If they're not going to, then why don't they just acknowledge the fact that it isn't legal for them to do so? All Paul wanted was for either Obama or Holder to disavow the notion that they have legitimately have this power, or for the Senate to unanimously pass a non-binding resolution to say that they are of the opinion that the executive branch doesn't have this power, and he would have stopped.

This sure costs a lot less money than if they were being all bipartisany and Working Together to Get Things Done, so I'm all for it.

Not even close, even when you ask, "Do you think the US should drone strike teh bad terristz or are you some kind of damn hippy?" Even fewer support it when you ask them if they should be considered fair game.

Not sure what is more sad, your lack of knowledge of the topic or your devotion to ignorance.

NEWSFLASH, the government does not care about deceiving its citizens to accomplish its agenda.

Example: 

McKinley

President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.

Bush Jr

"Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Not to mention the systemic corporate beurocracy known to us as the Justice system.

- Victimless crimes are not crimes by the definition of crime yet the perpetuation of this bullshit is rampant.

Income Tax

Clever charlatans through subterfuge have been STEALING from you.

The "Right to Labor" is not taxable. Trading property (time, labor) for property (money) is not Income. Thus wages are free from this taxation.

Income was described as interest from savings accounts, stocks, etc. 

Only a couple times in history was wage taxation allowed. Both of these were during war times, so there was a need for additional tax revenue to offset the new outlays for war. And both of these times, it was temporary.

74% of republicans approve of drones strike, 62% of americans approve of drone strikes. It recently fluctuates by maybe 5% - 8% swing +/-.

You're supporting what Im saying, although that 80% remark was wrong, it's nearly 70 when up and near 55% when down. So yes, the MAJORITY of americans support it. Of coarse when you ask them "SHOULD YOU" be the target, they'll say no. But they will NEVER BE THE TARGET.

I mean, you're trying to claim that the drone program will get so out of hand that americans will be targeted lol. That's a stupid thing to say.... Btw, even if it is illegal, why the FUCK would the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITES STATES admit that lol. Im sure the republican party wouldnt ATTACK the president and the democrats EVERYDAY for that, something which THEY support as well but for PR reasons would LOVE to destroy the president with.

Get into politics... I don't mean to offend you but all this "lets all get alone" and "lets reveal US secrets to EVERYONE" mindset is pathetic. Let's audit the fed too, lets really give China and every economic competitor an easy way to FUCK US.

That has literally NOTHING to do with what I said. Stay on topic, I'd be more than willing to prove you wrong ON TOPIC. Hey remember when Rand Paul said businesses should have the right to discriminate against ethnic minorites? Oh thats right... I said ON TOPIC lol. Egg on MY face...

Should've anticipated such a response. 

It's clear you don't value liberty or due process. Thus, there isn't anything to discuss.

When people can't debate they usually slink away quietly...but not before leaving a useless comment to "save face." 

In the future don't jump in head first without knowing the facts, do yourself that favor lol. Save me the headache of responding to you.

No. When people are confronted with the actual issue and stop to think about it for two seconds, 57% of them believe it is unconstitutional for the president to kill a citizen without due process. That figure is still disturbingly low, but that is a majority who don't support it.

Noooo! That would never happen!

"Even if he is breaking the law, it's good that the president covers it up because those mean old Republicans would use it to their political advantage!"

Hey remember when Obama said the government should have the right to kill suspicious ethic minorities with flying murderbots paid for with their own tax money? And you were all like, "That'd never happen, LOL!"? Good times...

Right. Because I'm one to shy away from debate. Obviously you don't know me. 

The facts? Oh you mean like your 80% support comment which was quickly debunked? Lol. I'll allow badgenome do to what he does best.

Hey guys - arguing with him seems quite useless. In other countries there is some mystical blind devotion to the state by the people. Likely because there has been vast influence by mobocratic populist parties and statist groups in general. They believe that they can change their governments through the electoral process, and that should be the main role of the people. We - in the United States - on the other hand believe strongly in individual liberties and a restrictive government, and this is true as a population - excluding certain statist extremists. That is why Rand Paul received the massive support he had received. So when he [the foreigner] is criticizing what he thinks to be Republican values (which was ironically the liberal position during the Bush era) he's really criticizing the values of a large portion of one of the leading Western federations in history.