[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EmOGeBQzj4g]
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Bob G on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Bob G on Radical Communist Donald Harris
- Disillusioned on Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- Lasse on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
Problem Child
Just another hack. I’m fed up with the lot of them. It makes the spring cleaning of Congress and Senate easy. Just throw out the entire lot.
Listen closer to what he said! The whole comment!
Do you support the idea of being continuously monitored by aerial surveillance, and killed by a drone strike if someone at a remote location thinks you have just committed a crime (they couldn’t see) inside a building?
That is completely insane. Only an individual on the ground has the ability to make that determination. Rand Paul better start using his brain.
Rand Paul certainly isn’t Ron Paul, that’s for sure. Rand just blew it with the Liberty crowd by taking the side of Statism.
You misinterpreted what he said.
Nonsense. He was being an idiot.
I believe the cop and drone who shot the open carrying citizen misinterpreted the fact that $50 in change meant he robbed the store.
Shoot first ask questions later.
I’m not for throwing the senator out with the bathwater. I understood what he meant, and it does not threaten my liberty. If you commit a crime and are a threat to citizens, you may be killed. It could be a cop walking the beat, a drone, or me that kills you.
As Hillary said, “What difference does it make?”
Rand Paul is righ, what we did not need is the St. Local and every Fed agency in the country locking down a city like Boston looking for one 19year old kid . This was Orwellien!!!!l
Yep. Rand is against having drones for surveillance, and that was the point he was making. He was not discussing the killing of an innocent in his example.
When I was a Remote Sensing student we learned about in situ observations, that were used to supplement the remote sensors. I’m reasonably sure that in Rand’s mind the criminal’s identity would have been verified in a positive fashion before being dispatched by the drone. Of course in a 3 minute interview he does not have time to define each and every nuance, and it is an overreaction to assume the worst from this truncated statement.
Technology will continue to move forward, and there will always be new ways to stop bad guys with deadly force, when necessary, to protect the innocent. Our constitution exists to ensure that the bad guys are not the government, and to protect us as time and technology moves on.
And when you find the perfect candidate, let me know.
In this case it makes a lot of difference because one threat has been eliminated. The method of elimination does not matter, just that it was successful!
I can assure you if someone breaks in my house they will be shot. Personally hate thieves and don’t discriminate on how much is stolen.
A Person with a weapon that has committed a crime or is in the act of committing a crime is fair game and gave up all their rights to being protected. I agree with the claim regarding how the individual threat is removed. They should be neutralized ASAP to reduce further others being killed or injured. I would have had n problem with that boat being wiped out if it wiped out the person that was shooting and had recently bombed others.
If I feel threatened by an individual I will stop the threat with whatever force is necessary.
Yep. When you’re willing to show complete disrespect for the lives of others, you have no right to expect differently for your own.
I supported Rand Paul until his immigration statement. Now this seals it.
You are the enemy. It is a bipartisan effort to destroy America.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/23/republican-trio-push-to-militarize-u-s-response-to-domestic-terrorism/
Drone wars, coming to your neighborhood soon…you are the enemy!
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/leak-proves-us-drones-strikes-targeted/31510/
“The leaked intelligence documents reveal that the US has been targeting individuals who pose no immediate threat, with half of the slaughtered people being labeled simply as ’unknown extremists’.
While the files obtained by the McClatchy news agency show half of the deceased as innocent, other calculations show that a more accurate percentage of innocents killed in Pakistan is as high as 80%.”
The government should not be given the authority to execute a fleeing “suspect” before establishing guilt or innocence. The only exception would be if the suspect is armed and poses a lethal threat to those around him. Then the self-defense provision kicks in. A homeowner defending his property from intruder has every right to use lethal force, especially if the intruder is armed. But government has no right to execute alleged criminals (burglars, shoplifters, fleeing drunken drivers, speeders, jaywalkers, drug dealers?) by drone if they pose no immediate threat to others and haven’t been charged with a crime.
He said
“I’m not against any technology being used when there is an eminent threat, an active crime going on, if someone comes out of a liqueur store with a weapon and $50 in cash I don’t care if a policeman kills him or drone kills him.
As a concealed carry permit holder if I’m in a store and there is an armed robbery I’m legally able to pull my gun and put a bullet in the criminals head in the state of Florida.
I don’t see anything bad about Paul’s statement. He simply didn’t state what COULD happen when the cop confronts the criminal coming out of the liqueur store.
Drones don’t ask people to surrender before they shoot, and they shoot to kill – only.
Something to confound your critics, Steven. You’re right on the button, and a brave man to risk alienating your constituency. Tell me, before someone can become a politician, is there an operation they do to swap their brains and their asses around?