Whatever, you blew it man.
Earlier on Tuesday, Paul, who launched a dramatic speaking filibuster in March to oppose the potential use of domestic drones on American citizens, appeared on the Fox Business Network with Neil Cavuto and appeared to suggest that drones can reasonably be used in some domestic situations.
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul told Cavuto, responding to a question about the Boston Marathon manhunt. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”
(WEAK, weak, weak.)
Paul attempted to clarify his remarks later in the day.
“My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed,” Paul said in the Tuesday night statement. “Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They only may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.”
(Attempted, but no banana.)
“Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets,” he added. “Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind.”
(Good Lord, man talk about inserting you foot in your mouth twice. Your father is ashamed, as am I.)
More @ The Daily Caller
Is it me ? , or has everyone by now had all they care to hear from politicians who have to go back and " clarify their position " ./ cover their ass / pass the buck / shift the blame / find a scapegoat .............
ReplyDeleteI am surprised and doubly so by his idiotic clarifications which only made it worst, especially his last comment.
DeleteAnother one down....who's left? (no pun intended)
ReplyDeletePhyllis (N/W Jersey)
Maybe he was brainwashed, that's the only reasonable excuse.:)
DeleteRand is not the man his father is.
ReplyDeleteBecause of his flip flopping and his pro-amnesty stance I unsubbed from the C4L enewsletter.
Wish Ron Paul would get back in.
DeleteAt best, his reference to boston meant that the reaction of LEO demonstrates that we need to deal with things while respecting constitutional rights.
ReplyDeleteAt best.
Considering everything else, though, I think it is safe to say Rand is just another politician - a lying POS more interested in his career than anything else.
more interested in his career than anything else.
DeleteOne term for the President, House and Senate would do wonders. Maybe change the house to 4 years instead of 2, though. Then, what to do with the SC? Clearly the Founder's thinking of life time appointments preventing any influence upon them failed, but they were thinking of honorable men.
"....capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston".
ReplyDeleteIs this jackass smoking crack or what ? The 4th & 6th Amendments were destroyed by the jackbooted thugs with badges. No warrants, no due process, just abuse of citizens by .gov thugs. Shades of Lobsterbacks circa 1773 in Boston.
Looks like Lindsey Graham has his battlefield USA and no bastard with a badge is your friend.
Seems like it is getting progressively worst, not better.
Delete