Rand Paul reminds us how awesomely crazy he is

[Lonestar_logic]

You want racism to be made legal again. We get it. Good luck with that.

Is racism illegal?

I don't think they're locking up KKK or NBPP members for their racism.

I think if a person chooses to be racist then he should have that right. If it costs them to lose business because of it then so be it.

Nope, Paulbots are relentlessly stupid is all. The law is the law.

You calling anyone stupid is hilarious.

 

[editec]

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

The difference between this nation having drones constantly patrolling the skies or not.

Or do you imagine that they'll only put them in air when they have a specific target during the commission of a crime?

Seriously, man, think it through.

It's technology, no different that cctv or the highway patrol on duty.

Yes, that is true. It is technology.

And it is invasive technology if it is constantly patrolling the skies.

But you are right...it is technology.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The fact that you and Goober in your filling station somewhere in the Land of the Inbred might be able to get away with refusing to do business with the coloreds doesn't mean that it's legal,

because it isn't.

I co-own a gun store moron and no one but you has mentioned race. Why do you liberal pukes always bring up race?

You have not been challenged is all. You are in violation of the law if you refuse service for any reason other than public safety or health.

I have been challenged on several occasions. I won on each case.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul is clearly a schizo.

He made a big deal out of wanting the government to tell him they were not allowed to kill American citizens on US soil with drones, explicitly stating his opposition to such an idea. He specifically stated drones.

The Attorny General responded that normal police methodology would not use militarized drones, but the AG would not rule out the possibility of drones in extreme circumstances like 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The AG's response sent Rand over the edge, and Rand began screaming the government was going to start killing us with drones on US soil. He then went into full rant mode with a filibuster.


But now...now he is suddenly okay with a militarized drone being used in something as commonplace as a liquor store holdup!

This is the mother of all flip flops!

Now he is pretending his worry all along was a drone spying on a woman sunbathing in a bikini. Apparently none of these concerns have applied to police choppers all these years. It is only the advent of unmanned flying machines that caused Rand Paul to become unhinged.

Just how fucking stupid are his admirers to like a man who is clearly in a fugue state?

Folks, we have a paranoid schizophrenic in the Senate who is making decisions which will affect every American.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This coming from an habitual liar.

go get one lie of mine

You claimed Fox News sued for the right to lie.

That is a lie.

I have challenged on this very thing many, many times and you've ran away each time.

TM

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that the people should have the right to know what goes on in Rand's hot tub. If Rand violates the law, by, say, removing the hazardous material lable from his bucket of chlorine, then the drones should move in and take care of business!

 

[g5000]

Again, Rand Paul made a BIG FUCKING DEAL out of militarized drones killing Americans on US soil. He whined and ranted and whined some more about drones killing Americans.

Now his apologists are trying to rewrite very recent history to cover up this amazing mother of all flip flops.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I co-own a gun store moron and no one but you has mentioned race. Why do you liberal pukes always bring up race?

You have not been challenged is all. You are in violation of the law if you refuse service for any reason other than public safety or health.

I have been challenged on several occasions. I won on each case.

If they fell within the limitations, yes, you did; if they did not, you are lying.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You have not been challenged is all. You are in violation of the law if you refuse service for any reason other than public safety or health.

I have been challenged on several occasions. I won on each case.

If they fell within the limitations, yes, you did; if they did not, you are lying.

I once refused to sell a pistol to an Obama supporter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been challenged on several occasions. I won on each case.

If they fell within the limitations, yes, you did; if they did not, you are lying.

I once refused to sell a pistol to an Obama supporter.

There is far more to it than that. So tell us.

 

[dblack]

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 don't know if you are an idiot or just a hack so desperate to invent division.

But clearly you're just a sheep, unable of free thought.

I'm not the one who said it.

Neither do you understand it.

 

[Yurt]

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

The difference between this nation having drones constantly patrolling the skies or not.

Or do you imagine that they'll only put them in air when they have a specific target during the commission of a crime?

Seriously, man, think it through.

the slippery slope is not part of rand's comments

 

[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?

Why would a cop kill someone coming out of a liquor store with cash and a gun - both are perfectly legal to possess. Oh wait. I get it. You and Rand are suggesting we eliminate due process and just go ahead and kill people suspected of crimes. You crazy libertarians.

not at all. the scenario of course indicates that shooting is justifiable.

 

[g5000]

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

The difference between this nation having drones constantly patrolling the skies or not.

Or do you imagine that they'll only put them in air when they have a specific target during the commission of a crime?

Seriously, man, think it through.

Yeah, let's do that. Let's think it through.

These drones will fly on gasoline made from free unicorn dust? They will be piloted by volunteer pilots who refuse pay? Their worn parts will be replaced by fairies? Just so they can fly 24/7 to see what they can see?

How many drones would it take to patrol the entire country 24/7? Give me a ballpark number.

 

[boilermaker55]

This from the crowd that wants to reign in government spending.
How absolutely hypocritical of you.

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!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If they fell within the limitations, yes, you did; if they did not, you are lying.

I once refused to sell a pistol to an Obama supporter.

There is far more to it than that. So tell us.

There is nothing else to tell. He came into the store with an Obama shirt on and I flat out told him I don't sell guns to people that I feel are mentally unstable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I once refused to sell a pistol to an Obama supporter.

There is far more to it than that. So tell us.

There is nothing else to tell. He came into the store with an Obama shirt on and I flat out told him I don't sell guns to people that I feel are mentally unstable.

So he beat the crap out of you, made you sell him a gun, and went on his way.

Now that we have both told falsehoods, tell us what really happened.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But maybe it did happen that way.

I always made sure the supe and I were on the same page when it came to hiring new and retaining our teachers.

Anybody got reactionary or super social traditionalist were always looking for a new job the next year.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There is far more to it than that. So tell us.

There is nothing else to tell. He came into the store with an Obama shirt on and I flat out told him I don't sell guns to people that I feel are mentally unstable.

So he beat the crap out of you, made you sell him a gun, and went on his way.

Now that we have both told falsehoods, tell us what really happened.

That's is exactly what happened. You see as a gun shop owner I have the right not to sell to anyone I feel suspicious about.

Now you have a second amendment right to own a gun but I'm not obligated to sell you one.

 

[Yurt]

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.