In response to:

Deaf Dialogue on Drones

bmccormick Wrote: Mar 10, 2013 1:07 PM
I understand what you are getting at, but bad example. The cops out in California shot at innocent people because they were driving a truck similar to the one they were looking for. Cops around the country shoot first and ask questions later, anytime they feel threatened. So yes the cops will shoot you if you are armed, they will shoot you if they think you armed, they will shoot if they think you might hit them with your car. The cops will shoot you for whatever reason, today consider yourself lucky if the cops don't shoot you
A famous book on negotiation is called "Getting to Yes." Sometimes, though, the better achievement is arriving at "no." That's what Eric Holder and Rand Paul did the other day.

It came in a letter from the attorney general to the Republican senator from Kentucky, which said: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."

Until then, the two had been engaged in a dialogue of the deaf....

Saturday, May 25 | 08:06 AM ET
Saturday, May 25 | 08:06 AM ET
Saturday, May 25 | 08:06 AM ET
Saturday, May 25 | 08:06 AM ET