Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   dtroutma said, 3 months ago

   For a change i agree, to a degree, with both of them.
2. 

   greyolddave said, 3 months ago

   Paul thinks its ok to shoot at the poilce. He does not want the police to be able to shoot back.
3. 

   russell5419 said, 3 months ago

   Politicians !! got to hate them all, they leave you no choice.They are more like the enemy of the people as opposed to being our representatives, it’s starting to remind me why we came over here from England in the first place.Too much power to these people has left them with swelled heads, and I wish I had a pension plan like they have.Lets fire them all and start anew.
4. 

   Ian Rey said, 3 months ago

   Funny thing is, both “sides” think that one is a huge threat to life and liberty, one is a ridiculous fear-mongering dog whistle.
5. 

   ARodney said, 3 months ago

   It is so refreshing to see a Republican on the right side of an issue for a change! Let’s hope it doesn’t take another 12 years for it to happen again. What was funny was to see those other mainstream Republicans, all of whom had voted to allow Bush to detain Americans indefinitely without trial, suddenly find their constitutional civil liberties backbone when Obama claimed similiar powers.
6. 

   mikefive said, 3 months ago

   @greyolddave

   With a drone?
7. 

   mikefive said, 3 months ago

   @ARodney

   Bush initiated those conditions, but you shouldn’t forget that Obama expanded the conditions under which that detention could occur.
8. 

   Wraithkin said, 3 months ago

   @greyolddave

   I don’t quite see where that connection is. Paul thinks it’s not okay to assassinate US Citizens without a trial. How is that the same thing as the police not being able to shoot back?
9. 

   skipcarlsen said, 3 months ago

   Yes it is rather hypocritical of this miscreant of a president to talk out of one side of his fat mouth about banning assault weapons and then from the other side about justifying the murder of AMERICANS on OUR OWN SOIL!
10. 

    Zipi said, 3 months ago

    I think someone needs to send Chairman Obama a copy of the Presidential oath of office. “…
    and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That means the WHOLE Constitution.
11. 

    d_legendary1 said, 3 months ago

    
12. 

    Ionizer said, 3 months ago

    @greyolddave

    “Paul thinks its ok to shoot at the poilce. He does not want the police to be able to shoot back.”
    
    You are such a maroon.
    
    Until Paul made Obama state a position, it appeared Obama wanted to skip due process, a trial, or any of several other Constitutional protections, and just take out anyone he deemed a threat, along with whoever might be near them. He still thinks anything he wants to do is all right, whether it’s legal or not.
13. 

    Ionizer said, 3 months ago

    @Wraithkin

    “I don’t quite see where that connection is. Paul thinks it’s not okay to assassinate US Citizens without a trial. How is that the same thing as the police not being able to shoot back?”
    
    Remember, libs don’t need a logical connection, just a big lie as a talking point.
14. 

    Ionizer said, 3 months ago

    @d_legendary1

    Well, the silly Constitution gets in the way of Obama’s desire to get rid of anyone he wants, whenever he wants.
15. 

    Wraithkin said, 3 months ago

    @

    Aside from Eric Holder being Obama’s mouthpiece on legal matters, Obama should have stepped forward and condemned the notion of killing Americans on US soil without due process. His absence of standing up for the constitution is his abdication of his responsibilities and intimates his support of said killings. That’s what really scares me.
16. Load the rest of the comments (16).