Rand Paul "evolves" on killing Americans with drones on American soil

[HomerJS]

Yes, any politician can change their mind on an issue. There are legitimate reasons for changing ones mind but if you get on your high horse on a particular issue, demand memos from the White House supporting your issue, I would think you would remain consistant.

Enter the newest conservative star, Rand Paul.

Remember this from his epic filibuster a few months ago...

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.

It has "evolved" to this a few days ago...

"I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on," Paul said. "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."

Damn dude, if you are going to run for President in 2016 get your lies together!

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop

 

[xBiffx]

Damn dude, if you are going to run for President in 2016 get your lies together!

When has that ever been a qualification?

Besides, its not a lie its a flip flop. What president isn't guilty of that?

 

[BoberFett]

Yes, any politician can change their mind on an issue. There are legitimate reasons for changing ones mind but if you get on your high horse on a particular issue, demand memos from the White House supporting your issue, I would think you would remain consistant.

Enter the newest conservative star, Rand Paul.

Remember this from his epic filibuster a few months ago...


It has "evolved" to this a few days ago...


Damn dude, if you are going to run for President in 2016 get your lies together!

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop

Holy intellectual dishonesty Batman!

Do you really believe that there's no difference between someone who is tried in a secret "court" and assassinated by a drone as they go about their daily business vs someone running out of a store waving a gun?

 

[Genx87]

The fail is strong with this thread.

 

[HomerJS]

Holy intellectual dishonesty Batman!

Do you really believe that there's no difference between someone who is tried in a secret "court" and assassinated by a drone as they go about their daily business vs someone running out of a store waving a gun?

I do but Rand doesn't

 

[Genx87]

I do but Rand doesn't

Do you know how to read? Your quote mentions an active crime. That is certainly much different than targetting civilians without trial not in the middle of a crime.

Not that I would like drones to do this anyways. But you are taking two seperate issues and trying to paint him as flipping on the topic.

 

[xBiffx]

But you are taking two seperate issues and trying to paint him as flipping on the topic.

Actually the OP's accusation was that Rand was lying. I brought up the flipping. I may have to reconsider that language, however.

 

[Incorruptible]

OP fails to understand the difference between someone getting killed by the president without due process and when they actually pose a real threat.

OP must have reading comprehension issues.

 

[cliftonite]

Do you know how to read? Your quote mentions an active crime. That is certainly much different than targetting civilians without trial not in the middle of a crime.

Not that I would like drones to do this anyways. But you are taking two seperate issues and trying to paint him as flipping on the topic.

So a person committing a crime does not get a trial? Rand is going to assume he is guilty and drone his ass?

 

[cliftonite]

Holy intellectual dishonesty Batman!

Do you really believe that there's no difference between someone who is tried in a secret "court" and assassinated by a drone as they go about their daily business vs someone running out of a store waving a gun?

What if the person running out of the store was the owner chasing after a robber?

 

[Genx87]

So a person committing a crime does not get a trial? Rand is going to assume he is guilty and drone his ass?

Waving a gun at police? Really?

I already said I wouldnt be a fan of using drones in this situation. But to claim they are the same is false.

 

[cliftonite]

Waving a gun at police? Really?

I already said I wouldnt be a fan of using drones in this situation. But to claim they are the same is false.

He didn't say waving a gun at the police. He said coming out of the store with $50 and a gun.

 

[HomerJS]

OP fails to understand the difference between someone getting killed by the president without due process and when they actually pose a real threat.

OP must have reading comprehension issues.

What part of "no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" didn't comprehend.

Under certain specific circumstances I don't have an issue with a drone taking out someone with a drone.

Paul was just using his filibuster demand as a club to beat the President in the head. Then he turns around a few months later and says in some instances drones are ok.

 

[nextJin]

Wow OP, you are both late and ignorant.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=779

And yesterday michal1980 tried to play the same card and got himself educated.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2315803

 

[Incorruptible]

What part of "no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime" didn't comprehend.

Under certain specific circumstances I don't have an issue with a drone taking out someone with a drone.

Paul was just using his filibuster demand as a club to beat the President in the head. Then he turns around a few months later and says in some instances drones are ok.

Once again you are wrong. Rand Paul is an American Patriot who defends the Constitution but you are too ignorant to realize this.

If obama is aright with it then so are you, God forbid you ever criticize obama that piece of shit.

 

[michal1980]

Wow OP, you are both late and ignorant.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=779

And yesterday michal1980 tried to play the same card and got himself educated.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2315803

I didn't get educated, I stopped arguing with a door knob.

I'm with homerjs, (probably one of the rare times)

Paul flip flopped.

 

[Matt1970]

It's context. If the policeman were to kill him than he would be implying that the robber is an immediate threat to the safety of the public.

 

[Genx87]

He didn't say waving a gun at the police. He said coming out of the store with $50 and a gun.

Oh you are really parsing words. Congrats you are awesome at doing that! Most would assume if the police are shooting at a robber, it would be due to that gun being out.

So a robber runs out of a store with a gun in a situation where police is shooting at them. Is that the same as somebody sitting in a house, in their car, anywhere not engaged actively in violent crime?

 

[nextJin]

I didn't get educated, I stopped arguing with a door knob.

I'm with homerjs, (probably one of the rare times)

Paul flip flopped.

So that's two people who are either ignorant on his position or just completely bias because his last name is Paul.

You can't refute the point made and you have people in this thread who were serious anti Ron people not really getting the point of the thread because there is no other point other than showing vast amounts of stupidity.

You didn't refute anything not because I'm a doorknob, but because I laid out a solid, common sense, verified, and factual rebuttal to a horribly ignorant person who has no idea what Pauls stance is because he is a Paul.

As soon as I posted my second response you basically said "Oh shit, this guy knows what he is talking about. Let me see if I can just ignore this thread and have it sink a few pages down quickly so no one else thinks I'm a dumbass."

 

[JulesMaximus]

I say we take off and nuke the country from orbit.

 

[michal1980]

So that's two people who are either ignorant on his position or just completely bias because his last name is Paul.

You can't refute the point made and you have people in this thread who were serious anti Ron people not really getting the point of the thread because there is no other point other than showing vast amounts of stupidity.

You didn't refute anything not because I'm a doorknob, but because I laid out a solid, common sense, verified, and factual rebuttal to a horribly ignorant person who has no idea what Pauls stance is because he is a Paul.

As soon as I posted my second response you basically said "Oh shit, this guy knows what he is talking about. Let me see if I can just ignore this thread and have it sink a few pages down quickly so no one else thinks I'm a dumbass."

do you know how to read

"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. "

I never knew that running out of a store = being found guild by a court.

Unless being guilt has some sort of new meaning.

 

[nextJin]

do you know how to read

"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. "

I never knew that running out of a store = being found guild by a court.

Unless being guilt has some sort of new meaning.

You are so retarded dude, what part of gun/immediate threat do you not understand?

This has ALWAYS been his position, always. I posted a story from almost a year ago about his position with a 4 second Google search.

I know you want to see the entire Paul bloodline killed off but try harder man seriously.

 

[cubby1223]

Yes, any politician can change their mind on an issue. There are legitimate reasons for changing ones mind but if you get on your high horse on a particular issue, demand memos from the White House supporting your issue, I would think you would remain consistant.

Enter the newest conservative star, Rand Paul.

Remember this from his epic filibuster a few months ago...


It has "evolved" to this a few days ago...


Damn dude, if you are going to run for President in 2016 get your lies together!

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/23/ron_paul_fans_furious_over_rand_pauls_drone_flip_flop

The quote you highlighted doesn't really say much of anything definitive. If someone robs a store and is killed in return, does it make a difference if he was killed by one thing or another thing? The point is the person was killed after committing a crime.

I think his argument was on the decision making process. I don't know. But it's so counter-productive to highlight random quotes and attribute greater meaning to them, without going back to the source and having a discussion to clarify.

 

[michal1980]

You are so retarded dude, what part of gun/immediate threat do you not understand?

This has ALWAYS been his position, always. I posted a story from almost a year ago about his position with a 4 second Google search.

I know you want to see the entire Paul bloodline killed off but try harder man seriously.

you just keep ignoring what he said during the filibusterer. Whatever you have to do to continue worshiping at the Paul alter.

I did know that when he said no American should be killed without being convicted, he put a big * next to it, full of fine print.

 

[xBiffx]

I say we take off and nuke the country from orbit.

Only way to be sure?