Dana Summers by Dana Summers

Dana Summers

Recommended

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

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

  2. greyolddave

    greyolddave said, about 1 year 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, about 1 year 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, about 1 year 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, about 1 year ago

    @greyolddave

    With a drone?

  6. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago

    @ARodney

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

  7. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 1 year 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?

  8. Zipi

    Zipi said, about 1 year 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.

  9. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C and Martens Release
  10. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, about 1 year 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.

  11. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, about 1 year 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.

  12. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, about 1 year ago

    @d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C and Martens Release

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

  13. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, about 1 year 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.

  14. M Ster

    M Ster said, about 1 year 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”?

  15. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, about 1 year 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.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).