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

[ProSense]

I don't agree with them on anything. I don't agree with a single Neocon, not John Yoo, not John Bolton.

Everything they say, all of them, is hypocritical and idiotic bullshit.

I don't agree that referencing past events related to World Wars in relation to a chemical attack is inappropriate. It's more appropriate in relation to gassing people, than it is to the NSA debate.

Alan Grayson: IT'S NOT OKAY WITH ME - "We are not North Koreans. & We don’t live in Nazi Germany."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023028119

I think it's hypocritical to claim that the U.S. is not the world's policeman, but then support santions to prevent Iran from pursing its nuclear program.

Why is it the U.S. responsibility to prevent Iran pursuing its nuclear program?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023587381

Congress would okay Obama strikes against Iran, if not Syria
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/02/1235836/-Congress-would-OK-Obama-strikes-against-Iran-if-not-Syria

I think the evidence that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack is infinitely stronger than the claims to deflect blame to the rebels.

The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778

[NuclearDem]

1. So what's your stance on intervention in Syria then?

No matter what, you're either going to agree with the Pauls or the neocons.

[ProSense]

3. No,

"No matter what, you're either going to agree with the Pauls or the neocons. "

Do you agree with John Bolton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586304

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

[NuclearDem]

4. In this case, yes, I agree with Bolton's position.

But at least I can be honest about where I stand and not be a partisan hack about it.

You still didnt answer the question. Where do you stand on military intervention in Syria?

Because if you say no, you agree with the Pauls. If you say yes, you agree with the neocons.

[ProSense]

9. Well,

"In this case, yes, I agree with Bolton's position. But at least I can be honest about where I stand and not be a partisan hack about it."

...I guess you believe that's admirable. I think Bolton is a liar and a hypocrite, and know his positions, would never promote his opinion as similar to my own.

There are many instance of people who just agree or disagree because they have an agenda. It's like the health care debate when some claimed to support reform and were working to derail it.

[NuclearDem]

13. Are you ever going to answer the question?

Yes, Bolton is a liar and a hypocrite, and in fact, I've called him a moronic ass brain recently.

But at least I have the honesty to admit that, no matter how despicable a human being he is, he happens to be on the correct side of this issue with me. I didn't come to it for the same reasons as him, but here it is.

Since you both refuse to answer the simple question I asked and refuse to acknowledge that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I can only assume you're deliberately intellectually dishonest and simply a team player. If you think that's admirable, you've got a ton of growing up to do.

[ProSense]

28. Again,

"But at least I have the honesty to admit that, no matter how despicable a human being he is, he happens to be on the correct side of this issue with me. I didn't come to it for the same reasons as him, but here it is."

...you may think this is a virtuous position, I do not for the reasons I stated.

"You still didnt answer the question. Where do you stand on military intervention in Syria?"

I have questioned the outcome based on what next? Still, I am not opposed to holding Assad accountable. The facts need to be debated. Why would anyone object to the debate or be quick to dismiss the facts?

I mean, as a case for limited strike was being made, there were people claiming that this was for a ground war and would involve mass casualties. That is not responsible.

[NuclearDem]

35. So, for now, in the yes column.

And whether you like it or not, a yes to military intervention regardless of scale puts you in the same camp as the neocons. Incidentally, that's the same for the President and the SoS.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. Thread win.

[ProSense]

49. You misrepresent my point, but here is why

"So, for now, in the yes column. And whether you like it or not, a yes to military intervention regardless of scale puts you in the same camp as the neocons. Incidentally, that's the same for the President and the SoS."

... this is silliness. It's 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.

[NuclearDem]

55. I don't have to declare I agree with them, it's simply a fact that I do in this case.

And as I've said before, you don't have to unequivocally support someone you happen to agree with on one issue simply because of that issue.

And whether you think they're idiots or not is completely and utterly irrelevant. When you take a position on an issue, and they end up taking the same position, regardless of why or how either of you came to that conclusion, you agree with them. You agree on the conclusion, but can disagree vehemently on the way to arrive to it.

That's why I can say I agree with Bolton, Paul, and any number of idiotic freaks on the right. I agree on the conclusion, not on the reasoning.

[ProSense]

75. Again, it's

"I don't have to declare I agree with them, it's simply a fact that I do in this case."

...simplistic. You declared that people were in the "same camp as the neocons," but so are you. That is unless, you're saying that you don't agree with the neocons who are opposed to this action.

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

[NuclearDem]

77. I never said I wasn't.

I just don't let association get to me. I evaluate a concept based on its own merits, not by virtue of who also holds the position.

[Mojorabbit]

100. +100 nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. You have failed to answer a direct query twice.

You're getting sloppy. Just sloppy.

[ProSense]

22. Nonsense, you don't like the answer you received. That's on you. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. You were asked a query, and you ignored it.

I guess that is your shtick.

[Aerows]

26. No, you really didn't answer the question

Which is typical for you when you know your answer will cast a shade upon your support of President Obama.

You do know it is okay to occasionally disagree with the President, right? Oh wait. I forgot to whom I was replying.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Perhaps she feels that if she disagrees with the Presdent that

it will bog her down with those who do not indulge in reality.

[Aerows]

33. I guess

It's absolutely ludicrous to me that people invest so much in a political leader, one that is just a human being at the end of the day, that they cannot even acknowledge that it is possible that they are not right.

It's cult-like behavior, honestly, and troubling. I've never been so invested in another human being, much less a public figure, that they supplant my own will and ideals.

[ProSense]

36. Why do you think it's my responsibility to prove anything to you?

I stated my opinion, if you disagree with it and want to discuss it, fine.

"Perhaps she feels..."

See, that's silliness right there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. "I stated my opinion, if you disagree with it and want to discuss it, fine."

You stated your opinion to a question not asked of you.

That is your MO.


I've discussed it.


On edit: You have proven to me that you are at best dishonest.

[ProSense]

41. "You stated your opinion to a question not asked of you. "

"That is your MO. "

Instead of fosuing on trying to define me with silly assessments, ask the question again. Like I said, your goal doesn't seem to be an answer. It appears to be deflection about me personally.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

44. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023603275#post1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3603348

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. It might be a violation of her NDA, or the Terms of Service

in her contract.

[Whisp]

39. what exactly was the question?

can you be sure You have all the facts?

what exactly has Obama commited to? Did congress accept his proposal?

did I miss something important?

oh, and Fuck Ron Paul and that Bolton shitlegs.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Read upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023603275#post1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3603348

[Whisp]

47. oh yeh, the Black vs. White arguement.

no grays, just yes and no, good and evil.

Doesn't work that way.

This whole few weeks here reminds me so much of Obama's force feeding seniors cat food that has disappointed many here because their dream of Evil Obama didn't come true.
Same shit, different pile.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. "Doesn't work that way."

Sure it does. It was a very simple query that even a child could have answered, but I expect children are a little more honest.


"Doesn't work that way." Perhaps not for sophists and those with an agenda.

[Whisp]

53. there is nothing simple about that question.

but what could be considered simple minded is asking it when you have no idea what all the playing pieces are in this game.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3603810

[NuclearDem]

59. Yes, it is simple.

It's the same thing I bring up when talking about theism/atheism.

The two answers to that question are "yes, I support military intervention in Syria" or "no, I do not support military intervention in Syria."

The administration is attempting to convince people war is necessary. Until I have good evidence to believe so, I say no.

There are only two choices. If your answer is "I don't know", then you fall into the no column simply because that's the starting position.

[Whisp]

67. The reason I have supported the President all this time

is exactly for difficult situations like this is.

I have no idea what the right thing to do is, it's such a complicated decision - but I trust him to make a good decision, he usually always does.

Obama is not Bush, the PNACers are still alive and kicking and making their mischief, and Ron Paul can forever go fuck himself with a rusty chainsaw. These things are some truths in this whole matter.

[cali]

80. well that explains a lot.

never mind informing yourself, doing research, listening to various sides of the debate from knowledgeable people. Just trust the President because he's not Bush and he "usually always" makes a good decision.

ugh. that's simply appalling.

[Whisp]

82. Unlike all you so called experts of warfare And All Else here on DU

I am not afraid nor ashamed to admit I don't know everything about everything (gasp!*) and what You may think are knowledgeable people, I might think are uninformed assholes.

And isn't the point of voting for or supporting someone is that you trust them to make the right decisions? If that is appalling to you... hmmm. par/course.

[delrem]

93. channeling Britney Spears. nt

[Whisp]

97. like, Obama is like, just like Bush! yah baby.

I don't consider loyality a bad trait but a lot here seem to. If a friend is having to make a hard decision and it is wearing them down thinking about what the right thing to do is, I don't sneak up on their backs with a knife and stab them.

I know people like that - they love kicking people when they are down. It brings them joy and satisfaction to try to tear someone down to their own pathetic levels. Instead of lifting up, their purpose is to tear down. There are plenty of those here too.

[delrem]

107. I've got nothing against Britney. She's just not all that politically astute. K?

[cali]

76. nothing new about evasive non-answers from

that poster.

[cali]

2. waahhh. opposition to the President? You can't bear that, can you?

And that's what this is really about for you.

I'll stipulate that the chemical attack was perpetrated by Assad's forces but that doesn't change for one nanosecond my opposition to this idiotic rush to bomb, bomb, bomb by the President and his supporters.

The risks outweigh the benefits.

[ProSense]

5. You think supporting the President is the only reason to reject hypocrisy and idiocy?

"I'll stipulate that the chemical attack was perpetrated by Assad's forces but that doesn't change for one nanosecond my opposition to this idiotic rush to bomb, bomb, bomb by the President and his supporters."

You don't have to support the strike, but what "rush to bomb, bomb, bomb"?

I mean, there is a debate going on, you previously claimed that the strike would occur before the vote. You don't know what will happen.

Disagreeing does not mean you get to misrepresent the facts.

[cali]

8. I think that's YOUR motivation for virtually everything you post here

[ProSense]

11. Again, does supporting the President mean one can't reject hypocrisy and idiocy? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. Do you support the President implicitly?

[polichick]

32. Prosense lives to push the president's agenda.

[Aerows]

30. It means that

if you were honest, you would just say whether you think intervention in Syria is a good idea, yes or no, and let the chips fall where they may regardless of who you do/don't agree with.

That's what happens when you fall into a cult of personality - you have to defend things that are indefensible simply because a fallible human, which we all are, is wrong sometimes. When you can't admit that no one is infallible, you are way in the weeds.

[NCTraveler]

6. "I don't agree with them on anything."

There are a very few times where I agree with their conclusion on a topic. I never agree with the thought process they use coming to their conclusions. For some reason simple minds can't grasp that.

[blazeKing]

7. So many problems in America needs addressing and Obama is off to war

Why am I supposed to give a fuck about the Pauls or Palin? They aren't President...president peace prize is making a fool of the antiwar left.

[forestpath]

115. +1000

[polichick]

10. God forbid that liberals like me unite with libertarians on dumb wars!

[ProSense]

14. Idiots like Rand and Ron Paul

"God forbid that liberals like me unite with libertarians on dumb wars!"

...are hypocrites, and don't pretend that all "liberals" oppose intervention in critical times, which is part of the point with the Iran sanctions, also with Libya.

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

<...>

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and

(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.

[polichick]

15. Divide and conquer, right? If the people say fuck no to dumb wars...

some agendas will be derailed.

[ProSense]

21. What?

"Divide and conquer, right? If the people say fuck no to dumb wars..."

Yeah, the goal of these idiots is never that, right?

Like I said, 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.

[polichick]

23. The goal of both corporate parties is to divide and conquer...

which means that's your goal.

[ProSense]

84. Oh please, Ron and Rand Paul and Sarah Palin are the Republican Party. n/t

[polichick]

85. Yep - they're part of that corporate party and you push the agenda of...

the Dem corporate party, even if it means pushing a "dumb war."

[ProSense]

87. Again,

"Yep - they're part of that corporate party and you push the agenda of...the Dem corporate party, even if it means pushing a "dumb war."

...you can disagree with the military action, and you can call it a "dumb war," but that doesn't mean that your take makes everyone else's objective suspect. It doesn't mean that those who are for it are pushing an "agenda" or seeking to "divide and conquer."

As with Libya, there is a debate to be had.

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

<...>

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and

(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.

[polichick]

89. Have you ever disagreed with the administration here on DU?

[ProSense]

94. Yes, but

"Have you ever disagreed with the administration here on DU?"

...what difference does it make? I mean, I have voiced disagreement on an issue or a choice, and then I continue supporting the President.

There are others who express nothing but disagreement, and they still went out and voted for him.

So what's the point of the litmus test? I'm here because I enjoy debating the issues with others who support Democrats, and the opinions vary. Why does it matter who holds what opinion or why? Make your case.

What if there is someone here whose sole purpose is to counter Democrats, would you know? I don't care, and I would simply debate any argument that runs counter to my opinion. It doesn't matter, make your case.

Trying to dismiss an opinion as the in line with the administration is not an argument. If you disagree with any argument, you should be able to refute it, and there will be time when you have to agree to disagree.

[polichick]

96. Problem is, you don't "make your case" - you just post a bunch of...

administration talking points and links to talking points.

[ProSense]

101. See, that

"Problem is, you don't "make your case" - you just post a bunch of...administration talking points and links to talking points."

...is your argument? I mean, even if you actually believe my opinions are a " bunch of...administration talking points," why do you have a problem refuting them?

I mean, a point is a point. You seem to want to dismiss the point by using a label to discredit the point.

[polichick]

105. Guess I should have italicized the word "your." No worries.

[Thinkingabout]

106. Prosense, do you ever feel like some are riding on a merry-go-round and thenbwonder why they never

Get to their destination? I have found this to be true in some cases and it is continuous rounds of questions attempting to get you to believe in whatever their agenda might be. It is usually comparing apples to oranges. I agree with the idiot schooling of some of our Congress members past and present, no leadership, false voting objectives and no solid directions. Most of all if you don't respond to their merry-go-round questions then follow up post begin to tell you how to think and believe. Keep up the good work, it does not appear you are getting trapped by their agenda.

[cthulu2016]

12. Please grant others the humanity you claim for yourself

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.

[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

[G_j]

17. and we should care what they think and say

why? I know I don't.

[Union Scribe]

19. Just for a change of pace

Why don't you tell us your policy views instead of whining about personalities.

[NuclearDem]

24. See upstream. That's never going to happen.

Because she knows if she does, she'll be forced to agree with someone she doesn't like.

That's not a big deal for the grown ups, but for some reason it is for her.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. This whole OP and its defense it fekking weak.

It's almost as if the author of the OP is not herself today.

Poor thing.

[Union Scribe]

34. It really is weird

I mean I just haven't seen this since school. "I hate Billy. If you talk to Billy any more I won't be your friend!" Obama prides himself on his ability to work with "the other side" so you'd think that people who really like Obama would not condemn others for merely occasionally having a similar stance on an issue as a GOPer or other unclean specimen.

[ProSense]

31. You know what would

"Just for a change of pace

Why don't you tell us your policy views instead of whining about personalities."

...a "change of pace": Not pretending that you know every opinion I've stated. In fact, your characterization of the OP is more a reflection on you than me.

I reject hypocrisy and idiocy, and you call it "whining about personalities."

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. You've been asked several times now for your personal position on a potential attack on Syria.

And so far you have simply refused to answer.

Just stating a fact.

[ProSense]

46. Wait

"You've been asked several times now for your personal position on a potential attack on Syria.

And so far you have simply refused to answer.

Just stating a fact."

...how is it that you know how many times I've "been asked," but you don't know my opinion? Could it be that you're only focused on using this as an attempt to discredit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023603275#post28

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023548839#post9

[Dreamer Tatum]

48. You can redirect all you like, ProSense.

You were asked IN THE FIRST RESPONSE TO YOUR OP what your stance is. You were reminded downthread that you
didn't answer.

You can put up all the links you like, but you STILL haven't said what your stance is on a potential attack on Syria is.

I'm not trying to discredit anything. I'm trying to determine your stance on President Obama's desire to attack Syria.

If it helps you, I will go first: I do not support an attack on Syria.

Your turn: what is your personal position on Syria?

[NuclearDem]

62. To be fair, she did answer.

She said she could be persuaded that it's necessary to hold Assad accountable.

Albeit that answer only came after a dogpile of people pressing for one.

[Dreamer Tatum]

64. We all know her position quite well.

I just wanted her to know that we know.

[totodeinhere]

37. As a progressive I have no problem with agreeing with the Pauls that a Syrian intervention is a bad

idea. And in addition to the Pauls most progressives also disagree with Syrian intervention.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023603611

[Erose999]

50. What you're doing here is drawing a binary. I'm opposed to intervention in Syria and IDGAF about

where the fuckhead broken-clock Pauls stand on the issue. If they provide help and influence on this issue, so be it. We will need SOME republican support to stop the war, especially if progressives get on Obama and Kerry's neo-liberal war bandwagon.

I don't "stand with" or "stand against" or "compromise with" anybody when it comes to un-necessary wars abroad. I am 100% against this war, for reasons that go beyond partisan ideology.

[ProSense]

52. And what you're doing is

"What you're doing here is drawing a binary. I'm opposed to intervention in Syria and IDGAF about where the fuckhead broken-clock Pauls stand on the issue. If they provide help and influence on this issue, so be it. We will need SOME republican support to stop the war, especially if progressives get on Obama and Kerry's neo-liberal war bandwagon."

...pretending that anyone who supports intervention in critical times, which is part of the point with the Iran sanctions, also with Libya, is on the "neo-liberal war bandwagon."

SENATE RESOLUTION 85--STRONGLY CONDEMNING THE GROSS AND SYSTEMATIC VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN LIBYA, INCLUDING VIOLENT ATTACKS ON PROTESTERS DEMANDING DEMOCRATIC REFORMS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- (Senate - March 01, 2011)(PDF)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-03-01/pdf/CREC-2011-03-01-pt1-PgS1068-4.pdf#page=1

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

<...>

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) applauds the courage of the Libyan people in standing up against the brutal dictatorship of Muammar Gadhafi and for demanding democratic reforms, transparent governance, and respect for basic human and civil rights;

(2) strongly condemns the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters demanding democratic reforms;

(3) calls on Muammar Gadhafi to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people's demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy governed by respect for human and civil rights and the right of the people to choose their government in free and fair elections;

(4) calls on the Gadhafi regime to immediately release persons that have been arbitrarily detained, to cease the intimidation, harassment and detention of peaceful protestors, human rights defenders and journalists, to ensure civilian safety, and to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organizations;

(5) welcomes the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on resolution 1970 referring the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court, imposing an arms embargo on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, freezing the assets of Gadhafi and family members, and banning international travel by Gadhafi, members of his family, and senior advisors;

(6) urges the Gadhafi regime to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 and ensure the safety of foreign nationals and their assets, and to facilitate the departure of those wishing to leave the country as well as the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies, humanitarian agencies and workers, into Libya in order to assist the Libyan people;

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;

(8) welcomes the African Union's condemnation of the ``disproportionate use of force in Libya'' and urges the Union to take action to address the human rights crisis in Libya and to ensure that member states, particularly those bordering Libya, are in full compliance with the arms embargo imposed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including the ban on the provision of armed mercenary personnel;

(9) welcomes the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Council to recommend Libya's suspension from the Council and urges the United Nations General Assembly to vote to suspend Libya's rights of membership in the Council;

(10) welcomes the attendance of Secretary of State Clinton at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva and 1) urges the Council's assumption of a country mandate for Libya that employs a Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Libya and 2) urges the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to advocate for improving United Nations Human Rights Council membership criteria at the next United Nations General Assembly in New York City to exclude gross and systematic violators of human rights; and

(11) welcomes the outreach that has begun by the United States Government to Libyan opposition figures and supports an orderly, irreversible transition to a legitimate democratic government in Libya.

[Erose999]

58. I was opposed to striking Libya too. And yeah, NeoLib Obama was all too happy to bomb Libya too.

Libya isn't any better off for it either, for what its worth.

[ProSense]

54. Also, Senators Boxer and Durbin voted against the IWR, but supported the Syria resolution:

Who voted for the Syria resolution?

By Ed O'Keefe

Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted Wednesday to approve a resolution authorizing U.S. military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

<...>

Final tally: 10 to 7, with one senator voting present.

Who voted yes?: Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) (by proxy — was absent due to the Jewish holiday), Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Ranking member Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Who voted no?: Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

Who voted present?: Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/04/who-voted-for-the-syria-resolution/

Are they now on the "neo-liberal war bandwagon"?

It's a simplistic view of the debate that amounts to nothing but name calling.

[whatchamacallit]

57. Yes, loudmouth idiots everywhere you turn

Keep on shouting, ProSense...

[HardTimes99]

60. Ron Paul was right about Iraq, while Hillary and Kerry must live forever in shame with

the consequences and legacies of their votes in favor.

[ProSense]

66. You can make that claim, but

there are those who can make the same claim about Afghanistan.

In response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, only one person voted against the original AUMF that launched the war in Afghanistan.

Barbara Lee

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

Ron Paul voted yes. Dennis Kucinich voted yes.

Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

[HardTimes99]

70. Without getting all misty-eyed about the past, at the time of the Afghanistan vote,

Bush and Cheney and the Junta had not revealed themselves as the socipathic criminals the world would soon come to know. IOW, they still enjoyed a reservoir of trust. Until Bush and Cheney's crime spree, the tradition in American politics had been to defer to the executive in matters of war and peace (foreign policy).

FWIW, Barbara Lee deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for her courageous and lonely stand on Afghanistan.

[Dreamer Tatum]

71. I see the real issue here.

You are reluctant to state a position of your own because you aren't just a shill for the Administration, but you're deeply invested in the OUTCOME of Syria and its effect on future perception of Obama. Let me quote Jim Cutler from last season's Mad Men to nail down your actual position:

"Unless this works, I'm against it."

That's why you are much more vocal about saying WHO you're against, rather than WHAT you're for. Being anti-Paul will suit you for time and memorial; stating a preference about Syria that could end up being the wrong call...well, that's a little riskier, isn't it?

[ProSense]

81. No

"I see the real issue here.

You are reluctant to state a position of your own because you aren't just a shill for the Administration, but you're deeply invested in the OUTCOME of Syria and its effect on future perception of Obama. Let me quote Jim Cutler from last season's Mad Men to nail down your actual position: "

...I'm not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023603275#post46

You, however, are completely disingenuous and focused on using this as an attempt to discredit.

[Dreamer Tatum]

83. Discredit WHAT? Your stance is vague at best, and curiously designed to move at will.

I have nothing to discredit regarding you. I have another quote for you: "The wicked flee when none pursueth."

[ProSense]

86. No,

"Discredit WHAT? Your stance is vague at best, and curiously designed to move at will.

I have nothing to discredit regarding you. I have another quote for you: 'The wicked flee when none pursueth.'"

...my "stance" is clear: Rand Paul and Ron Paul are idiots! Sarah Palin is an idiot.

The attempts to claim that that anyone who opposes or supports this action is aligning themselves with a certain group is silliness.

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

[Dreamer Tatum]

88. Your "group" alignment is crystal clear. nt

[Union Scribe]

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

You said you don't agree with him on ANYTHING. So that leaves you supporting the invasion of Iraq, right?

[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

[Union Scribe]

104. You're bordering on spam now

I recognize the majority of that shit from your other posts. What you didn't do, as usual, was answer a straight-forward question.

Do you disagree with Paul's 2002 vote of no on the resolution that authorized Bush to attack Iraq. At the time he stated: "I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war."

Is that a statement you disagree with?

[ProSense]

110. You asked: "So do you disagree with Ron Paul about the Iraq War?" I responded:

Yes, ...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

"You're bordering on spam now"

You didn't like the answer so you decided to be rude.

I don't agree with Paul. I don't have to believe a damn word is says. He's a bullshit artist.

That's your answer. If you don't like it, that's not my problem.

[Union Scribe]

111. Can't do it, can you?

Most people, when they've painted themselves into a corner, have the good sense to just stop replying. But you keep pretending that you've said something, when you haven't said anything. One more chance to redeem a scrap of intellectual honesty: do you disagree with the statement I pasted above about the Iraq War? Was Paul right or wrong to say that we shouldn't invade Iraq because they don't pose a threat to us? I'm not saying you have to like the Pauls. I'm trying to get you to admit that someone you don't like can be correct about something.

And please, if you can't answer, just don't reply. Save yourself, and me, the copypasta. Copypasta carbs are terrible for your Internet cholesterol.

[ProSense]

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

"One more chance to redeem a scrap of intellectual honesty"

Do you really believe you're on a high horse?

"And please, if you can't answer, just don't reply. Save yourself, and me, the copypasta. Copypasta carbs are terrible for your Internet cholesterol. "

Your lame insults don't phase me and I don't have to prove shit to you.

[Union Scribe]

114. I knew you couldn't. Or wouldn't.

You sure get defensive when you know you're wrong though.

[ProSense]

116. "Wrong"? The Pauls are idiots, and so is Palin. I'm not wrong. n/t

[LondonReign2]

119. Just impossible for her

*shakes head*

[uppityperson]

63. Are you saying President Obama is "scum"?

[uppityperson]

78. So Obama is "scum" and "not even human DNA", and "evil", an "empty suit". Well. Aren't you

something.

[ProSense]

69. I "wish to conduct your life" by saying that Rand and Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are idiots. n/t

[HardTimes99]

72. Ron Paul was right on Iraq, and Hillary and Kerry were wrong. So your assertion rings false - nt

[ProSense]

79. So because you say Ron Paul was "right on Iraq" means he's not an idiot?

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

[Dreamer Tatum]

73. See post #71 above - of course you say that. It's easy. nt

[GeorgeGist]

65. Super duper honestly?

infinitely stronger

Oh my.

[ProSense]

68. Yes, that's my opinion.

You can dispute the assertion, but it's my honest opinion.

Do you believe that evidence that an entity other than the Assad government is responsible is nearly as strong?

[freshwest]

91. Oh, not the Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran song again!

It should come as no surprise that President Obama would have no problem bringing along the hard liners of the Republican Party's neoconservative camp should he ask Congress to bless strikes against Iran. Even as the election of Hassan Rouhani renewed hopes for a peaceful resolution of the standoff over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told a cheering audience at a recent Christians United for Israel conference:

"If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a resolution that will authorize the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."

Last year, the Romney-Ryan campaign was demanding the same thing. On Monday, Elliot Abrams, the same Iran-Contra architect who also helped birth George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, called on Congress to give President Obama the authority to launch attacks against Assad. But one year ago, the adviser to the 2012 GOP ticket wrote in the Weekly Standard that it was "time to authorize use of force against Iran."

Mercifully, Abrams' plea largely fell on deaf ears. But as we'll see below, many of those in Congress who are balking at hitting Assad over his use of chemical weapons to massacre Syrian civilians have no qualms when it comes to a major confrontation with Iran...



From your link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/02/1235836/-Congress-would-OK-Obama-strikes-against-Iran-if-not-Syria

Frying Pan > Fire.

[stonecutter357]

95. K&R

[Katashi_itto]

98. I agree that Pro is an expert on idiots.

[ProSense]

102. It's not hard to identify an idiot. n/t

[Cha]

108. I agree that Katashi_itto is sneaky with his insults.

[Katashi_itto]

117. Moi?

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Here is Obama waxing romantic about his agreement and friendship with Tom Coburn

in a special love letter in Time Magazine, best part says OK is lucky to have Coburn. Coburn is a hate mongering homophobic bigot. Obama is his friend and touts their work together.
"We co-sponsored the “Google for Government” act, which made government more transparent and more accountable to the American people. We worked together to cut down on earmarks. And we continue to agree on the need to reduce wasteful spending and close tax loopholes that benefit only the well-off and well connected.

The people of Oklahoma are lucky to have someone like Tom representing them in Washington — someone who speaks his mind, sticks to his principles and is committed to the people he was elected to serve."'
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/tom-coburn/


So do you also dig you some Coburn? Or is Obama just agreeing with a hate soaked idiot on a few things, because even the hate soaked idiot can be right upon occasion? Or is Obama very wrong to EVER agree with Coburn, much less to work with him then brag about it in magazines?

[ProSense]

103. I'm not Obama, and I detest Coburn.

The OP point still stands.

[madinmaryland]

113. I always thought you were Robert Gibbs.

Though he doesn't link to other posts on DU when he talks.

[Cha]

109. Hypocrites? that crowd? lol.. add Hyperbolic bullshit and

I'm down with it.

[gopiscrap]

118. I fully agree with your assessments of these clowns

but I still don't think we should go attack or into Syria