Rand Paul reminds us how awesomely crazy he is

[JakeStarkey]

Darn it, I want the state police to be able to use drones on militia when the time comes.

 

[Stephanie]

You notice everyone is "crazy" to a liberal unless they are a Democrat?

 

[Two Thumbs]

There is a difference in using a drone to strike someone that's simply on Obama's hit list that's doing nothing more than driving down the road and using a drone to stop a crime in progress.

There's no difference between putting down a criminal hell bent on killing others and blowing up a terrorist and the 40 innocent bystanders that are near him.

This is what liberals think, I don't understand that thinking, b/c I'm not a sick person.

The U.S. does it's best to limit the number of civilian casualties. But sometimes it can't be avoided.

I take it you're outraged about what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No

B/c I know the history.

doing so saved millions of lives and prevented us from taking about the Japanese in the past tense forever.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Before too many of you Randbot types step in it trying to defend him,

the Senator has already denounced his own statement with a reverse flip flop.

"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

"Let me be clear: It has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations."

So all of you who were defending the flip can now pivot and defend the flop.

lol


Rand Paul Elaborates: Armed Drones Not OK For 'Normal Crime' : It's All Politics : NPR

who's defending?

I'm saying you're not smart enough to tell what he's saying, and liberals in general are so fucking dumb that he had to explain that water is wet.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Darn it, I want the state police to be able to use drones on militia when the time comes.

They have weapons most Americans are not allowed to have.
They get to have body armor,
armored cars
gas weapons

What's one more thing for them to have that we don't have the freedom for?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darn it, I want the state police to be able to use drones on militia when the time comes.

They have weapons most Americans are not allowed to have.
They get to have body armor,
armored cars
gas weapons

What's one more thing for them to have that we don't have the freedom for?

Just so.

 

[ogibillm]

Before too many of you Randbot types step in it trying to defend him,

the Senator has already denounced his own statement with a reverse flip flop.

"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

"Let me be clear: It has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations."

So all of you who were defending the flip can now pivot and defend the flop.

lol


Rand Paul Elaborates: Armed Drones Not OK For 'Normal Crime' : It's All Politics : NPR

who's defending?

I'm saying you're not smart enough to tell what he's saying, and liberals in general are so fucking dumb that he had to explain that water is wet.

i understand his point, but i don't like that the scenario he puts forward doesn't require lethal force.

but i do understand. a drone is simply a tool. to me it is no different than a police helicopter or a rifle. it is not the tool but how it's used that would concern me.

 

[g5000]

Yesterday, Rand Paul, Mr. Anti-Drones, came out in favor of using drones to obliterate guys who rob liquor stores:

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

No, Rand Paul Didn?t Just Switch His Position on Drones | The American Conservative

Welcome to Rand Paul's Police State lololol

So Rand Paul believes it is okay to kill Americans on US soil with drones!

Whattaya know...

Is he going to filibuster himself now?

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, what does it matter if a person guns him down or an unmanned robot does it? Paul is right! We should have more drones on the streets being able to gun down petty criminals in the blink of an eye!

An armed robber is a petty criminal?

Spoken like a true liberal.

Drones make mistakes

So do people. Drones are under the control of people 100% of the time. They don't fire missiles on their on volition.

 

[ogibillm]

An armed robber is a petty criminal?

Spoken like a true liberal.

Drones make mistakes

So do people. Drones are under the control of people 100% of the time. They don't fire missiles on their on volition.

i guess you never saw the movie 'stealth'

 

[LoneLaugher]

There's no difference between putting down a criminal hell bent on killing others and blowing up a terrorist and the 40 innocent bystanders that are near him.

This is what liberals think, I don't understand that thinking, b/c I'm not a sick person.

The U.S. does it's best to limit the number of civilian casualties. But sometimes it can't be avoided.

I take it you're outraged about what Truman did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No

B/c I know the history.

doing so saved millions of lives and prevented us from taking about the Japanese in the past tense forever.

Bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure there's nothing significant about the fact that Paul picked the most stereotypical inner city black crime he could think of.

Leave it to a liberal to make a racial connection where none existed.

More proof that liberals see everything in black and white.

Given that Rand Paul believes that businesses should be able to refuse service to people of color, I think that bridge has already been crossed whenever the name Rand Paul comes up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

actually, he has a point. what difference does it make?

now, if you're going to make the argument that the drone would cause collateral damage, then RP is a nutcase. but that really is not his point. his point is, if a drone can kill the guy, just like a cop can shoot the guy, what difference does it make.

tell me, would it matter if a cop killed the guy with a shotgun or a pistol?

too much for you to handle NY?

You should learn to read. As was posted, Rand Paul has retracted yesterday's statement with a new one today.

Go debate with him.

 

[Yurt]

actually, he has a point. what difference does it make?

now, if you're going to make the argument that the drone would cause collateral damage, then RP is a nutcase. but that really is not his point. his point is, if a drone can kill the guy, just like a cop can shoot the guy, what difference does it make.

tell me, would it matter if a cop killed the guy with a shotgun or a pistol?

too much for you to handle NY?

You should learn to read. As was posted, Rand Paul has retracted yesterday's statement with a new one today.

Go debate with him.

so you're too much of a pussy to actually argue the OP premise.

figures

 

[NYcarbineer]

Before too many of you Randbot types step in it trying to defend him,

the Senator has already denounced his own statement with a reverse flip flop.

"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

"Let me be clear: It has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations."

So all of you who were defending the flip can now pivot and defend the flop.

lol


Rand Paul Elaborates: Armed Drones Not OK For 'Normal Crime' : It's All Politics : NPR

who's defending?

I'm saying you're not smart enough to tell what he's saying, and liberals in general are so fucking dumb that he had to explain that water is wet.

The idiot has said the opposite thing in two statements in two days. Are you smart enough to tell what he's saying?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yesterday, Rand Paul, Mr. Anti-Drones, came out in favor of using drones to obliterate guys who rob liquor stores:

“Here’s the distinction — I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat an act of crime going on,” Paul said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him, but it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

No, Rand Paul Didn?t Just Switch His Position on Drones | The American Conservative

Welcome to Rand Paul's Police State lololol

So Rand Paul believes it is okay to kill Americans on US soil with drones!

Whattaya know...

Is he going to filibuster himself now?

Note the update posted earlier. He's flopped his flip flop back to his original stance, which, at this point, is really anyone's guess.

He's a weakminded shadow of his father, I'd say.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Rand Paul is not as intelligent as his father. And....his father was not intelligent enough to understand that REALLY INTELLIGENT people want a POTUS who does not rely on god to make decisions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul is not as intelligent as his father. And....his father was not intelligent enough to understand that REALLY INTELLIGENT people want a POTUS who does not rely on god to make decisions.

Rand Paul seems to have one set of beliefs when he's talking, or thinks he talking, to the Paul cult,

and another set when he's talking to normal America.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The simple fact is that Rand is wrong. There's a huge difference between using a drone, which essentially terrifies a population, destroys property, and kills innocent civilians, and possibly having to use lethal force in the form of a police handgun or something equivalent.

 

[JimH52]

Rand Paul is a Drone... His Dad was the original Drone.