Stuart Carlson by Stuart Carlson

Stuart Carlson

Comments (12) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 2 years ago

    At least he showed everyone what a filibuster is really like, not just an “I object!” .
    It was a stupid subject to be filibustering on because there are already laws pertaining to said subject, just not specifically armed drones.

  2. M Ster

    M Ster said, over 2 years ago


    Exactly! These laws pertains to whether people CAN be killed, not HOW they can be killed. HOW is a tactical decision made by the FBI, Homeland Security, or some other organization “on the ground”. Lawmakers have no say in HOW.
    I am not a Rand Paul fan, but in his defense, he was one of only 7 in the Senate who voted against NDAA last year, when “CAN” was approved. So I don’t question his sincerity in demanding clarifications (nor Ron Wyden, who also voted against it). But most of the other 12 Senators who supported Rand Paul during the filibuster- they were for “CAN” before they were against it. That was only a few months ago.
    What would cause them to flip-flop so quickly? Could it be that the GOP took a beating in November, and many of the 12 are up for re-election in 2014?

  3. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 2 years ago

    An unarmed drone can save lives as well as an armed drone can save lives. There is no need for a Federal armed drone here that I can see. As for in Somalia, Pakistan or in other hostile regions, definitely, yes. As for the nationality of a said combatant/terrorist, it does not matter. Perhaps you would like to volunteer to “arrest” these people so they could be brought to trial as one lawmaker suggested. If so, Good Luck.

  4. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Rand’s a real bladder mouth.

  5. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    How about city and state drones?

  6. meetinthemiddle

    meetinthemiddle said, over 2 years ago

    And sixteen ounces of soda!

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    Whatever has been tried over seas eventually comes back over here tested and ready to use. And our govt would do so if they could find the best means. The whole Drone operation was denied for some years. They still keep much of it secret so yes I guess I’m concerned. But I am no “red neck.” Don’t stereotype please?

  8. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    I thought the Democrats picked up two senate seats in 2012. Maybe you’re thinking about 2010.

  9. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago

    Good God, I agree with something Al Gore said. LOL

    In a discussion with Walt Mossberg, Gore said:

    “Our government has been hacked, and our constitution is the operating system,” Gore repeated throughout the panel. According to Gore, with the focus of any elected role now on fundraising and pleasing political backers at the top 1-percent of the population, it’s extremely difficult for politicians to pass laws that benefit the majority of their constituents.

    Reminds me of a couple of quotes from the founders. Gee do you think they had some insight?

    The Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. – Alexander Hamilton

    When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power. – Benjamin Franklin

    OK quote haters, how are these ideas not pertinate today?

  10. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago


    Hey Bruce, I have no problem with quotes, what I don’t like is a quote being used as an argument. (a) I don’t accept an argument from authority. I don’t care who says whatever, I need evidence that it’s true. (b) Even if I happen to agree with a quote in principle, I then need to know if the conditions apply. For example, I happen to agree with Hamilton’s quote (at least in the context of the US), but I need to see specific cases, and I need to know on what basis someone is arguing that a law contravenes the Constitution. It’s an empty statement until it wears the flesh of reality. Likewise with Franklin — sure, it’s a good sentiment, is it true? And if it’s true, prove to me that there’s a problem. Is Social Security an example of the people voting themselves money? Not in my opinion. Is unemployment insurance an example of people voting themselves money? Not in my opinion. Here’s a quote for you: “Some day the American people are going to wake up”. Emma Goldman.

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago


    OK makes sense to me. So I ask you this on the Franklin quote. Does giving your self a raise every year count? Does adding “riders” to bills in order to divert more money to your state count? Does raising taxes in order to continue to spend beyond your means count?

    In the republican budget plan, Ryan wants to reduce spending from 46 trillion over the next 10 years to 41 trillion over that time. So currently we are collecting just under 3 trillion a year in revenue. Ryan’s plan calls for increasing revenue by at least 12 trillion over the next 10 years or about 1 trillion a year.

    Obama’s plan is similar only just a tad more money involved.

    Do they think that they can just “vote themselves more money” out of our pockets? Well, yes they do.

    Now Hamilton saying the laws should use the constitution as a “standard” is fairly straightforward. Write the law. Does it diverge from the constitution or does it enhance it?

    Currently the 2nd amendment is in the spotlight, particularly the “right to bear arms”. So now the laws are “defining” who has the right, what “armament” is acceptable and so on. OK fine. Does your law “infringe” on that right to “bear arms”. Well the constitution does qualify the right by saying it “shall not be infringed”. Any law that limits my right – as long as I have not forfeited that right by illegal activity – is unconstitutional.

    Whatever. The principle is all I am interested in. Bans do not work, prohibition creates opportunity for nefarious types to gain money and power.

  12. Veteran

    Veteran GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    SWAT to deal with Terrorists?
    Police are neither equipped or have the necessary skills to meet such an opponent.
    I witness this in class one day on WMD training. They were showing videos of terrorists being taken out by 30 mm guns on an Apache gunship.
    I said out loud when some of them got hit. “Nothing but Chunks!” I was immediately slammed by MY own kind for being INSENSITIVE to them.
    I went WHAT? Do you know what they would love to do to us? The instructor stopped the onslaught by siding with me. You cannot expect a terrorist to act in a civil manner. They are not like a criminal on crime spree. They are killers who show no remorse or respect of who they kill. They are the Active Shooters in a school on a rampage. When you engage as a SWAT or police you have to use more brutal behavior. No negotiations, no mercy, kill on sight unless they drop the weapon on seeing you.
    As for training. I have an M4 (only allowed to carried and equipped in the police specifications in other words unmodified), 12 ga shotgun with 4 (yes only 4 rounds), soft body armor (said to stop only 357mag maybe, low bid), a SIG 357 P226 DA pistol, and that is all. We train in anti-terrorism maybe once a year (yea that’s all and its mostly shooting at targets, green paper ones to offend no one). Pretty heavily armed and trained to meet Jihad Joe and his friends don’t you think. I personally rely on my military training to get through something like this (my company says I am a bit rough but would be alive doing it my way).

  13. Refresh Comments.