Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail

Recommended

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma said, 3 months ago

    United Paranoids of America?

  2. Wabbit

    Wabbit said, 3 months ago

    Only under extraordinary circumstances, but still, it does, cause for further thoughtˍʼ˜˚ʼ˜

  3. braindead08

    braindead08 said, 3 months ago

    Rand Paul: If you attend a Tea Party meeting and criticize the president, they’re going to kill you in your bed with a drone strike.

  4. Radish

    Radish said, 3 months ago

    What goes around comes back around.

  5. russell5419

    russell5419 said, 3 months ago

    The end is near.

  6. old1953

    old1953 said, 3 months ago

    Funny how these things are OK when a Republican is in office but not OK when a Democrat is in office. Think I’m wrong? Nope, 2007 defense authorization bill revoked the posse comitatus provisions. 2008 it was OMG, DEMS WILL WIN, so it got put back. Then it reverted again in the 2012 defense authorization bill, and now we’ve got Repubs panicking again. Just WHY is it good for a Repblican in office, but not a Democrat to have this power? Remember, the 2012 bill was passed when Republicans thought they had it in the bag. They didn’t. Now they’ve got all kinds of buyers remorse. Again, WHY?

  7. person918

    person918 said, 3 months ago

    am I the only one who thinks it’s not ok when either party does it?

  8. old1953

    old1953 said, 3 months ago

    Ummhmm, look up Ruby Ridge. It’s been done by federal agents and state police any number of times. And it usually causes a major screaming match. Somehow though, it’s usually done or started under Republicans, but it’s an issue after a Democrat takes office. Ruby Ridge was done and completed by the end of August of 1992. Clinton took office in January of 1993. Ask any ten random Republicans on the street and at least 8 of em will tell you this was a Clinton/Democrat murder plot against Conservative Christian gun totin’ freedom lovers.

  9. old1953

    old1953 said, 3 months ago

    In other words, I’m sick and tired of this “NEVER QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” business when Republicans are in the White House, but “THE PRESIDENT MUST BE RESTRICTED FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION OF POWERS” as soon as a Democrat takes office. It just makes everyone in Washington look like spoiled brats.

  10. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago

    @person918

    “am I the only one who thinks it’s not ok when either party does it?”

    No, you’re not; there are plenty of us who don’t care whose program this is. It’s reprehensible regardless.

    Keep in mind, however, that most posters on this site will spend their time placing blame. While I am all for accountability, I also believe that the first order of business after some sort of bungle/disaster is to find out what went wrong and why, and what can be done to keep from repeating it. Only then can one have a clear understanding of who did what wrong, and then the repercussions can begin.

    Here, though, it’s mostly “Why doesn’t that guy just fall on his sword?”, as if taking one person out of the equation would make all the difference. You’ll get used to it.

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago

    @old1953

    Interesting, isn’t it? Any idea what would happen if Mr. Obama told us “You’re either with us, or you’re a terrorist”? I’m pretty sure the reaction would be different than what it was during the last administration.

  12. Omnius

    Omnius said, 3 months ago

    That sissy Rant Paul asked a really stupid question about drones, of course Obama has no intention of killing US citizens on US soil with them if they’re not enemy combatants. If any of these right-wing terrorist groups ever attack our government then I do hope Obama Drones them out!

  13. ansonia

    ansonia said, 3 months ago

    @Omnius

    " of course Obama has no intention of killing US citizens on US soil with them if they’re not enemy combatants"
    .
    First, you can say that, but you don’t know that. You have confidence that Obama wouldn’t do this because you like him. What if a Republican, whom you do not like, is President in the future… would you be so trusting then?
    .
    Second, if Obama had no intention of killing US citizens on US soil, why wouldn’t Eric Holder confirm that when asked directly if that was the case? He refused to answer that question.
    .
    Third, both sides should be thanking Paul for this. He was brilliant. Even some Democrats were there to support him. He spoke only about the drone program, not nonsense like Strom Thurmond, who actually gave out a biscuit recipe.
    .
    But here, Paul’s words:
    And the real debate is bigger than President Obama or any president. It’s bigger than Republican or Democrat. It’s about what Madison said in the Federalist Papers. He said basically that if you had a government of angels, we wouldn’t have to worry about having rules. But we don’t always have a government of angels, and that’s why we have the rule of law to prevent the time when a democracy can make a mistake and elect a bad person, an evil person to office. So this is not always about the here and now. It’s about protecting people in the future from bad government.

  14. mshefler

    mshefler said, 3 months ago

    Surveillance cameras in NYC in 1998: 769. In 2005: 4468. It’s happening everywhere. Add drones to the mix and there will be no privacy by 2050. Probably not even in your bedroom with infrared sensing technology.

  15. ansonia

    ansonia said, 3 months ago

    @person918

    No, I agree with you.

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