Laura Ingraham makes surprising concession on drones

[anaconda]

Hannity . . . one day after the positive radio interview with Rand post-filibuster,
had on Rudy Giuliani on his cable TV show on Faux News making fun with Rudy about the very filibuster.

Link? Or a little more context? I can't find a link. I would love to see Sean backstabbing Rand, for the record.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm sorry folks but these people aren't discussing anything near the important elements. I don't for the life of me understand why everyone is all of a sudden giving them so much attention. I've seen zero big boy speak from any of them.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The thing is - the panel discussion linked to in the OP appeared to be a complete segment, at least from my perspective. The youtube link in post #54 above looks like the same show from the same date (Laura is wearing the exact same thing, Wallace says "we're back with the panel..") but her comments there are not part of the OP video.

The OP video was the part of the show that was actually aired on TV.

The video in post #54 was a "web only" continuation of the panel discussion - used to draw traffic to the FOX web site.

 

[Occam's Banana]

it wont matter what the knuckleheads say when Rand has Iowa and NH locked up.

Seriously, people spend too much time worrying about these people say and think.

All we need to care about is them saying "Rand Paul" often enough so the Iowa voter turns on tv and see's it, then they get the break and the Rand Paul ad... then they see Rand in their state and high up in the polls.

Some "analysts" will say nice things, some will say ridiculous things to derail him... it won't matter, just as long as they're talking about him and he's driving the debate.

So if it doesn't matter, why in the world do you complain so much about Justin Raimondo and others when they criticize Rand (as you do in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...aites-Unite-Against-Rand-Paul-Justin-Raimondo )?

You started a whole thread several days ago just to bitch about Michael Rozeff referring to Rand's filibuster as "useless" (here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406959-The-Lew-Rockwell-Crowd-Just-Don-t-Get-It! ).

If "every little bit helps" (regardless of whether it is positive or negative), then why do you get such a bug up your nose about those things?

 

[JJ2]

Nobody on that panel seemed to understand (Rand's definition at least) what "not engaged in combat" means. They said it was a completely unrealistic threat, yet noncombatants are routinely droned outside the US, including some American citizens! "People sitting in cafes" are precisely who we drone overseas. They don't seem to even understand where Rand got the whole scenario from.

 

[Christopholes11]

Nobody on that panel seemed to understand (Rand's definition at least) what "not engaged in combat" means. They said it was a completely unrealistic threat, yet noncombatants are routinely droned outside the US, including some American citizens! "People sitting in cafes" are precisely who we drone overseas. They don't seem to even understand where Rand got the whole scenario from.

Precisely. Do they really want their next door neighbor to be droned if they are thought to be a terrorist? Why not just arrest the person? I hope for their sake the drone doesn't miss its target, killing them instead. Droning American citizens is not only unconstitutional, it's dangerous to everyone, terrorist or not.

 

[Carson]

She did on many things. The problem with her and hannity both, to some extent, was how badly they stabbed Ron in the back in 2008. He didn't trust them enough to explain unguardedly. With her, I think that was unfortunate, and I think there was a tiny window when Ron might have gotten a more thoughtful review from Hannity too - but then Hannity was all newsletters even though he knows very well the smear was a smear.

They are still working.

Man could imagine the showers you would have to take after what they do. Maybe they have then in their dressing rooms to get a head start on the ones when they get home.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The heroin thing is a classic trap.

It would never be available in the store. The doctor would have to prescribe it to the addict. That's the sort of thing I would see happening with heroin becoming legal. Doctors wouldn't just give it to anyone who asks for it.

Terrible idea. It's going to wind up trafficked like other prescription drugs and won't really help the situation. Just let the various state deal with it as they do with tobacco and alcohol for now. Eventually it will be necessary to get government out of it altogether because it simply doesn't work-and it isn't consistent with liberty (even from the Constitutionalist's perspective).