Rand Paul Says He Won’t Participate In Undercard Debate

[Anti Federalist]

Even if he had the time I don't think it would help. Most Republicans may not be big fans of Dick Cheney, but they aren't going to buy into NWO type conspiracies involving a former Vice President. Obviously PNAC really is a NWO type conspiracy to form a global hegemony around American iron fist rule, but your average people just aren't going to buy it. They won't even window shop it. The only people who will care -- both the ones who hate it and the ones who love it -- all already know what that phrase means. I just think it wouldn't be effective for anyone to press it. The levels of shit that voters just don't care about is stacked way way higher than Dick Cheney, the CFR and PNAC. Now, if we just could get Rand on Dancing With The Stars....

Fed.

Entertained.

Exercising petty power.

 

[dusman]

Even if he had the time I don't think it would help. Most Republicans may not be big fans of Dick Cheney, but they aren't going to buy into NWO type conspiracies involving a former Vice President. Obviously PNAC really is a NWO type conspiracy to form a global hegemony around American iron fist rule, but your average people just aren't going to buy it. They won't even window shop it. The only people who will care -- both the ones who hate it and the ones who love it -- all already know what that phrase means. I just think it wouldn't be effective for anyone to press it. The levels of shit that voters just don't care about is stacked way way higher than Dick Cheney, the CFR and PNAC. Now, if we just could get Rand on Dancing With The Stars....

I agree. I think the only effective way to reveal any issues with PNAC, globalization, liberal internationalism (I use that instead of neoconservative) is to have those discussions at the individual level and share information. That is not something you bring into a Presidential campaign. No one wants to hear a candidate talking conspiracies.

 

[invisible]

Because 99% of US voters would think he was a lunatic for harping on "New American Century," no matter how many times he explained about Dick Cheny and PNAC. To the actual voters it would sound like tinfoil hat nonsense, and we'd be lucky to clear 1% in the polls afterwards.

I agree that going into so-called "tinfoil hat" territory does more harm than good. But don't they (pnac) have an actual website, complete with agenda, policy articles, members, and supporting organizations / sponsors? It isn't exactly "tinfoil hat" territory to say that:
This phrase that a candidate is using comes from this organization
who has a website here
with this, that, and the other on it
laid out in a series of policy articles and mission statements
which support big government and undermine our national interests.

All very factual and verifiable, no "tinfoil hat conspiracy" needed at all.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree that going into so-called "tinfoil hat" territory does more harm than good. But don't they (pnac) have an actual website, complete with agenda, policy articles, members, and supporting organizations / sponsors? It isn't exactly "tinfoil hat" territory to say that:
This phrase that a candidate is using comes from this organization
who has a website here
with this, that, and the other on it
laid out in a series of policy articles and mission statements
which support big government and undermine our national interests.

All very factual and verifiable, no "tinfoil hat conspiracy" needed at all.

The United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century (aka "Agenda 21") has an actual website complete with agenda, policy articles, members, supporting organizations, and sponsors. Have you ever tried talking about Agenda 21 to anyone who isn't already a rabid anti-globalist?

 

[Mad Raven]

I see we're back to the old "Rand endorsed Romney" debate.

The way I see it, I admire anyone who has done half of what Rand has in trying to promote liberty a hell of a lot more than I do someone who sits in their mom's basement making snarky comments on a forum about candidates not being pure enough.

 

[robskicks]

I see we're back to the old "Rand endorsed Romney" debate.

The way I see it, I admire anyone who has done half of what Rand has in trying to promote liberty a hell of a lot more than I do someone who sits in their mom's basement making snarky comments on a forum about candidates not being pure enough.

OH MAN I WANT TO PRINT THIS OUT AN PUT IN ON MY WALL. +1

 

[Occam's Banana]

The way I see it, I admire anyone who has done half of what Rand has in trying to promote liberty a hell of a lot more than I do someone who sits in their mom's basement making snarky comments on a forum about candidates not being pure enough.

OH MAN I WANT TO PRINT THIS OUT AN PUT IN ON MY WALL. +1

Well ... as long the wall you put it on isn't in your mom's basement, I guess that would be different ... somehow ... at least technically ...

/end snarky comment on the irony of anti-purism purists making snarky comments about purists who make snarky comments

 

[invisible]

The United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century (aka "Agenda 21") has an actual website complete with agenda, policy articles, members, supporting organizations, and sponsors. Have you ever tried talking about Agenda 21 to anyone who isn't already a rabid anti-globalist?

Yes, absolutely. In this particular case, I've found that the best thing to do is to argue against a specific bad policy, without mentioning the un (which most people view and trust as a "good" organization) or agenda 21. This has always proved quite effective for me. The last time that I did this was last year, I managed to get an agenda 21 item proposed as a new state law shot down. Talking to the State Legislators on the House committee got it killed in committee. Actually, here in OK, there was an actual law proposed with something like "refusal to participate in un agenda 21" in the bill title. IIRC, it passed easily in the House but was killed in Senate committee. Rep. Sally Kern (who endorsed santorum in 2012 - she actually had a good record aside from supporting anti-gay legislation, and only recently termed out) was the author, if you want to look it up, it's listed there on votesmart as part of her record. So I suppose that YMMV, depending on what part of the country you're in.

 

[devil21]

^^^^^^
I talked with a local (large) city planner a couple weeks ago who said he had no idea what Agenda 21 is. He probably was lying through his teeth. The conversation got interesting when I asked him where he got the right to decide long-term plans for the city and pass the bill for his pet projects onto people that haven't even been born yet and how were his projects going to be paid for?

His reply:
"Someone will figure it out."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, absolutely. In this particular case, I've found that the best thing to do is to argue against a specific bad policy, without mentioning the un (which most people view and trust as a "good" organization) or agenda 21. This has always proved quite effective for me. The last time that I did this was last year, I managed to get an agenda 21 item proposed as a new state law shot down. Talking to the State Legislators on the House committee got it killed in committee. Actually, here in OK, there was an actual law proposed with something like "refusal to participate in un agenda 21" in the bill title. IIRC, it passed easily in the House but was killed in Senate committee. Rep. Sally Kern (who endorsed santorum in 2012 - she actually had a good record aside from supporting anti-gay legislation, and only recently termed out) was the author, if you want to look it up, it's listed there on votesmart as part of her record. So I suppose that YMMV, depending on what part of the country you're in.

We were talking about criticizing Rubio's "New American Century," based on Dick Cheney's "Project For A New American Century." If we take the simile to it's conclusion, then arguing against the specific bad policy without mentioning the PNAC is kinda what I was talking about...

 

[invisible]

We were talking about criticizing Rubio's "New American Century," based on Dick Cheney's "Project For A New American Century." If we take the simile to it's conclusion, then arguing against the specific bad policy without mentioning the PNAC is kinda what I was talking about...

Right. And what I was talking about was being able to easily tie a candidate to more bad (and liberal big government) policies that he isn't mentioning, as well as liberal names. But I certainly agree with you, it isn't like the rube has any shortage of bad policy proposals that can be argued against!

For some odd reason, writing the above made me think back to watching bush #1 "win" a "debate" back in 1988 by pointing his finger and saying "You're a liberal! A liberal, liberal, liberal!"

 

[devil21]

600 pages and no one reads it! Yet the media says Trump is the anti-establishment candidate?