In response to:

Deaf Dialogue on Drones

Peter906 Wrote: Mar 10, 2013 1:07 PM
I think there are two ways to think of this issue. One, Rand Paul's, is to fear a security state in which the executive claims excessive power (whether the Pres is Obama, Bush, or whoever comes next). This seems to me to be a real fear, made worse by Obama's campaign against leakers. The other is to see the problem as one where the Obama administration is plotting against gun rights people and Christians, which strikes me as far-fetched and without any decent empirical evidence in support. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists will lessen their concern with a Republican President, and the security state will then march ahead.
ReddestNeck Wrote: Mar 10, 2013 2:24 PM
Obama's against a whole potpourri of things that used to be held as dear and decent in America... so no they're really not singling out arms rights people and Christians, they're just caught in the maelstrom with the rest.
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....