Comment: Chicken Butt

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Guess what! (see in situ)

Chicken Butt

bear,

That is my conditioned response to "Guess what?"

I was trained by my friend Butch at work to respond to specific phrases like that, and another one is this:

"That is like..."

Whenever I was searching for the thing that is like something else Butch would fill in the blank with:

"Like flies on horse poop." He would not say poop, exactly.

He sounds like a rough old guy, with these comments, but he is actually a very good friend.

As to the Rand Paul Hit Job.

Please see past the falsehood, or let me see past it if my viewpoint is obscured.

I see Rand Paul knowing of the necessity to defend innocent people, or in other words, it is necessary to defend Liberty, without that POWER, there will only be crime made legal.

That is what I see.

The "news reporter," is typically spreading any lie that he is paid to have spill out his lying mouth, to me, posing as a person concerned about too much power in the hands of his criminal government.

Don't you see how the tables are so easily turned when there is simultaneously a criminal government working along side a non-criminal government POWER, and the victims are incapable of even knowing that there are 2, not 1, POWERS in this conflict?

Rand Paul is defending the concept of Trial by Jury and someone, somewhere, twists that around as if Rand Paul is claiming to want to bomb innocent people?

Really?

I see no such thing. How are you going to deal with a Dictator such as Obama, if you have no POWER to deal with a Dictator such as Obama, where Obama is not at any Liquor Store, robbing an innocent clerk, and who is going to deal with that criminal, and how is that person going to deal with that criminal, as that crime proceeds in that demonstrable way, as the criminal defines the meaning of crime?

If Rand Paul is claiming that the person in the boat was positively identified as the willful destroyer of innocent lives, then he could have said so, but he was not the man hired to defend against criminals using bombs to destroy innocent people, so his opinion in that case is not the same thing as if he was a Juror in a Trial by Jury.

Do you see the point being made here, as you may be moving closer and closer to situations whereby you may have to defend your own children against harm?

The point made by Rand Paul, which was very difficult to get across to anyone, because of the fact that the "interview" is a carefully constructed LIE in PROGRESS, and yet Rand Paul is able to make the point, if I am not mistaken, is that POWER is necessary in Defense of Liberty, so why would anyone reject an effective tool?

A Drone is an effective tool.

It is not the tool.

It is not "the government" that did it.

It is not the gun that did it.

It is not the drone that did it.

The "interviewer" was aiming to discredit Rand Paul by fooling Rand Paul into speaking against government as if there is only ONE type of government.

What did Rand Paul say?

Trial by Jury works.

How does it work when Criminals are running Amok and are currently perpetrating very serious crimes against very many innocent people?

Send those criminals an invitation to attend a Trial by Jury?

Most people are not criminals and they refuse to do their duty.

If Rand Paul had the POWER, would he accuse Obama, Bernanke, Biden, etc., of Terrorism, and then hold a Trial by Jury?

No.

Rand Paul works within the limits of The Constitution.

Is that good or bad?

Obama, Bernanke, Biden, etc., do not work within the limits of any Law whatsoever, other than the Law they invent at the moment they invent it.

Is that good or bad?

Soldiers who work within the limits of The Constitution do so.

Is that good or bad?

Soldiers who work outside any limits of any kind, other than the laws they enforce on the spot do so.

Is that good or bad?

Police men and women who work within the limits of The Constitution do so.

Is that good or bad?

Police men and women who work without any limit, other than their own POWER to enforce their own laws on the spot do so.

Is that good or bad?

If the bad ones are busy targeting your children and you can push a button to stop the bad guys in their tracks for 1 hour, and have all that recorded for later review, would you use that tool?

Is that a competitive viewpoint worth considering in this case?

Joe