Adam Kokesh Very Eloquently Defends Rand Paul

[torchbearer]

As do I. Remember what it was like around here when Ron's campaign was winding down and the usual suspects were shouting "I don't know if we'll even make it to 2014, let alone 2016!" -- it was annoying, immature, and silly. We have to change minds and win elections, and we need to continue doing those things for as long as humans exist. It is our duty, and it is our only hope. And because of that, we WILL win. We have no alternative.

there are many here who have not arrived at that point in their journey. and get this- because most of their first experience with politics in ron paul- they put everything to a purity test. had they been activist for clark, browne, ruwart, badnarik- they'd know that no one is perfect, but these were good men/women. each one of them could be torn apart by the vultures on this forum.

 

[torchbearer]

So in your longterm view of the fight against tyranny let's just concede now that the gov't (fed and local) can use drones against the citizens?

you are focusing on one fired shot, and not the war at large.

 

[KingNothing]

Yes. I probably will vote for Rand and I might (possibly) even be motivated to spend time and money helping him win, although that motivation is waning.

Adam is right in this video that Rand is not a libertarian, and libertarians shouldnt freak out when Rand takes an anti-liberty position. Rand is a principled conservative, not a libertarian. There is no need to freak out about this...we all understand this. But my thinking is that if Rand does not get pushed to be more principled from our side, then he isn't going to get it anywhere. And if Rand thinks the Ron Paul independents are automatically going to vote for him and campaign for him, he is wrong. And without the Ron Paul independents, he cannot beat Hillary.

It is VERY important to have purists who hold a politician's feet to the fire. And it can't be people like Sean Hannity who sheepishly said "oh, hey now, Dubya and Congress, stop spending so much money! I'll still DEFINITELY vote for you, but c'mon. Please spend a little bit less." That sort of half-hearted objection accomplishes nothing. Now, I would hope that people would criticize Rand for supporting sanctions on Iran. That is totally justified. But when I see people so eager to pounce on what amounts to a poorly-worded sentence, I have to question what their motives are, especially if they claim to be part of our movement.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Agreed.

And wtf is 'imminent' anyway? Do you trust these fucks with deciding?

Exactly. It'll be imminent for a few months, a few years, then you'll see regular bank robbers getting blown away by drones. I thought Adam was an anarchist. An anarchist and a Libertarian are not the same thing. And I thought Adam Kokesh hated Rand after he endorsed Romney.

 

[KingNothing]

So in your longterm view of the fight against tyranny let's just concede now that the gov't (fed and local) can use drones against the citizens?

"Use drones" in what capacity? To gather information if they have a warrant? To incapacitate a lunatic who is about to kill others? Yes. Government will assume that power. The important thing is that we never allow them to advance beyond that point.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Lmao I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be a rant and the majority wasn't directed towards you. My point of the post was pretty much to tell you Adam's argument since you said you were unable to watch it.

Sorry if it came off kind of dickish.

Another thing he said that I disagree with and imagine you do as well is that he is very much pro-drone. He loves the technology. I think the technology is cool in theory, but there are quite a few abuses that can occur. He mentioned being opposed to governments having them to commit violence such as in the Middle East and he was referring to here as well. I think that goes out the window when you give police the authority to use armed drones in the first place. It's undoubtedly going to be abused.

Oh, and Gold Standard's mundane was mentioned. Pretty soon 'mundane' will be in common usage.

Right, if you give the authority for government to use drones, you give the authority for government to use drones to commit violence because they do it in other countries, why the fuck not can't they do it here, once they are allowed to use them. Slippery slope.

 

[green73]

you are focusing on one fired shot, and not the war at large.

It's a pretty big shot. But since Rand doesn't oppose it, let's move on. There's an election to be won!

 

[KingNothing]

It's a pretty big shot. But since Rand doesn't oppose it, let's move on. There's an election to be won!

A cop died trying to stop the lunatics in Boston. What if a drone could have quickly moved in and incapacitated the criminal brothers and saved the cop's life, and prevented the man-hunt, hundreds of sprayed bullets in residential areas, and explosions? How is that not preferable to what actually happened?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

"Use drones" in what capacity? To gather information if they have a warrant? To incapacitate a lunatic who is about to kill others? Yes. Government will assume that power. The important thing is that we never allow them to advance beyond that point.

Incrementalism works. How do you think we got to this point? They will keep expanding and expanding the situations in which they use them in. They will be used in traffic enforcement. They will be used in everyday life. Data bases of who has a license or insurance will be compiled. If your registration is expired. They will be used as revenue creators to buy more drone. Some will be armed. The operators will occasionally make mistakes and people will be killed by them.

Three felonies a day? You better hope not. Private prisons don't fill themselves and drones will play a key role in that objective. This police state is outrageous as is. Why would you ever consider they need more?

 

[torchbearer]

A cop died trying to stop the lunatics in Boston. What if a drone could have quickly moved in and incapacitated the criminal brothers and saved the cop's life, and prevented the man-hunt, hundreds of sprayed bullets in residential areas, and explosions? How is that not preferable to what actually happened?

don't bother with hypotheticals. dude wants ron paul in all things, nothing will change that. he is ruined.

 

[bolil]

i'm not talking about a metaphorical battle. i'm talking about a real battle that also includes violence.


fortunately, i was with people that could hold it together.

Yeah, I'd post vids of my battles. They happened on pavement, luckily I am as fast as I am and can keep afoot. If you want only people with decades of battle experience I don't know what to tell you, maybe some gang bangers have that.

 

[torchbearer]

It's a pretty big shot. But since Rand doesn't oppose it, let's move on. There's an election to be won!

whatever it takes to get you over your freak-out. just like the freak-outs before. you will feel foolish later.

 

[torchbearer]

Yeah, I'd post vids of my battles. They happened on pavement, luckily I am as fast as I am and can keep afoot. If you want only people with decades of battle experience I don't know what to tell you, maybe some gang bangers have that.

ever hear Ron mention the Remnant?
we are here, and we are the ones leading in this state. thank god.
there was a real fight for liberty, long before such thoughts even entered your brain. i know its hard to believe, but true.

 

[green73]

"Use drones" in what capacity? To gather information if they have a warrant? To incapacitate a lunatic who is about to kill others? Yes. Government will assume that power. The important thing is that we never allow them to advance beyond that point.

Wait now. Are you dismissing that Rand said it's ok for drones to kill citizens?

The sad thing about this debate is that we were only recently fighting against them using them for surveillance. Now, that's a given. Fucking incrementalism, it so easily steamrolls even the liberty movement.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Incrementalism works. How do you think we got to this point? They will keep expanding and expanding the situations in which they use them in. They will be used in traffic enforcement. They will be used in everyday life. Data bases of who has a license or insurance will be compiled. If your registration is expired. They will be used as revenue creators to buy more drone. Some will be armed. The operators will occasionally make mistakes and people will be killed by them.

Three felonies a day? You better hope not. Private prisons don't fill themselves and drones will play a key role in that objective. This police state is outrageous as is. Why would you ever consider they need more?

Bravo. I'm completely baffled people don't understand this. Adam Kokesh of all people. But maybe he doesn't realize he isn't going to get his own predator drone to use to protect himself.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Even Adam, who is usually very critical of Rand, gets it. Wow.

I'm very disappointed with libertarians and even many people on this forum for jumping on Rand like this.

There are people who are looking for any excuse to attack Rand - it happens every time he says something that isn't 1000% in line with their view of the world.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

A cop died trying to stop the lunatics in Boston. What if a drone could have quickly moved in and incapacitated the criminal brothers and saved the cop's life, and prevented the man-hunt, hundreds of sprayed bullets in residential areas, and explosions? How is that not preferable to what actually happened?

Oh yeah, that's a great excuse. Maybe they weren't just testing to see if people would like and tolerate martial law. Maybe they want people to up and ask for them to start using drones to control Americans so cops don't have to. Damn.

 

[green73]

whatever it takes to get you over your freak-out. just like the freak-outs before. you will feel foolish later.

 

[torchbearer]

take it from an old bump on a log, you will feel foolish later.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

There are people who are looking for any excuse to attack Rand - it happens every time he says something that isn't 1000% in line with their view of the world.

FWIW, I am not attacking Rand Paul. I am attacking the notion that drones ever need to be in the hands of the police.

I don't see how my position isn't clear and rational. Even obvious. I have given countless examples of abuses that will be perpetrated by them.