Adam Kokesh Very Eloquently Defends Rand Paul

[green73]

trust is not required. in fact, you didn't even have to read my post. your foolishness will become apparent. the only thing required for that to happen was you being a fool right now.

You feel it in your gut, do you?

 

[torchbearer]

You feel it in your gut, do you?

more like a history repeating itself kinda feeling. Witnessed a similar cycle in the LALP.

 

[green73]

that is true. two different men, with two different objectives. maybe you are starting on a path of understanding.

I get it it. Rand is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

Where Ron wanted them to see, Rand just wants their vote.

I'm all for it!

But what if he loses? What will have been gained--and what lost?

 

[KingNothing]

Ron inspires people to read books. Rand, not so much.

And one was a "gadfly" and the other is a potential front-runner for his party's presidential nomination.

To be certain, the front-runner could not have been in that position had the gadfly not existed, but the gadfly serves no purpose if he does not ultimately beget a serious political clout.

 

[KingNothing]

I get it it. Rand is the one-eyed man in the land of the blind.

Where Ron wanted them to see, Rand just wants their vote.

I'm all for it!

But what if he loses? What will have been gained--and what lost?

We don't lose anything so long as we don't give up. I can't imagine you, or anyone here for that matter, ever throwing in the towel.

 

[AuH20]

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.

It starts with a foundational distrust of him. That's largely the wellspring. So when these extremely hypothetical discussions elicit a response that conflicts with that very narrow world view, he's suddenly Mephistopheles. Look, I don't agree with some of Rand's philosophy on illegal immigration nor his lack of emphasis on the Federal Reserve, but I understand that he's clearly in my corner, thanks to his past words, deeds and bloodline.

 

[fr33]

Ron inspires people to read books. Rand, not so much.

Now surely you realized this long before now. Why continue to kick your feet and pout about it?

Rand is a different method. With Ron I noticed from our numbers we have a long way to go with that method...

 

[torchbearer]

i would say its a growing pain of a huge influx of young politicos who have only teethed on one person. they haven't even seen the whole menu- on their first visit to the diner- they pick the best thing on the menu. that is the standard by which they have created as the expected.. the normal.
now, when they try everything else on the menu- they are disappointed.
then someone who has been eating there for years, have seen a full spectrum of meals from the menu will say- that one meal, it is the best. but it was only made once. i'm sorry it was the first time you ate here, i'm sorry, really. but nothing else on this menu will be like that meal- exactly. there are plenty of great meals on this menu. and yes, you can complain about something about each one them, but they are still great meals.

the long view has a different perspective. the youngling has a misrepresentation of the reality before him.

 

[Christian Liberty]

@AuH- Why should I care who his dad is? Since when does having the best candidate America has ever had as a father say anything about you? Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed at Rand for the drone thing but I'm generally supportive of him. I'm still going to vote for him. But who his dad is really doesn't matter.

 

[torchbearer]

I wish, in some ways, that adam and i had a discussion on this matter. he actually was sitting next to me at some of our trainings in minnesota. he didn't know who I was- but i knew who he was, at that time, the only thing he had done was speaking very passionately at an event or two.

 

[AuH20]

@AuH- Why should I care who his dad is? Since when does having the best candidate America has ever had as a father say anything about you? Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed at Rand for the drone thing but I'm generally supportive of him. I'm still going to vote for him. But who his dad is really doesn't matter.

It's not so much his dad in terms of DNA as the environment that he was raised in. There is a connection there. Rand's path of enlightenment is directly connected to that of the father.

 

[green73]

And one was a "gadfly" and the other is a potential front-runner for his party's presidential nomination.

To be certain, the front-runner could not have been in that position had the gadfly not existed, but the gadfly serves no purpose if he does not ultimately beget a serious political clout.

Here's a theory. They (the Establishment) have got a guy, the heir apparent to the enormously problematic Ron Paul movement, who really wants the ring. They are happy to call him front runner, as long as he shuts up about the Fed, and ameliorates the message on many other fronts as well.

"Gadfly". Fuck off for using Establishment-speak against RP.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Wow.

 

[green73]

Now surely you realized this long before now. Why continue to kick your feet and pout about it?

Rand is a different method. With Ron I noticed from our numbers we have a long way to go with that method...

Because this is a revolution of ideas, as Ron says, and Rand keeps fucking it up.

 

[AuH20]

Because this is a revolution of ideas, as Ron says, and Rand keeps fucking it up.

Actually, Rand is better at dispersing those ideas into clutched ears. Granted it's not 100% of the manifesto but it's a good share.

 

[torchbearer]

Because this is a revolution of ideas, as Ron says, and Rand keeps fucking it up.

Ron is pushing the ideas, Rand is pushing for the seat of power. Two different people. I know it gets confusing because their names are similar.

 

[green73]

Actually, Rand is better at dispersing those ideas into clutched ears. Granted it's not 100% of the manifesto but it's a good share.

Really? Rand is dispersing ideas? I don't see it. I see mealymouthed pandering, and an Establishment happy that it's the new message of the movement.

WSJ:

To be a more credible figure than his libertarian father, a three-time presidential contender, Sen. Paul said, he must "appeal to a larger group of voters." For example, he hasn't called for eliminating the Federal Reserve or instituting the gold standard, his father's pet projects.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324763404578428891366971864.html.

Yeah, let's just have him dispersing whatever makes the Establishment happy for the next 3 1/2 years. During a time when Americans desperately need to wake the fuck up.

 

[jmdrake]

A couple of points.

1) As I've said before, Rand didn't need to make up a hypothetical here. He had the perfect one. I'm not a big drone fan. But when I heard about how the Chechen brothers had the police pinned down with automatic fire and IEDs to the point where one police officer who tried to drive towards them had his vehicle disabled I thought "If there was ever a time to use a drone, this is it." Yeah, sure. I still have my doubts about the "official story". But assuming that at the very least the firefight happened as described, then had I been an officer in that position I at least would have liked a surveilance drone. This ain't ladies getting mistaken for Chris Dorner and being shot at. This is someone actively throwing explosives at other people and shooting off automatic fire in a neighborhood. If that's not an imminent threat than what is? Again, if you're going to take the position "Never use a drone in any circumstances" that's one thing. But Rand didn't take that position, so why hold him to it now?

2) On the civilian use of drones, just because a technology is legal doesn't mean every use of it is legal. Is it legal for me to use my legal assault rifle to shoot onto your property? If someone's flying a drone over your property, as far as I'm concerned you have a right to shoot it down. A boss certainly has no right to gather intelligence by flying a drone over your property.

Of course people can spy on you with high res cameras without needing drones.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...first-111-Gigapixel-image&highlight=gigapixel

It's actually rather naive. I will listen to the entirety but I am opposed to at least one of his points. Adam Kokesh stated that he would rather have an armed drone take out a suspect who is a threat. (someone pointing a gun, the usual standard of when self defense is applicable) He showed the blue truck that was shot up during the Dorner manhunt as an example of why. He said the police officers have limited firearms trainings and are about to shit their pants, so basically a stabilized drone is preferrable.

That's all well and good I suppose... if you accept the premise that tragedies will not occur WITH armed drones. Perhaps if they had a stabilized, miniature gun ship chasing down the blue truck, for example (his example) they might not have survived. It's going to be a troublesome techonology and that being the most severe but probably least occurring of it. I can see speed enforcement, high tech cameras and databases to determine registration or if you have insurance, unwarranted surveillance, FLIR cameras mounted overhead searching out grow house heat signature, (which are often not houses growing marijuana, though they are raided frequently by a militarized, trigger happy, SWAT team) even them flying in 'high crime' areas. (that's where it will start, and people will cheer)

The private implications of drones are many as well. Can your boss fly over your house and record your activites? We saw the case of the man who was fired for drinking a Budweiser instead of a Miller product, is that acceptable use for drones? (he worked at Miller.. I know many here see no problem with it) Can your nosy neighbors fly around your property to get evidence of 'wrongdoing?' The pervert down the road? The pedophile down the road? Watching your kids or documenting your habits. The thieves who wish to see if you are home or what exactly you might have on your property that they could steal? Stalkers? Ex boyfriends or girlfriends? How do I even know whose drone it is? Who do I complain to? Am I going to prison for shooting the SOB of the sky. (yes, I would) Looks like I need to invest in a spoofer. If somebody wants their drone back they better show good goddamn reasoning behind them flying over my property. I might consider not burning it or smashing it to pieces.

And people are excited. Google glass and drones are cool! Is it too much to ask that I have some sense of privacy? Or must I constantly question my actions as if I'm being recorded or reported upon? 1984? More like 1984 and counting, shit.

 

[torchbearer]

A couple of points.

1) As I've said before, Rand didn't need to make up a hypothetical here.

he used the same hypothetical in his filibuster several times. the jerry doyle show covered that. jerry had his staff review the 13 hours to confirm.

 

[Anti Federalist]

They already do consider "imminent" - The use of force continuum should apply to drones, no?

That right there is precisely what my concern is and why the opposition must be complete, total and unequivocal.

The Circular Force Continuum in place right now, says that a cop has the right to light you up, if there is any threat to his safety, real, perceived or imagined.

No drones, ever, for any reason, period.

Otherwise you might as well give it up now, because whatever tiny opening you allow now for theses god damned infernal machines, will be a mile wide chasm in 20 years.