreds of thousands hungry or homeless: 'Brutal' or 'a pittance'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022457325

Like his father, he's being hyped while trolling. During the campaign when Rand's crazy surfaced, the excuse used to justify his father was always: Oh, he's not his father. He's certifiably nuts. Now, he's being hyped in a similar fashion. One would think that Ron Paul being exposed as a fraud would open people's eyes.

Ron Paul Seeks UN’s Help In Domain Ownership Dispute

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who once filed legislation to end the United States' participation in the United Nations, is now turning to the international organization for help in obtaining two domain names, the Texas Tribune reported Monday.

The former presidential candidate and congressman filed a complaint Friday with the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency, against the owners of RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org so he could gain control of the domains, according to a blog post published on the site.

His supporters are not pleased with Paul's actions.

Shocked and angered supporters cited Paul’s move as a betrayal of the libertarian principles he has espoused. The website owners reportedly offered to sell the domain name, RonPaul.com, and the 170,000-person mailing list for $250,000 — kicking in RonPaul.org for free — saying that was the free market solution to settle the dispute.

But rather than buy the domains, Paul decided to take his grievances to the organization he railed against during his many years in Congress.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ron-paul-seeks-uns-help-in-domain-name

[NightWatcher]

4. What kind of range do drones have?

In order to respond to a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 type event wouldn't they need to be stationed in every large city with operators ready to go on a moments notice?

Are drones going to become like Swat Armored Personnel tanks, sitting around waiting to be used?

[geek tragedy]

6. The question was more general--whether the President had the authority

to use lethal force against an American on US soil without a trial.

It was gobsmackingly stupid, and Holder treated it with the contempt it deserved.

[jeff47]

26. The question isn't just about drones

It's about military force in general.

For example, the President has control of all sorts of manned aircraft. And they literally intercept every aircraft that enters US airspace. And have been for decades (though they were often not armed until after 9/11).

If the plane is off it's flight path, and heading towards the new WTC or some other landmark, the President can order it shot down from those manned aircraft. This, btw, is not a new claim on power. After all, why intercept every aircraft if you can't do anything about them?

[Lint Head]

5. Hell, GWB could have order military jet fighters to shoot down the planes that flew into the WTC.

He had the power and the right to do so.

[geek tragedy]

7. Exactly. Paul's question was idiotic. nt

[HiPointDem]

19. yes; but could he have ordered drones to kill the 911 plotters before the fact is actually the

question.

lots of people seem intent on blurring that distinction.

i wonder why.

[geek tragedy]

21. No, that's not the question. That's not what Paul

asked.

That is your question, not Rand Paul's.

[HiPointDem]

23. that's the context of paul's question, as the US is presently using preemptive drone strikes against

US and non-US citizens overseas, IN THE ABSENCE OF IMMINENT THREAT OR 'CATASTROPHE'.

[geek tragedy]

25. That wasn't Paul's question. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

This means nothing to you?

[HiPointDem]

27. = 'we reject the use of force -- in cases where law enforcement is the best means to stop a

terrorist. but extraordinary circumstances can justify use of force to stop a terrorist and protect the homeland -- e.g. in the circumstances like 911'

[geek tragedy]

32. Yes, in the circumstances of an attack, not to preempt an attack.

Terrorist plots that have yet to be realized are not extraordinary circumstances per the plain meaning of Holder's letter.

[HiPointDem]

35. 'force necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of an attack' can = forestalling

such an attack.

'in the circumstances of' = weasel words.

if he'd wanted to limit it to 'during an attack' he'd have said so. he's a lawyer.


circumstances plural of cir·cum·stance (Noun)
Noun

A fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action.
An event or fact that causes or helps to cause something to happen, typically something undesirable.

[geek tragedy]

41. Except for the part where they said that they explicitly reject the use

of military force to do that, stating instead that law enforcement is the way to disrupt such plots.

[HiPointDem]

42. except they *didn't* say that; they left the door open for droning.

[geek tragedy]

46. You told me you read this part:

the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.

Just in case that wasn't clear enough, he then writes:

We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

[ProSense]

29. Holder wrote an intelligent response to an idiot.

Video: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/#50829264

Rachel Maddow Annihilates the Paranoid Delusions of Rand Paul
http://www.politicususa.com/rachel-maddow-annihilates-paranoid-delusions-rand-paul.html

[jeff47]

28. And "overseas" is a very important distinction

Because outside US jurisdiction, no US law enforcement response is possible.

[HiPointDem]

30. it's not a very important distinction at all. do you have a problem with the fact that no russian

law enforcement response is possible in the US?

do you think the russians have a right to drone us citizens within us borders?

[jeff47]

36. It is important because it limits the options of the President.

The FBI can't arrest anyone in Yemen. And the Yemeni police aren't going to arrest someone and turn them over to the US - the Yemeni government would be overthrown by their Islamist faction.

do you think the russians have a right to drone us citizens within us borders?

They're free to do so as long as they've followed their procedures for a declaration of war, and if such a war was considered "defensive" by the international community (or even better, authorized by the UN).

We're also free to retaliate if that happened.

[HiPointDem]

38. are we at war against yemen?

i also reject your claim that droning people is the only option the US has in dealing with actual terrorists living inside yemen.

[jeff47]

39. We're at war with the Al Queda aligned groups in Yemen.

It even has a Congressional "authorization of the use of military force" from Congress and a UN resolution.

i also reject your claim that droning people is the only option the US has in dealing with actual terrorists living inside yemen.

What other options do you believe we have?

[HiPointDem]

40. Are we at war with YEMEN? You required a declaration of war for the russians to drone us.

does that mean they can declare war 'against terrorist groups in the US' and the US will be OK with drone attacks here? let alone ordinary people.

some stupid declaration of war against a terrorist group that can be *anywhere* on the globe is actually a declaration of war on international law and the idea of national sovereignty.

[jeff47]

43. If the Russians were at war with the NRA,

followed the Russian government's procedures for declaring war on those people, and got the same international backing I was talking about before, it would be legal.

i also reject your claim that droning people is the only option the US has in dealing with actual terrorists living inside yemen.

If the US is upset about such attacks, the US has options from "doing nothing" to seeking international help to a retaliatory strike.

some stupid declaration of war against a terrorist group that can be *anywhere* on the globe is actually a declaration of war on international law and the idea of national sovereignty

Not when international law is how such a war was authorized.

Btw, you forgot to mention what options you think we have in Yemen besides drone strikes (or air strikes in general).

[HiPointDem]

44. and how about if the russians declared war against the aspca? or the naacp? how would you

be with that?

apparently you're perfectly happy to have your political enemies bombed, even within us borders.

i don't even want to talk to you, that's so disgusting.

[jeff47]

47. It's legal. It doesn't matter if I like it or not.

There's plenty of things that are legal that I don't like, from the death penalty to the "war on drugs". That doesn't make them illegal.

Btw, you still have managed to forget to list the options we have in Yemen beyond air strikes.

[onenote]

33. Really? Because those words aren't anywhere in the letter Rand Paul wrote

John O. Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. Brennan,

In consideration of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), I have repeatedly requested that you provide answers to several questions clarifying your role in the approval of lethal force against terrorism suspects, particularly those who are U.S. citizens. Your past actions in this regard, as well as your view of the limitations to which you are subject, are of critical importance in assessing your qualifications to lead the CIA. If it is not clear that you will honor the limits placed upon the Executive Branch by the Constitution, then the Senate should not confirm you to lead the CIA.

During your confirmation process in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), committee members have quite appropriately made requests similar to questions I raised in my previous letter to you-that you expound on your views on the limits of executive power in using lethal force against U.S. citizens, especially when operating on U.S. soil. In fact, the Chairman of the SSCI, Sen. Feinstein, specifically asked you in post-hearing questions for the record whether the Administration could carry out drone strikes inside the United States. In your response, you emphasized that the Administration "has not carried out" such strikes and "has no intention of doing so." I do not find this response sufficient.

The question that I and many others have asked is not whether the Administration has or intends to carry out drone strikes inside the United States, but whether it believes it has the authority to do so. This is an important distinction that should not be ignored.

Just last week, President Obama also avoided this question when posed to him directly. Instead of addressing the question of whether the Administration could kill a U.S. citizen on American soil, he used a similar line that "there has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil." The evasive replies to this valid question from the Administration have only confused the issue further without getting us any closer to an actual answer.

For that reason, I once again request you answer the following question: Do you believe that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial?

I believe the only acceptable answer to this is no.

Until you directly and clearly answer, I plan to use every procedural option at my disposal to delay your confirmation and bring added scrutiny to this issue and the Administration's policies on the use of lethal force. The American people are rightfully concerned, and they deserve a frank and open discussion on these policies.



Sincerely,







Rand Paul, M.D.

United States Senator

[HiPointDem]

34. other words that are not in the letter = a categorical refusal of the right to do preemptive strikes

on us citizens inside the US.

yet you are reading that into the letter.

the US is preemptively assassinating both US & non-US citizens overseas, using secret evidence, in the absence of any known imminent or ongoing threat to the 'homeland' or US citizens.

that is the context of rand's question. whether holder says so in his silly letter or not.

and killing 'collateral damage' as well.

if it were happening inside the us it would be clearly seen for what it is: an act of war and a violation of sovereignty and international law.

but since it's only happening to 'foreigners' people like yourself are happy to defend such lawlessness and criminal activity.

[geek tragedy]

49. Then Rand Paul should have asked if the President had the authority

to use lethal force to preemptively take out individuals planning terror attacks.

It's playing Calvinball to get upset with Holder for answering the question that was asked rather than the question you personally would have asked him.

[geek tragedy]

50. You are correct in that Holder did not answer the

"could you do an al awlaki type of hit inside the US" question.

But, Rand Paul asked the wrong question.

[Robb]

16. Why haven't you accepted Rand Paul into your heart?

I mean, surely he has only progressives' best interests in mind?

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. !!!

[freshwest]

56. K&R!!!

[WilliamPitt]

45. Because a drone strike against American citizens would have thwarted Pearl Harbor.

I read that book, too. In the fiction section.

The comparison makes no sense whatsoever. It's the summoning of an old bugaboo, and neatly stapled to 9/11.

A wee bit of grandstanding.

[geek tragedy]

48. Perhaps you should re-read Paul's question.

"the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, without a trial."

The question is not whether the President can use drone strikes. The question is whether the President can use lethal force.

Holder then says "we use law enforcement to deal with terrorist plots in the US, but the use of lethal force isn't out of the question if we're experiencing a catastrophic attack."

Dude, you got played by the libertarian crank on this one.

Edited to add:

Imagine if Holder had simply said: "We aren't allowed to use armed drones against US citizens on US soil." That would have not answered his question, because it would have left open using snipers, fighter aircraft, tanks, and cruise missiles.

[Purveyor]

52. +1 EOM

[graham4anything]

53. Headlines-Eric Holder for US Supreme Court. Simply the best. Rand Paul indicted for treason.

that would be perfect.

[dflprincess]

55. Just what we need on the court another corporate sell out n/t

[Comrade_McKenzie]

73. My only worries about the drone program is making sure...

The insurance of the drone operators covers carpal tunnel.

[think]

54. Fuck Paul. Fuck drones. Fuck Holder.

Fuck......

[forestpath]

58. +1

[davidthegnome]

65. Agreed.

Best post I've seen yet on this topic. Very to the point. Would read again.

[think]

66. As you may have guessed

I'm not a fan of any of the above.

Sorry, I get frustrated and F bombs fill the void quickly to express extreme disapproval of an action, place thing, or person. I'm sure to some it reflects badly on my discussion skills and that's no bodies fault but mine.

It is understandable that some do take offense to both the use of the word and the views represented when used. To that end I try to drop them sparingly unless a situation seems so over the top I lose the ability to do much rather blurt of my obvious outrage and frustration.

Ultimately though I am more offended by our relatively indiscriminate use of drones against poor people in the name of the war on terror which ends up killing innocent men, women, and children. and i am very concerned that same cold hearted, spiritually void mind set could easily creep into the American social psyche considering the current path we are trending.

But with our impeccable record for careful use of drone strikes in third world countries, for reducing excessive use of force by law enforcement here in the states, and for having the lowest rates of incarceration of any modern country in the world; I'm not sure why I'm so frustrated.....

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says

By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 8:33 PM EDT, Tue September 25, 2012


(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.

~Snip~

In contrast to more conservative U.S. statements, the Stanford/NYU report -- titled "Living Under Drones" -- offers starker figures published by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, an independent organization based at City University in London.

"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders....

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

[davidthegnome]

67. Not offended at all.

Some times "fuck this", or "fuck that", is the ONLY appropriate thing to say. We're very much in agreement on this particular issue. Not only am I not offended, I'll second what you said.

Fuck Paul. Fuck drones. Fuck Holder. On edit: I just noticed I forgot the final word. Fuck.

Honestly, the drones scare the hell out of me. We're using them as tools of war, primarily, at the moment. However, I suspect that before long we will have them involved in many domestic spying programs, even armed and prepared to eliminate American citizens who are deemed a threat, or might possibly have some possible tie to a possible terrorist. The language is all rather vague. I mean, imagine if you were living in a village somewhere in Pakistan or a similar area. A drone suddenly starts hovering around for days and weeks, it's buzz annoying and scaring people. You don't know who the target might be, perhaps even those controlling it aren't certain, so they keep looking for the right "bad guy". They find him, the missiles go off, killing him and perhaps also innocent people who might have been standing near him, perhaps even his children.

Coming soon, I fear, to a town near us. I fear that the war on terror, being fought on American soil to some extent, will be used to justify any action, even when we commit acts of terror ourselves. It's despicable, it's scary, it makes me wonder if, in the near future, it might be wise to move to a saner Country... if there is one.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Finally a post that makes sense.

Fuck....

[hay rick]

59. "Like."

"For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."

The object of using military force would be to prevent an attack, not to retaliate afterwards. The problem is, if the attack is prevented by killing suspects, nobody can say afterwards whether the attack would have been another Pearl Harbor, another self-mutilating underwear bomber, or a simple case of mistaken identity. "Preventative" strikes that result in the death of suspects replace the judiciary with judge-jury-executioner drones.

I believe we have more to lose through potential abuse than the marginal benefit that we might receive from thwarting terror attacks that would not be prevented by security measures already in place.

[geek tragedy]

60. He states that prevention of terrorist attacks within the US is the job of law

enforcement, not the military.

Absent someone a scenario with someone flying an airliner into a building, hard to imagine how military force would even prevent an attack.

[woo me with science]

69. What a steaming load of apologist bullshit.

Sitting here arguing that the President should have the right to murder Americans in our own country without due process.

It is beyond putrid and disgusting and offensive that this OP even stands at what is supposed to be a democratic website.

This is what this country has become, when corporations own our government and our media and have their ugly, slimy tentacles of propaganda everywhere around us, down to discussion boards on the internet. Portraying any of this as even remotely constitutional, and pretending that reasonable people can have reasonable arguments about whether the President should have the right to murder any of us is pure fascist propaganda, and it should have no place whatsoever on DU.

What utter, steaming, reeking indefensible BULLSHIT.

[geek tragedy]

70. Lying about what I wrote and then piling on with insults

doesn't make you look righteous or smart or principled.

Quite the opposite.

Anger is no substitute for reason.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

72. You seem to have a problem with being a Democrat...

And our Democratic President.

Why the fuck are YOU allowed to stand at what is supposed to be a Democratic website?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

71. For anyone siding with REPUBLICAN Rand Paul, I suggest this:

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/Federal%20Voter%20Registration_1209_en9242012.pdf

Do us all a favor and just make the switch. We're sick of the "liberty" crowd whining about things that doesn't personally affect them.

[woo me with science]

74. Oh for fuck's sake.

I also heard a Republican say the other day that he is opposed to strangling puppies.

So I guess we need to round up some puppies and get a mess of rope.

Sick of the puerile second grade argument that if a Republican ever opposes anything, Democrats must then support it.