Rand Paul reminds us how awesomely crazy he is

[Quantum Windbag]

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

I completely disagree with him here, but I don't see why this makes him any crazier than you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If they fail they fail. Why should you care?

And denying them access to public roads would be illegal you retarded fuck!

Thanks for the non-sequitors.

No one is denying anyone access to public roads. If you open your business to the commerce available on those public roads, however, you will be required to open those doors regardless of race. You don't like it you are free to not participate in the commerce.

You're a moron.

Private businesses are private and on private property. Public roads are public.

See the difference?

That self photo of yours explains a lot.

You might want to consider whom you’re referring to as ‘moron’ and ‘stupid’ when you succeed in only exhibiting your own ignorance.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where denying services to individuals based on their race or religion has an impact on commerce and markets, Congress and other jurisdictions are therefore authorized to regulate these markets, and prohibit such practices accordingly. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for the non-sequitors.

No one is denying anyone access to public roads. If you open your business to the commerce available on those public roads, however, you will be required to open those doors regardless of race. You don't like it you are free to not participate in the commerce.

You're a moron.

Private businesses are private and on private property. Public roads are public.

See the difference?

That self photo of yours explains a lot.

You might want to consider whom you’re referring to as ‘moron’ and ‘stupid’ when you succeed in only exhibiting your own ignorance.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where denying services to individuals based on their race or religion has an impact on commerce and markets, Congress and other jurisdictions are therefore authorized to regulate these markets, and prohibit such practices accordingly. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

They are actually predicated on the fact that imbeciles make laws.

 

[bripat9643]

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

All you proved is that your too stupid to understand his point. What difference does it make if a done shoots the armed robber or a cop shoots him with his revolver?

 

[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!

It doesn't make any difference whether the drone or the cop shoots him, but the reason for shooting him does matter. Being suspected of being a terrorist isn't justification for shooting anyone, no matter who does it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat has finally got it: drones don't kill people, people kill people.

But buttboy needs to understand the use of drones (not 'dones' bripat) overseas is just fine against Americans who are waging war against America can't be taken in any other way.

 

[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

People make the decision as to whether the drone fires or not.

 

[bripat9643]

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

No, there's nothing significant about it.

 

[bripat9643]

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

You still didn't get it. "Normal crime situations" means the kind that don't justify lethal force.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat has finally got it: drones don't kill people, people kill people.

But buttboy needs to understand the use of drones (not 'dones' bripat) overseas is just fine against Americans who are waging war against America can't be taken in any other way.

No it isn't "just fine," you senile asshole. The American the military killed overseas with a drone wasn't engaged in anything except driving from one location to another. If lethal force isn't justified on U.S. soil, then it isn't justified on foreign soil.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for the non-sequitors.

No one is denying anyone access to public roads. If you open your business to the commerce available on those public roads, however, you will be required to open those doors regardless of race. You don't like it you are free to not participate in the commerce.

You're a moron.

Private businesses are private and on private property. Public roads are public.

See the difference?

That self photo of yours explains a lot.

You might want to consider whom you’re referring to as ‘moron’ and ‘stupid’ when you succeed in only exhibiting your own ignorance.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where denying services to individuals based on their race or religion has an impact on commerce and markets, Congress and other jurisdictions are therefore authorized to regulate these markets, and prohibit such practices accordingly. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

In other words, they are total bullshit, as is every decision justified using the commerce clause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat has finally got it: drones don't kill people, people kill people.

But buttboy needs to understand the use of drones (not 'dones' bripat) overseas is just fine against Americans who are waging war against America can't be taken in any other way.

No it isn't "just fine," you senile asshole. The American the military killed overseas with a drone wasn't engaged in anything except driving from one location to another. If lethal force isn't justified on U.S. soil, then it isn't justified on foreign soil.

End of story.

Mind your language and reported. Yes, bripat, if you go overseas to Yemen and broadcast against the USA, you are going to get a drone up your ass and everyone will cheer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lonestar so could get his ass kicked.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yea I said the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing. Any more lies you wish to tell?

I didn't ask if you had a job retard.

You commented on whether or not I had a job. I simply clarified what you said as it was an obvious attempt to backhandedly insult me.

And calling people "retard" is just bad form, incredibly juvenile and just plain hateful. It's an insult to those with actual learning disabilities. Not one single person I know who has a child with a learning disability finds the word acceptable. You should think before you post.

If you were insulted then that's your problem. And I can call anyone anything I want and you can blame it on the 1st Amendment. The use of the word retard is only insulting to mentally disabled people when it's directed at them. If your idiot friends are insulted by words then they're indeed thin- skinned idiots.

Stick and stones may break my bones..........

Learn it! Live it!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Thanks for the non-sequitors.

No one is denying anyone access to public roads. If you open your business to the commerce available on those public roads, however, you will be required to open those doors regardless of race. You don't like it you are free to not participate in the commerce.

You're a moron.

Private businesses are private and on private property. Public roads are public.

See the difference?

That self photo of yours explains a lot.

You might want to consider whom you’re referring to as ‘moron’ and ‘stupid’ when you succeed in only exhibiting your own ignorance.

Public accommodations laws are predicated on Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where denying services to individuals based on their race or religion has an impact on commerce and markets, Congress and other jurisdictions are therefore authorized to regulate these markets, and prohibit such practices accordingly. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Your definition of the Commerce Clause is flawed.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.


While Congress had the power to regulate commerce, it could not regulate manufacturing, which was seen as being entirely local. In Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888).

The Commerce Clause affects foreign, interstate and Indian commerce not local commerce.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Lonestar so could get his ass kicked.

Not hardly. But keep dreaming.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lonestar, that is not how the Commerce Clause is defined in terms of how you operate your gun shop.

You cannot change the rules.