Drones Ethics Quote Rand Paul

Rand Paul: I Didn’t Say That Thing I Said

Rand Paul was against the use of drones before he was for the use of drones, but now he’s against them again. Or something.

In a statement released Wednesday, Paul said that his comments left a “mistaken impression” of his actual position on the subject.

“Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations,” he said. “They may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster. Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.”

Oh, really?

“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” -Rand Paul, yesterday

Paul couldn’t flip flop more if he was an Olympic diver.

We don’t know what he really thinks. All we do know for sure is that a certain element of the Left is incredibly gullible for having bought into his shtick.

Some of the responses I’ve seen to Paul’s latest remarks from those who engaged in hero-worship after his filibuster have been more dismissive than regretful, as if his latest position(s) are of no consequence to their prior support.

Maybe it’s fair to say that just because you support one position he has taken doesn’t mean you support every position he has taken, but you should understand that, in Paul’s case, women, people of color, and the poor may take offense to that and not necessarily care for your selective ideological petulance. And you should accept the consequences of deifying someone or branding them a “hero” after he reveals that he played you for a fool.

Paul raised $75,000 in less than 24 hours after his filibuster stunt.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    Paul raised $75,000 in less than 24 hours after his filibuster stunt.

    Well, of course he did! This belongs in a category of posts called “Grifting” or “Ka-ching!”.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    I’d tell Rand Paul that his pants are on fire, but I’d just soon rather see this fool burn.

  • D_C_Wilson

    This just in:

    Rand Paul is full of shit.

    In other news, fire is hot and water is wet. Film at eleven.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    Jesus. I am so sick of this guy already. I don’t care what he says, he is not much better (if at all) than his damn father, who is a racist, a homophobe, and so forth. I’m glad that you and Bob are drawing attention to his hypocrisy, Ashby, but damn, I wish this idiot would fall of the national radar!

    NOTHING Rand Paul says could convince me to support him even on an individual point. That would be like deciding to jump in bed with a person that I find morally and physically repulsive. Just damn wrong.

  • trgahan

    “Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.”

    He backpeddled on two points. Yesterday he argued that the above use was TOTALLY unacceptable. Now it is ok…but probably not for HIS backyard.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Drift-Glass/1046905787 Drift Glass

    “Maybe it’s fair to say that just because you support one position he has taken doesn’t mean you support every position he has taken…”

    Sorry, no. According to my copy of “The Purity Caucus for Dummies” that kind of nuanced thinking is counterrevolutionary Obot cultism of the worst kind.

    Or so I have been told.

    Over and over and over again :-)

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Many libertarians, like Sen. Paul, see themselves as the heroes of their own private mythology. They regard drones are an outrage only to the extent that they feel they themselves are being targeted or could be targeted by whatever Golem is the antagonist du jour of their personal hero-myth. If a Golem is the target, then they’re all for it. The two positions are therefore not inconsistent or hypocritical; they both make libertarians feel like, and allow them to cast themselves as, mythic heroes.

    “Don’t Tread On Me; Tread On -Them-.”

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Very nice summary! And 10 pts for using the word Golem. ;)

  • ninjaf

    Why aren’t more second amendments folks up in arms? Walking out of a store with cash and a gun does not necessarily mean you robbed the place. Maybe he/she was just exercising their constitutional rights as a gun owner and capitalist?


    But really…is a $50 armed robbery really make it OK to execute someone on sight, before they have been convicted?

    • D_C_Wilson

      Well, of course. Now, if he had stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from people’s pension plans, then he should be given a nice severance check and a gig as a Fox “contributor”.

    • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

      Rand was conveniently ignoring the fact that the police, if they encountered such a person would draw their weapons, challenge them first and give them the chance to react–they would assess the situation and the threat. If they were simply to start shooting first, they would be violating not only policy and procedure but the law. Officers are taught to meet a force with equal force and then only escalate if the subject does. So if the supposed robber only has a gun drawn then officers would only have their guns drawn. Only if the robber made a move to shoot would they be allowed to shoot. Shooting is the last resort….never the opening the move! And “shoot first” was what Rand was saying it’s okay for a drone to do. It’s not only hypocritical but it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding basic law enforcement procedure.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=663669914 Sean Richardson

    When you ask somebody what they think about something, and then they give you an answer, and then a day later they say “Oh, actually, no, it turns out that what I think is the complete opposite,” then you know which one they really think and which one they are saying they think for superficial political gain.