The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Response

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "What's the difference?" (see in situ)


"There is absolutely no acceptable reason why weaponized drones should be in our skies at this point in time."

I agree (and so does Rand). But the question is not whether drones should be used in the US, the question is whether it is unconstitutional or contrary to libertarian principles to use them. It isn't. Just because something (such as using armed drones in the US) is a bad idea doesn't mean it's a violation of the Constitution or of libertarian principles.

"This is a complete 180° from his filibuster"

No, it isn't. Killing an armed criminal in the process of committing a violent crime is entirely different from killing someone who the government suspects might commit a crime in the future. Likewise, shooting your neighbor when he breaks into your house at 3am is entirely different from shooting him because you suspect he might break into your house at some point in the future. Why is this difficult to understand?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."