Dana Summers by Dana Summers

Dana Summers

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

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

  2. greyolddave

    greyolddave said, almost 4 years ago

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

  3. Ian Rey

    Ian Rey said, almost 4 years 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.

  4. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 4 years 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.

  5. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago


    With a drone?

  6. mikefive

    mikefive said, almost 4 years ago


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

  7. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 4 years ago


    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?

  8. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, almost 4 years ago

  9. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 4 years 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.

  10. M Ster

    M Ster said, almost 4 years ago

    The example Holder gave was a Pearl Harbor type of incident perpetrated by Americans on American soil. How does this get convoluted into “without due process”?

  11. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, almost 4 years ago

    I doubt the Rand Man would ban drones if he was in control; I doubt it very much. Is he going to turn in assault rifles, his or anybody else’s? Of course not; he’s gonna pick different targets.

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    So, now they’ve brought bin Laden’s son-in-law to the States for trial (as should have been done with all Gitmo detainees accused of “Al Qaeda links”), and the Republicans WILL be freaking out.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 4 years ago

    Doc, do you really live that far back in the sticks? I thought you got news once a week….

    Have you seen this:


    Drones are being used in border surveillance now and many city police forces are applying for flight permission for drones from the FAA. Since the government had no problem targeting an American citizen in Yemen(?) and killing him with a drone AND since there was a ruling that the President could authorize killing a suspected terrorist in the USA with a drone, it isn’t hard to extrapolate that to conclude that the President may think he can kill an American citizen ’suspected" of being a terrorist as well without due process. The question was asked and it took a filibuster to make the DOJ give a definitive answer.

    Were not nuts, just careful. caveat emptor and all that.

  14. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    You know you may be right. Then again maybe the Mayans had it right.

    End of the cycle. Everyone knows that all things operate cyclic (even us ..but that’s another discussion) so here we are at the end/beginning of an “epoch” which is marked by great change.

    From my point of view the Mayans had down pat. Time to move on cause things are going to crap here.

    No Doc, we are not crazy for being able to imagine an out of control tyrant with the legal use of drones for our “protection” and at some point the decision is made to “take out” that terrorist sitting in Starbucks before he can set off the terrible bomb. Yes, collateral damage (all american citizens but only about a dozen) is ok if it means saving thousands of lives in the long run. Yeah. Power.

    The “greater good” and all that. So make the man go on record with his statement. It isn’t like they haven’t done it before.

  15. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    @ Canuck: Stop trolling. It doesn’t suit you. The problem isn’t what Obama has promised or not promised, the problem is that it was asked and not emphatically refuted. The threat is very real, only because our liberties are being eroded very subtly. Look at NAZI Germany. They elected Hitler legally. He then, through legislative process, disarmed citizens. He then — again, through legislative process — dissolved the government and instilled his fascist party. We have all seen power creep in the history of our world.

    The danger is not that they are doing it now. The danger is they could. All they would have to do is define someone as an enemy combatant and they are now on a very long list of assassination targets.

    You want a solution, here’s a solution: Ban armed drones in the US. End of sentence. That’s the answer that should have been present from the beginning. But it wasn’t. And that’s what was troubling.

    @ Mechanic: No, I’m not saying he has to pre-emptively define what he opposes. This wasn’t a case of pre-emption. This is an issue of his administration being asked a question and them not answering the correct way. Obama is not one to be shy about sharing his opinion. So why couldn’t he do it this time? It’s not like this was a breaking story where he didn’t have enough time to respond.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).