Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rand Paul thinks its okay to kill citizens on American soil with drones, From His Lips

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Rand Paul is certainly no Ron Paul...however, he is also better than the majority of politicians...so where does that leave us? I'm not sure how I feel about supporting him...certainly I won't have the enthusiasm I did for his father.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Rand Paul seems somewhat naive to me...perhaps, anyways...he talks as if the government should have the right to do certain things, just not abuse that power...that's what EVERY politician and statist apologist says...history shows that government's use what powers they may, justify it, then integrate its bein acceptable into the mainstream public opinion.
edit on 24-4-2013 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 





Rand Paul is certainly no Ron Paul...however, he is also better than the majority of politicians...s


Nope. He's nearly identical to the average republican.

He's a shill and if anyone trusts this guy they are exactly like "Obamabots".



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ameilia
 


A while ago he said he was against drones...now he is for drones...this guy is fickle...can't seem to make up his mind.

For those of you who may not know the meaning of (fickle)...here it is: (via Google and I quote)

fick·le
/ˈfikəl/
Adjective
Changing frequently, esp. as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection.
Synonyms
inconstant - changeable - unsteady - variable - mutable (unquote)

Gee...that sounds just like Rand Paul to me.

edit on 24-4-2013 by caladonea because: add more



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Rand Paul is clearly not his father. If anyone was fooled by his filibuster they can put that issue to rest. It was nothing more than a cry for attention before a presidential run. If we left laws up to this guy by his own admission police and drones would be gunning people down over $70 armed robberies. Did this person kill the cashier? Who cares just mow them down! You know what the result of that would be? Eliminate all witnesses. How well do you think that would go over in the ghetto rich boy? If you rob a store you'd automatically have to kill the cashier and everyone else. You already decided you don't give a crap the second you walk through that door and understand your punishment is death. I hope ATS and Ron Paul people don't plan on backing this guy. It's going to be Hillary vs Paul and I'm just going to ignore the whole damn thing.
edit on 24-4-2013 by ezwip because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I am very disappointed by his conceding the point on drones, but I think that should be the primary focus. Being fair, I'm certain he doesn't support murdering petty thiefs without trial. That was just a terrible example he came up with off the top of his head. I'm in board with the annoyance at his comments on drones, so let's focus on that. That's a real issue, this murdering petty thief's thing is not really the main issue, imo, since I think it's obvious that was just a bad example that came to his mind.
edit on 24-4-2013 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Better Paul than Jeb.. I will never vote for anouther Bush!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ameilia


"If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."




Yep. It doesn't take knowledge or experience to make a politician.

Their figureheads. Like the queen of England.

That's what party politics is about. Their mascots! You choose a team and root for them! It doesn't matter if the wrong side and the legislation they support can cost lives.

When you are throwing back a beer and rooting for your team it doesn't matter.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ameilia
 


I've been under the impression with Rand that only the Ron Paul supporters who don't pay anybattention whatsoever also support Rand. I guess the term might be PINO? (Paul In Name Only)...interestingly enough, when I type "pino" the obnoxious spelling suggestions which try to autocorrect me suggest "pinocchio."

Rand has always seemed to me to be a rising superstar of the bad guys club in politics. My guess is, unless Ron is a lie himself, to gather and contain would-be libertarians into an ineffective, marginalized force (which I believe he may be), then he is ashamed of his scumbag son.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Some of you flip-flop with your politicians as much as you accuse them of flip-flopping on the issues.

Re-read the quote before you jump to conclusions. If someone robs a store and comes out with a gun then he is saying it doesn't matter who/what shoots him. He's obviously referring to a situation where force would need to be met with force.

I seriously doubt he's changes his stance on drones assassinating people considering how long he spent filibustering a few months ago. We still remember that, right?
edit on 24-4-2013 by JayTaylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
it was posted ealier.. but still I support the pauls but I don't know what he is talking about this... why would a police officer or a drone kill someone for robbing a store for $50... that seems a little harsh.. Lets start with droning the banksters and politicians that walk out of their fancy office after stealing $50mil-50bil from the american people.. Then we can drone the $50 guys at the liquor store.


I believe that what he is saying is there is very little difference. If a cop shoots and kills the perp in hot pursuit he will be just as dead as if a drone got him. He also stated very clearly he doesn't want to see drones and heat seeking tech looking around in our back yards randomly without probably cause.
I personally would prefer no drones period. Again, he said for it to be used only under the conditions like what we saw in the Boston scene.
I don't like the whole slippery slope thing but he did say that he was still concerned about privacy.

Like someone else said, Rand is not his father, and you know conservatives won't vote for Ron because they see him as weak in defense. Perhaps Rand is stronger in defense than his Dad. Some people are really naïve about Defense. We really do have to have a way to defend against bad guys, and that would include bad Chechen dudes.
The Liberals have been soft on terrorism and communism for decades. And now we see how well it's worked out. This Boston thing is one of the worst things we've seen since 9-11.
With all the people here on ATS and in foreign countries who have shown obvious hatred of America, why do people refuse to admit there can be bad guys with bad intent who know how to make bombs with pressure cookers?
edit on 25-4-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Sparta
 





Death sentence for robbing a shop? Ha what a joke


Wow, I've seen thread after thread after thread here of people complaining about police brutality and police killing suspects on the run and now you are suggesting it never happens? If the suspect has a gun and is shooting people, yep it happens.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
The remark is disturbing but taken out of context. Rand Paul was trying to say, if they man robbed the liquor store, had a gun and was threatening violence with the gun and had to be shot, it would't matter if a police officer did it or a drone / drone operator did it.

Rand Paul doesn't want assassinations of American citizens taking place on American soil using drones. He never said and is not saying now that police action that is taking place can't be enhanced by the use of drone technology.


It wasn't taken out of context. The whole video segment of when he said this was provided. Rand Paul didn't say the guy was threatening violence. Just that he had a gun and $50 -- the money apparently from robbery. This is very disturbing on his part. He apparently believes in unnecessary force and that cops should try to take suspects alive, or that the government can remotely kill them with a drone.

To claim that he meant that the suspect is threatening violence is adding words to what he said. I for one don't buy it. RP will have to own this one. Moreover, this position of his seems to conflict with his much ballyhooed filibuster. The is either erratic or as much of a flip-flopper as Romney.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Come on people! I thought that we at ATS were supposed to "Deny Ignorance"!

Rand was on the Hannity radio show yesterday and clarified his point. He said that if there was a shoot out and the police are authorized to use deadly force, rather that placing officers in harms way, that he would be ok with using a small drone to take him out.

Stop jumping to conclusions and getting all freaked out!

edit on 25-4-2013 by MrBigDave because: added video



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by MrBigDave
 


Damn right, my fingers are firmly crossed for Paul in the next go around!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Here is his comments on the Hannity show




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrBigDave
Come on people! I thought that we at ATS were supposed to "Deny Ignorance"!

Rand was on the Hannity radio show yesterday and clarified his point. He said that if there was a shoot out and the police are authorized to use deadly force, rather that placing officers in harms way, that he would be ok with using a small drone to take him out.

Stop jumping to conclusions and getting all freaked out!



What? So it is Ok to use armed drones on Americans on American soil...as long as the alternative might place and officer at risk?

WTF...That aint a slippery slope is it?

NOPE...NEVER...IMO...Should we allow armed drones on American Soil. Thier purpose abroad is "extra-judicial"...otherwise, known terrorists on foriegn soil, outside the laws of the US, outside the reach of the PD, FBI, Swat and the infinite resources we have to aprehend folks here...where they are subject to US Laws and a government with the resources to aprehend and try them in a Court of Law.

If the measure is...Cop at risk = OK Drone Strike/Assasiantion...that is effen insane. Armed drones have no place on US soil, within US jurisdiction and laws, where citizens can have thier day in court.

The US has infinite resources to apprehend suspects on Us soil...we don't require a flying robot to assisinate them.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I don't know in what context this was, but suffice to say I've never been a fan of Rand, and I really wish he wasn't associated with his father in any way whatsoever. He is more of a hardline "conservative party" player, completely unlike his father.

It's rather unfortunate.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23
Rand has always seemed to me to be a rising superstar of the bad guys club in politics.


It's a typical evolution of most young libertarians, once they grow up and recognize the world is more complicated than their theories, they turn into moderate liberals or assholes.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by dogstar23
Rand has always seemed to me to be a rising superstar of the bad guys club in politics.


It's a typical evolution of most young libertarians, once they grow up and recognize the world is more complicated than their theories, they turn into moderate liberals or assholes.


I think you mean "and", not "or".





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join