-74 votes

I think Rand Paul is a FRAUD and another Obama!

He has committed Treason against his Father and Now U.S. Citizens. I have NO Respect for him at All!

First I believed in Rand Paul when he ran for the Senate in Kentucky. I supported his run and win.

Then during the 2012 Presidential election when he committed Treason and was a traitor against his father by endorsing Romney, I never listened to another word he said until his epic filibuster..

He redeemed himself in my eyes when he accomplished the epic 13 hour filibuster which I actually watched more than half of. I was thrilled he was standing up for all of us and the country. I became a Rand Paul supporter once more.

NOW.... he has committed treason against the U.S. people and he has nullified his epic filibuster by going directly against it.

Rand Paul says at 2:30 point of the video below "If someone is coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 dollars I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him."

WTF???!!!! REALLY???

You - Rand Paul..... Don't Care if a drone is JUDGE JURY AND EXECUTIONER of someone ROBBING a store? So someone should be KILLED for robbing a Store?

How Dare you..... believe drones should KILL people during a crime instead of letting a jury of their peers convict them!!!! Also, who is to say the real robber didn't toss the person out with the gun, no one knows what the real situation is, until evidence is completely provided in a COURT ROOM!

You are not a TRUE Constitutionalist and you are a traitor, Rand Paul!!

I hope the people of Kentucky Vote You OUT! I will NEVER support you, We can not TRUST you! You are a true politician. Not trustworthy, a player of the game and I have NO respect for you!


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow Bear! We agree on this! Most of the Christians on this

site seem to lap up everything Rand does. Can believers really be so blind?

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

I mentioned Rand's words to another person today and they did

not see a thing wrong with the statement until I started saying what I saw wrong with it. Then like a light went on, they agreed. I don't think people are taking the time to think. So what does that say. People watching Fox news, the "conservative" station (lol) and seeing the son of Liberty Candidate Ron Paul, who is also a Tea Party candidate saying it is OK for a drone to kill someone coming out of a liquor store with a gun and $50 will most likely not think twice. I don't know what is going on, but I don't like the sound of it at all.

I really don't think it is a Christian/Believer issue. It is a Constitutional issue.


I agree with judge nap

I also think rand was implying that the person is shooting the gun, so the person is guilty. Rand's point is that a city or state has the right to emply whatever power within the constitution to stop crime, but the president does not have the power to use drones to assasinate Americans because he suspects them of walking out of a store with $50 stolen dollars waving a gun.

(((((((((((((((Hi Granger)))))))))))))))

Does the city have the right to take out the store owner's store front when it fires an air to ground missile?

Again, how do you know the person shooting the gun is a robber and not the store owner?

How do you know the robber doesn't have a hostage in tow?

How do you know the store owner is not right behind the robber in a chase?

I haven't listened to judge nap yet. But I will.

And I WANT to stand with RAND. But I don't want to hear about police shooting people on the spot because they have a gun and some money in their hands.

You say constitutional rights? When someone 14 year old robs a liquer store with a beebee pistol it is OK for a drone to take her out?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra... :

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
But now the law reads "Shoot to kill if someone comes out of a liquer store with a gun and $50.

That does not sound right to me.



If the citizens of that city have given the city the authoiruty and power, yes.

People makes mistakes.. police, military, doctors, parents.. people make mistakes, and I'm sure drones too would make mistakes. What technology drones have.. I don't know. What I do know is that Rand is saying president Obama does not have that right to use a drone on Americans soil against Americans.. it's up to the state, county, city and citizens.

How the law enforcers know, I'm sure there are youtubes with things I never imagined.

I'm not a judge nap fan, but I agree with him on this, and hope it helps you understand.

It was an example that happens pretty often. I don't like it, and it doesn't seem to me that Rand like it, he's using it as an example because most of us do not have to think too hard to think of people in our own areas shot down, no trial.

If the people of the area have bought a drone and written into law that 14 yr. old liquor store robbers waving beebee guns, yes.

The law is called THE PATRIOT ACT I&II and why Ron Paul's campaign slogan was RESTORE THE REPUBLIC.

I won't be able to listen to Judge Nap till later tonight as I

am on my mobile and it is not fast enough for a video. But anyways, I did not think it was OK for city or state governments to overrule rights protected under the constitution:
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I protested the patriot act

Seems many here forget that it's the patriot acts that are taking our rights away.

No, it seems some here forget

No, it seems some here forget what's taking our rights away is people like you who believe it's ok to assassinate 14 year olds because a local council decides it's ok. Can you get any more tarded The Granger?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

what's 14 got to do with it?

age discrimination is unjust and I'm not saying a city council decides.. it would have to be a vote on a proposition, resolution or inniative and if the people vote for it, it's the job of the city council to make sure it can happen.

Little bit of hope

The amount of negatives this thread has gives me hope for the community of Daily Paul.

Do You Work for Hillary Clinton's 2016 Campaign?

I'm so tired of the Rand-bashing on here. I think it's done by individuals working for Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign. They're just getting a jumpstart.

I did not have sex with that "woman"

Ah, yes. The phony left-vs-right paradigm. Go watch Rand on Fox News some more.

Really "treason"?? Treason is

Really "treason"??

Treason is bombing the f*** out of innocent American bystanders at a marathon while they cheer on their loved ones.

Having a nuanced stance on drones isn't "treason". It's simply a muddy or complicated view, something which most libertarians avoid like the plague. ;-)

'a nuanced stance' on drones'?

There is nothing 'nuanced' about the loss of liberty being propagated by militarizing the very skies above us with armed drones to be used on citizens. It constitutes a police state - which history tells us are severely lacking in nuance.

There is no room for compromise on killing citizens without due process - if we cannot keep the most basic of rights from being adulterated with 'muddy' and 'complicated' views, we are surely destined for grave oppression. And we will have those who 'compromised' on issues like this to thank.

Nuance doesn't assume correct

Nuance doesn't assume correct or morally right views. It simply includes exceptions. thus making a view more complicated.

Rand Paul is an absolute

Rand Paul is an absolute genius. I stand with Rand 100%.

Lol!Rand is a tard!

LOL!Rand paul toasted his bid goodbye!Every Paul supporter I know has said they have had it with the mitt supporter!Rand Paul has chosen his road to NOWHERE!

This rant, my friend, is the reason you would

not last 2 seconds in politics.
I believe that Rand Paul is more willing to play the game, and say the things that sound "right" to his party to keep him in it...for us.
Ever heard of the expression "don't bite the hand that feeds you...until you can feed yourself"? That is the stance that Rand is taking.
Rand Paul is probably the only hope of stopping the madness that runs rampant in the Halls of Power in the US, and you throw the baby out with the bathwater, because he said something that upsets you?
Some people are just too immature for real liberty and I think you are one of them.

i.e. "you can trust our man - he's a liar"

Some people are just too immature for reality and I think you are one of them.


People just don't understand that our corrupt system has been designed to keep those like us out. Even if you see flaw in Rand's principles vs. his father, he is the greatest chance we have to get our current direction turned around.

Alright... so...

Come on.

He said what he said was wrong.

It can be figured that his intent was rhetorical, illustrating the difference between imminent and not.

There is a real problem with having drones in the American skies, period.

A drone is a grenade for the tool of a flyswatter.

However, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, it's difficult to get in front of cameras and say that while a grenade would get the fly, our Constitution has promised to always use a glass jar first to figure out if the fly's a fly. When that fly is wildly swinging a machete, it's probably better to take out the swatter than to risk losing a hand, but it's just never going to be reasonable to use a grenade when these other options are available.

Rand was wrong, and he said so. Let's move on. It's unacceptable to keep getting upset that humans aren't perfect 100% of the time. That Rand is 95% perfect 90% of the time is damn good in my opinion, and the best we've got right now.

wow so many trolls here now a days.

it's getting pathetic.

Why not a dozen?

Does anyone else want to start the exact same thread on the exact same topic? I guess three isn't enough. Hmmm... I've got an idea for a thread! Rand Paul, he stinks! Or some other colorful title. It'll get a lot of hits and I can feel popular. This could have been the most inane post I ever read on the Daily Paul. But the bright side is, all we have to do is wait another month until Rand does something good and the guy who wrote this will be his fan again! Yea!!!

I fanned with Rand

Let Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity vote for Rand. Let them donate to him, too. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.


Everything about this post is crap. I stand with Rand!

The real issue is should these drones be over our skies

in the 1st place? If you agree with me that drones shouldn't be over our skies, how could they be in place to kill an armed man leaving any store he just robbed? The answer is easy. If drones are not permitted to be flown over the US, watching over us like we are living an Orwellian nightmare, then this is a non-issue.
I believe this issue is even more important than, "should drones be able to take out an armed robber? I want to hear Rand's explanation on why these drones should be allowed to monitor our every move from our skies.

Are you serious!?!

Did you even watch the video?!?! He specifically says he does not want them flying the skies watching our every move!!! HE SAYS THAT!!! HE's not arguing FOR DRONES!! The stupidity level is really getting intense here!!!!UGH!!

you missed it, dude

In this case the guy coming out waving a gun around needs to be neutralized with force. That is the reason why we are pro 2nd amendment.

That's why Rand doesn't care if a cop shoots him at that point or a drone does it.

This is a very different issue than the drone killings in the press.

Also once neutralized the guy is entitled to a trial if he survives. But it is a case of self defense.

There shouldn't be drones over our skies...period.

And if they are not over our skies, how could they possibly take out any target, regardless of reason?

Realism vs. Radicalism

In Libertarian circles for years, way before Ron Paul became popular on college campuses, there has been the debate of whether we want our leaders to be realists - people who try to work with the system to obtain the maximum amount of liberty - or radicals - people who say what they want without regard to political expediency, getting elected, etc. Rand Paul is a realist. But if you look at the totality of what he says and don;t get all tizzied out by a few things here and there, you'll see he is the most pro-liberty person in the Senate. You should support him.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein