Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rand Paul said that we should not use Drones on US citizens regardless of his/her crimes. Then he said we should.
You still haven't shown proof of this. You take the word of a half interview taken out of context like the "running from dream act people"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
How do you not see that as a flip flop ???????
What he has said is, why is Obama judge, jury, and executioner? What he has said is if there is an imminent threat he has no problem with their use. example - Gunman coming out of a store he just robbed.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,556 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
You still havn't shown proof of this. What he has said is "Why is Obama judge, jury, and executioner?" What he has said is if there is an imminent threat it should be used. example - Gunman coming out of a store he just robbed.
NO he did not.
Quote:
The Senator’s filibuster was a response to his displeasure with the Attorney General who had failed to answer a direct question regarding whether the AG thought it acceptable to use drones on American soil against American citizens. To get his answer, Paul resolved to stage a filibuster until Mr. Holder gave him an answer to the question—a move by Senator Paul that I found to be more than appropriate and, frankly, pretty darn cool.......
Quote:
“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. (emphasis added)”
the word imminent did not exist in his original argument against Drone use on US citizens.
"I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why."
Rand Paul is Ron Paul lite. Perhaps that's for the best. Ron Paul was sabotaged by both sides for being too extreme in his views. I never really understood why Ron was seen as such a scary guy though. The man just talks sense.
Ron Paul lite though he might be, Rand Paul would be a breath of fresh air. The GOP is in dire need of a serious change of direction. Enough of being the party of war hawks and protecting the interests of rich folks. The GOP won this most recent election because Americans are fed up with the Democrats, not because the GOP had vastly better ideas. This is their chance to show America something new. Incorporating Libertarian views like those of Paul would be a great step in the right direction.
"I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why."
Rand Paul is Ron Paul lite. Perhaps that's for the best. Ron Paul was sabotaged by both sides for being too extreme in his views. I never really understood why Ron was seen as such a scary guy though. The man just talks sense.
Ron Paul lite though he might be, Rand Paul would be a breath of fresh air. The GOP is in dire need of a serious change of direction. Enough of being the party of war hawks and protecting the interests of rich folks. The GOP won this most recent election because Americans are fed up with the Democrats, not because the GOP had vastly better ideas. This is their chance to show America something new. Incorporating Libertarian views like those of Paul would be a great step in the right direction.
The Constitution is very extreme in the collective, socialist, progressive world we live in today.
Both parties have been progressive for 100 years.
Both parties have taken freedom & liberty from the people and outsourced it to the police state.
A constitutional conservative is extreme these days. An endangered species.
Because you cannot take the thought process to the next level and have not taken the time to listen to Rand Pauls policies.
Show me one person in Congress who believes that a gunman should NOT be taken down when there is an imminent threat. Idiotic to think otherwise.
So according to you when a gunman has just robbed a store, government should hold a trial right then and there while gunfire is being exchanged? Your post is absurd.
Because you cannot take the thought process to the next level and have not taken the time to listen to Rand Pauls policies.
Show me one person in Congress who believes that a gunman should NOT be taken down when there is an imminent threat. Idiotic to think otherwise.
So according to you when a gunman has just robbed a store, government should hold a trial right then and there while gunfire is being exchanged? Your post is absurd.
So we need to look deeper and at what Rand Paul says and extrapolate different meaning from his words in order to understand what he is saying? Well, okay then... I didn't realize that we had waded into the world of religion.
So we need to look deeper and at what Rand Paul says and extrapolate different meaning from his words in order to understand what he is saying?
Since when does anyone with half a brain have to look deep into a simple statement except those with a twisted agenda which doesn't include looking for the truth.
Good to know you actually think someone wants to hold a trial in the middle of a gunfight to see if a drone should be used. Otherwise why post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
Well, okay then... I didn't realize that we had waded into the world of religion.
We haven't. That's your silly agenda.
Let me dumb it down for you in hopes you may somehow understand. When a threat isn't imminent you hold a trial. Just like the court system in America is supposed to work. Which is EXACTLY what Rand Paul was talking about. See that wasn't hard.
Since when does anyone with half a brain have to look deep into a simple statement except those with a twisted agenda which doesn't include looking for the truth.
Good to know you actually think someone wants to hold a trial in the middle of a gunfight to see if a drone should be used. Otherwise why post?
We haven't. That's your silly agenda.
Let me dumb it down for you in hopes you may somehow understand. When a threat isn't imminent you hold a trial. Just like the court system in America is supposed to work. Which is EXACTLY what Rand Paul was talking about. See that wasn't hard.
Let's try this again. Here are direct quotes from Rand Paul:
"“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
And then later:
"I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. 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.”
There's no deeper meaning. And there's no thought process to be taken to the next level unless you are attempting some mental gymnastics to find a way where those aren't contradictory statements. He's done this time and time again on a number of subjects - remember his comments on the Civil rights Act.
Frankly, I want to like Rand Paul because he occasionally does say the right thing about 4th Amendment rights, and ending the War on Drugs. But because of the constant contradictions I think a lot of what he says is just throwing a bone at self professed libertarians in order to maintain a national base, and becasue he probably really likes weed.
I like Rand Paul and I will be voting for him in the primaries if he runs.
Rand Paul will not win, be allowed to win and democrats and republicans have already decided who they want to WIN.
This happens every election season.
MsSNBC, CNN and foxnews will tell you who the front runner is even before 1 vote is even cast. Watch and learn.
Now that doesnt mean your votes dont count just dont except to convince "people" when they so want to vote for whatever the media tells them is worth the vote for.
Principles, records and experience will be ignored as long as its what gives them moderate illusions of freedom and more the last 20 years of expanding government.
Let's try this again. Here are direct quotes from Rand Paul:
"“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court."
And then later:
"I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. 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.”
There's no deeper meaning. And there's no thought process to be taken to the next level unless you are attempting some mental gymnastics to find a way where those aren't contradictory statements.
So where is the flip flop? Where is the changing his tune? Answer there isn't any except to those with a twisted agenda. How hard is it to figure out those are two different scenarios?
Lets try this again, but this time pay attention because if you had actually been paying attention Rand was speaking of Obama being judge, jury, and executioner when there was NO imminent threat. But your inability to think things through and apply them to the actual scenario isn't Rand Pauls fault. That's on you.
The sad part is there are people like you who actually think it had to be clarified. I'll ask again but you will no doubt dodge this question. Name me someone in Congress, or anyone else with half a brain, who doesn't think a gunman threatening people should be stopped in their tracks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
He's done this time and time again on a number of subjects
No he hasn't. And just like your failed attempt here you have no proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
- remember his comments on the Civil rights Act.
yes but you don't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
Frankly, I want to like Rand Paul because he occasionally does say the right thing about 4th Amendment rights, and ending the War on Drugs. But because of the constant contradictions
He hasn't had any contradictions and you've provided no proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon
I think a lot of what he says is just throwing a bone at self professed libertarians in order to maintain a national base, and because he probably really likes weed.
Again, no facts to back up your statement
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
