Stand with Rand

[avatar4321]

Nine hours into his noisy fillibuster, the internet is exploding with support for Senator Rand Paul. Check out the #StandWithRand Hashtag on Twitter. Im seeing it all over facebook as well. It's amazing to see what is happening. Especially when it wouldn't take much for the President to end it.

[taft2012]

I'm glad he's standing up and compelling a discussion about the matter, and making the liberals who shat themselves when the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans having phone conversations with Al Qaeda and the Taliban now defend Obama drone attacking American citizens on American soil.

However, I'm not sure a carte blanche condemnation is called for...

On one hand I feel we have sufficient federal, state, and local law enforcement to bring a suspect to justice within our borders.

However, what about a catastrophic scenario ... something like a maniac holed up in a house somewhere with triggers for dirty bombs dispersed throughout the country? It sounds a little far-fetched, but then again 15 years ago hijacking planes and flying them into buildings was far-fetched too.

I don't think Rand Paul would oppose droning the maniac... and maybe he's just trying to get us to talk through the issue. Which is a good thing.

[aboutime]

Rand has been speaking the words Obama, Democrats, and Holder do not want the American (THINKING) people to hear.

How sad they must be in the White House, and the DNC tonight. Being SIDETRACKED with their Sequester Threats by someone who isn't afraid to confront Obama with words like HONOR, TRUTH, Responsibility, and OATH...instead of the standard, double-standards of hypocrisy, hatred, division and LIES.

[Robert A Whit]

The below link is not about Rand. It has to do with drug laws.

Current laws date to 1970.

I like to call that a day that America as intended, died.

I want to remind you that one must try to come to grips with how it is, that before some particular date, humans were free to use such drugs as they wanted to use but only after some other date, they now were bound by chains of law and no longer had such freedom?

Sen Ted Cruz is delivering a scalding and brilliant explanation of power gone mad. He even defended TX from G.W. Bush who wanted to tell state courts what to do and was put back into his place by the Supreme Court.

Some of you people refuse to stand up for human rights.

And yet you claim to be republicans.

http://www.shmoop.com/drugs-america/law.html

[logroller]

I'm glad he's standing up and compelling a discussion about the matter, and making the liberals who shat themselves when the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans having phone conversations with Al Qaeda and the Taliban now defend Obama drone attacking American citizens on American soil.

However, I'm not sure a carte blanche condemnation is called for...

On one hand I feel we have sufficient federal, state, and local law enforcement to bring a suspect to justice within our borders.

However, what about a catastrophic scenario ... something like a maniac holed up in a house somewhere with triggers for dirty bombs dispersed throughout the country? It sounds a little far-fetched, but then again 15 years ago hijacking planes and flying them into buildings was far-fetched too.

I don't think Rand Paul would oppose droning the maniac... and maybe he's just trying to get us to talk through the issue. Which is a good thing.
If someone went to the trouble of orchestrating widespread dirty bombs throughout the country, I'm guessing a deadman switch may have been integrated as well. I'm sure there's been a tv or movie plot; so its hardly beyond the imagination of a madman. I still think civilian law enforcement could handle the situation adequately without what truly is military-style assault weaponry.

[taft2012]

The below link is not about Rand.
http://www.shmoop.com/drugs-america/law.html

More pothead conservatism.

[taft2012]

If someone went to the trouble of orchestrating widespread dirty bombs throughout the country, I'm guessing a deadman switch may have been integrated as well. I'm sure there's been a tv or movie plot; so its hardly beyond the imagination of a madman. I still think civilian law enforcement could handle the situation adequately without what truly is military-style assault weaponry.

Yes, I know, I thought of that too. The point I was making was about an unforeseeable catastrophic circumstance, which is hard to imagine. Something beyond the scope of traditional law enforcement.

Just as I tell urban people, who live within a few minutes of responding police when they call 911, that they have to understand the gun control concerns of those who live in rural areas and may live 30, 40, or 50 minutes away police response.

Likewise, rural people need to understand the concerns about terrorist attacks of those who live in large urban areas, especially those who have already lived through "the big one."

As a survivor, I'm not willing to totally take any reasonable preventative measure completely off the table of available options.

It's funny to me. The same gun rights people who sneer about the urban folks saying things like "what do you need those guns for?".... will turn around and say "what are you so worried about terrorist attacks for?"

Like the urban people have to be more empathetic, so do the rural people. If you live in a shotgun shack in the Ozarks, you're not a prime Al Qaeda target. No one should be willing to advocate a position that may expose tens of thousands to fellow Americans to death from a terrorist attack, least of all to advance a cause of legalized marijuana smoking.