Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Avatar Samantha Ai

Rand Paul loses the plot

37 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Rand Paul on Saturday accused President Obama of working with "anti-American globalists" to "plot against our Constitution."

The email blast was sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights and heavily criticized the president's gun control efforts. Here's a snippet of the email, courtesy of the Washington Post's Ezra Klein.

"On November 7th, his administration gleefully voted at the UN for a renewed effort to pass the “Small Arms Treaty.”

But after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut — and anti-gun hysteria in the national media reaching a fever pitch — there’s no doubt President Obama and his anti-gun pals believe the timing has never been better to ram through the U.N.’s global gun control crown jewel.

I don’t know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick."

Rand Paul: Obama Helping 'Anti-American Globalists Plot Against Our Constitution'

Yes, some of us are internationalists, some of us are also for sensible gun reform, but that does not mean there is a shadowy plot to destroy America from within.

The dialogue of joining a North American Union or even a global government eventually will happen and when it does we will discuss it as a nation in the same way European countries discussed joining the EU and adopting the the Euro.

Rand Paul loses points for being an alarmist, believing in conspiracy theories, and for spreading them.

My analysis: in the end he cannot stop progress but might have even enhanced it. This could only do one thing, divide an already divided conservative house (inlcuding libertatians in that house), and splitting the vote between the Republican candidate and whichever candidate Rand Paul supports if he does not run himself. Democrats will be for sure to win.

If I believed in conspiracy theories it would almost seem as if the Democrats are paying Rand Paul.

I would never want anyone to believe in conspiracy theories, so hope people begin paying attention, not being so mistrustful of the world, and decide to join us.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you didn't discuss people, but rather ideas.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Rand Paul is a public figure and subject to criticism.

He is not someone in a discussion with us.

Any comments on the topic?

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's speaking to the NRA. of course he's going to say the sort of things they want to hear. it's like me not saying that the new Star Trek is crap to my girlfriend, both Rand and I don't like the idea of beng soht and dumped in a river somewhere :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. He would say that to the NRA.

Does he actually believe it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably not. he is, after all, a politician, from a family of politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole notion that Taking Away America's Guns is all a dark plot by the UN to destroy America has the same flaws as the idea that the U.S Govt. itself has been responsible for organising and covering up outrages like 9.11 - they rather credit the organisation in question with rather more efficiency and single-minded ruthlesness than it's ever hitherto displayed. If the UN couldn't even prevent a former Republican administration from going to War with whoever it liked, why are these same Republicans always so paranoid about the UN wanting to Destroy America? If they treated the UN with such disdain for not wholeheartedly endorsing G.W. Bush's military adventures, why are they now so worried that it wants to take away America's Guns and impose Martial Law? Why do they suddenly think it'll suddenly become so ruthlessly efficient it'll be able to do that?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never want anyone to believe in conspiracy theories, so hope people begin paying attention, not being so mistrustful of the world, and decide to join us.

Yes, some of us are internationalists

...a shadowy plot to destroy America from within...

..is there something you want to tell us?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact that there are already anti-Rand Paul postst in this forum.

It proves that the progressives are already scared of this guy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact that there are already anti-Rand Paul postst in this forum.

It proves that the progressives are already scared of this guy.

Is that what it means? So you are absolutely terrified of Obama then? :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul: Obama Helping 'Anti-American Globalists Plot Against Our Constitution'

Yes, some of us are internationalists, some of us are also for sensible gun reform, but that does not mean there is a shadowy plot to destroy America from within.

The dialogue of joining a North American Union or even a global government eventually will happen and when it does we will discuss it as a nation in the same way European countries discussed joining the EU and adopting the the Euro.

To folks like 0bama you are whats called a usefull idiot. The fact that you refuse to see how these globalists are clearly destroying this country from within, intentionaly, means that term is correct.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul: Obama Helping 'Anti-American Globalists Plot Against Our Constitution'

Yes, some of us are internationalists, some of us are also for sensible gun reform, but that does not mean there is a shadowy plot to destroy America from within.

The dialogue of joining a North American Union or even a global government eventually will happen and when it does we will discuss it as a nation in the same way European countries discussed joining the EU and adopting the the Euro.

Rand Paul loses points for being an alarmist, believing in conspiracy theories, and for spreading them.

My analysis: in the end he cannot stop progress but might have even enhanced it. This could only do one thing, divide an already divided conservative house (inlcuding libertatians in that house), and splitting the vote between the Republican candidate and whichever candidate Rand Paul supports if he does not run himself. Democrats will be for sure to win.

If I believed in conspiracy theories it would almost seem as if the Democrats are paying Rand Paul.

I would never want anyone to believe in conspiracy theories, so hope people begin paying attention, not being so mistrustful of the world, and decide to join us.

This obviously a lame attempt, to start a thread war between members.

And then of course you hide behind comments like this one:

Rand Paul is a public figure and subject to criticism.

He is not someone in a discussion with us.

Any comments on the topic?

Which is typical of you.

I hope the mods keep a close eye on this thread, cuz I can see it escalating very quickly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believed in conspiracy theories you would also believe that the gun industry is paying Obama.

Is this thread about a future fantasy election? For someone who is all about unity and globalism you sure are partisan and rabid against ideas you don't follow. Who in the hell would want one world government anyways?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do we know that Rand isn't telling the truth?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how do we know that Rand isn't telling the truth?

Because there are negative connotations against the Great One. Therefore, it's a conspiracy theory.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And how do we know that Rand isn't telling the truth?

Anyone is free to believe conspiracy theories, those who think there is truth to them simply might beleive in them.

But how do we know that Rand Paul isn't just lying either? He seems to not value our own Constitution, particularly the Sixth Amendement, what other parts does he want to ignore?

Rand Paul is flip-floppy on the issue of drones. Consider our own Constitution and how Rand Paul is against our own Sixth Amendment: the right to a fair trial. What else is he actually against?

Rick Ungar wrote the following in Forbes.

Let’s go back to Senator Paul’s initial words on the evils of drone usage on American soil—

“I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court. (emphasis added)”

Bravo, I thought, as I listened to Mr. Paul’s dramatic statement back on March 6th of this year. I mused that while I may not be with this guy on too many things, I had to admit that this is a man who ‘gets’ the importance of the Constitution and due process under the law.

Or so I thought. It turns out that Senator Paul’s shining moment turned out to be all too brief.

Here’s what the senator had to say last night when discussing the use of drones when it comes to alleged bad guys like the Boston Marathon bombing suspect—

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

As my heart sunk, I tried to focus my ears on the remainder of what Paul had to say—

“It’s different. If they want to come fly over your hot tub or your yard 
just because they want to do surveillance on everyone and watch your activities. If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used.”

But, Senator, didn’t you say that our right to a trial by jury is precious? Didn’t you say that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime and without first being found guilty by a court?

Yep. That’s what you said. I know that because I just went back and read your quote.

Now, less than two months later, here you are telling me that if a guy comes out of a liquor store with fifty bucks and a gun, it’s totally cool for the government to fire a missile at his head.

What if the man coming out of the liquor store had the gun jammed into his hand by the real bad guy and told to distract the cops or the bad guy would kill him? What if the guy coming out with the gun is the store clerk who escaped? What if…what if…what if?

This is why the American justice system requires trials, due process, evidence, etc. It’s always about the ‘what ifs’.

If the Senator had these exceptions in mind when he stated his original position in the strongest of terms; and if what he was really saying was that he didn’t want drones listening in on our conversations in hot tubs (I’m having some trouble following how that connects to drones killing Americans on American soil), wouldn’t you think he might have mentioned these exceptions as he held the floor of the Senate for all those hours? It’s not like he didn’t have the time.

Hypocrisy is a term that is possibly overused by writers such as myself. And while we may be quick to use the label, such branding typically has an element of opinion or perception involved that allows others who support the one so charged to rail, argue and defend the individual under attack.

And yet, here we appear to have an example of hypocrisy immune from challenge. We see Senator Paul’s words of March 6, 2013 and we see his words of last night.

.

Not often is there a more stunning example of so pure and remarkable an exercise in hypocrisy.

Let’s hope my conservative and Tea Party friends who sit behind a radio microphone or expound on TV—and you know who you are—will be quick to take Senator Paul to task for his shocking display of hypocrisy. To do otherwise will only serve to paint you with the identical brush and expose your lack of willingness to tell the truth when the truth is right in front of your face.

You’re either for due process or you aren’t. And if you congratulated the Senator on his successful filibuster—as I did—you surely better be ready to call him out now that he has sold out the very principles he wasted the Senate’s time so falsely pursuing.

Rand Paul Shockingly Now Supports The Use Of Drones On US Soil To Kill Americans-So What Was That Filibuster Thing All About?

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This whole notion that Taking Away America's Guns is all a dark plot by the UN to destroy America™ has the same flaws as the idea that the U.S Govt. itself has been responsible for organising and covering up outrages like 9.11 - they rather credit the organisation in question with rather more efficiency and single-minded ruthlesness than it's ever hitherto displayed. If the UN couldn't even prevent a former Republican administration from going to War with whoever it liked, why are these same Republicans always so paranoid about the UN wanting to Destroy America? If they treated the UN with such disdain for not wholeheartedly endorsing G.W. Bush's military adventures, why are they now so worried that it wants to take away America's Guns™ and impose Martial Law? Why do they suddenly think it'll suddenly become so ruthlessly efficient it'll be able to do that?

The black helicopter-type conspiracy theory Rand Paul is now hawking around was debunked by snopes and politifact as far back as 2010 and 2012, respectively.

Claim: A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a "legal way around the 2nd Amendment."

FALSE

snopes.com

The claim that, "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are negotiating with the United Nations about doing a treaty that will ban the use of firearms," receives a "Pants on Fire" from politifact.

Our ruling

We found no evidence of Obama or Clinton indicating they want the UN conference on an arms trade treaty to ban the use of firearms; the recent speech by an administration underling states the government will not back a treaty that infringes on the Second Amendment.

This claim runs so substantially counter to reality, it’s ridiculous. Pants on Fire!

politifact.com

The black helicopter-type conspiracy theory Rand Paul is peddling does not seem to be rooted in reality.

The belief that the UN is some shadow organization wanting to destroy the US from within falls flat on its face when we realize we are all on the same side. The US was instrumental in creating the UN and is still its primary funder. The threat assessment from the UN is pretty weak considering that without our funding it would most likely cease to exist or at least diminish in functionality.

For those who falsely claim, but claim none the less, that the UN does nothing, well without our funds it would do even less. You cannot have it both ways, to claim the UN does nothing then turn around and say it is the most powerful threat to the free world. Which is it?

Anyone is free to believe in conspiracy theories but if they make you mistrust our own federal government or the world at large, if they give you anxiety or fear, then is should be time to reevaluate those beliefs in favor or more realistic beliefs that would allow healthier expressions sans anxiety or fear.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

Rand Paul Shockingly Now Supports The Use Of Drones On US Soil To Kill Americans-So What Was That Filibuster Thing All About?

So he advocates the death penalty for robbing a liquor store? :unsure2: Is this a Judge Dredd-style judge and executioner style of law enforcement he's recommending?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Because there are negative connotations against the Great One. Therefore, it's a conspiracy theory.

If someone is basing their opposition to the UN on this administration alone then it reveals the single-mindedness of their opinion, their lack of a long view, and their willingness or inability to absorb the fact that every single administration and both chambers since the creation of the UN have supported the UN.

Their opposition is not rooted in reality but in anger for the current administration and their thinking on this issue does not rise beyond their emotions.

Of course there will be disagreements but we have overwhelmingly supported the UN overall.

If they want to then claim that every administration and both chambers are in cahoots with the UN in pulling the wool over the eyes of the public then we enter into the land of serious mistrust issues rooted in conspiracy theories that the rest of us will not find credible.

Their opposition is not rooted in reality but in conspiracy theory.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So he advocates the death penalty for robbing a liquor store? :unsure2: Is this a Judge Dredd-style judge and executioner style of law enforcement he's recommending?

It seems so. Those were his own words.

Who knows if in the future Rand Paul will agree to send armed predator drones to attack a group of guys who just happen to disagree without how America is being ran?

No need for the rule of law, no need for due process, and no need for dialogue in a working democracy to voice our differences and choose the best course together through cooperation.

The UN seems to be the instrument across the world advocating for that, Rand Paul can claim one thing one minute and another thing another minute but overall what is to say it is this democracy he hates the most?

Many hate our democracy to even repeat the false mantra that we are not a democracy. Dictators that actually exist around the world hate democracy and the UN.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems so. Those were his own words.

Who knows if in the future Rand Paul will agree to send armed predator drones to attack a group of guys who just happen to disagree without how America is being ran?

No need for the rule of law, no need for due process, and no need for dialogue in a working democracy to voice our differences and choose the best course together through cooperation.

Hmmm.

Given his penchant for illegally targeting consevative groups via the IRS, that sounds more like Obama than it does Rand Paul.

On the one hand (Paul,) we've got political speech. On the other hand (Obama,) we have demostrated and (admitted to) illegal action by Administration bigwigs conducted against those who "just happen to disagree without how America is being ran."

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

Given his penchant for illegally targeting consevative groups via the IRS, that sounds more like Obama than it does Rand Paul.

On the one hand (Paul,) we've got political speech. On the other hand (Obama,) we have demostrated and (admitted to) illegal action by Administration bigwigs conducted against those who "just happen to disagree without how America is being ran."

Harte

That is better suited to another thread.

What are your thoughts involving Rand Paul's change of position regarding drones and the Sixth Amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole notion that Taking Away America's Guns is all a dark plot by the UN to destroy America™ has the same flaws as the idea that the U.S Govt. itself has been responsible for organising and covering up outrages like 9.11 - they rather credit the organisation in question with rather more efficiency and single-minded ruthlesness than it's ever hitherto displayed. If the UN couldn't even prevent a former Republican administration from going to War with whoever it liked, why are these same Republicans always so paranoid about the UN wanting to Destroy America? If they treated the UN with such disdain for not wholeheartedly endorsing G.W. Bush's military adventures, why are they now so worried that it wants to take away America's Guns™ and impose Martial Law? Why do they suddenly think it'll suddenly become so ruthlessly efficient it'll be able to do that?

If we can't even preserve the most fundamental elements of our rule of law like the 2nd amendment, what can we preserve? It's an ignorant matter not to be able to understand the ramifications of what one does politically before it's too late.

I'm not sure how disdain and worry about the UN are opposites. Past disdain and present worry seem more consistent than not.

The UN are just another cluster of bureaucrats just as stupid, slow and wrong as any other cluster of bureaucrats. Listening so closely to one's politics that we wind up comparing one group of bureaucrats to the other and poking sticks in the others' eye always makes an unproductive waste of time. You do this as a matter of course, regularly pitting one bumbling cluster against the other, I think more in sarcasm and for entertainment than anything serious, productive or progressive. If the US media paid far more attention to its people and far less attention to its government, we would be a society of people who actually believed that real change comes from main street, not the royal palace. But the media only pays attention to people when they do something wrong, while wrapping up our government's policies in positive language.

Fox News Channel wants to ask who, what, where and when about Benghazi to look for any conceivable technicality, untimely judgment, or loophole to exploit a vulnerability in the Obama administration. These right wing conservatives are poisonous people wanting to derail the Obama administration simply to derail it. I have no interest in playing politics against my country's best interests and I wouldn't join these putrid people out of political convenience for one minute. But conversely, actually believing that the lion's share of the good ideas come from out in left field is a dangerous trap to be ensnared in (indoctrination). Political theory is one thing and finding the proven ways that work best where the rubber hits the road is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand Paul: Obama Helping 'Anti-American Globalists Plot Against Our Constitution'

Yes, some of us are internationalists, some of us are also for sensible gun reform, but that does not mean there is a shadowy plot to destroy America from within.

The dialogue of joining a North American Union or even a global government eventually will happen and when it does we will discuss it as a nation in the same way European countries discussed joining the EU and adopting the the Euro.

Rand Paul loses points for being an alarmist, believing in conspiracy theories, and for spreading them.

My analysis: in the end he cannot stop progress but might have even enhanced it. This could only do one thing, divide an already divided conservative house (inlcuding libertatians in that house), and splitting the vote between the Republican candidate and whichever candidate Rand Paul supports if he does not run himself. Democrats will be for sure to win.

If I believed in conspiracy theories it would almost seem as if the Democrats are paying Rand Paul.

I would never want anyone to believe in conspiracy theories, so hope people begin paying attention, not being so mistrustful of the world, and decide to join us.

Whether whistleblowers are alarmists isn't a valid reason not to support them. Sometimes the truth is inconvenient, if it's alarming maybe it should be. After we count the money it's pretty much right in front of our face in immediately measurable evidence. But you're only analyzing this politically. The political consequences whatever they are don't affect the grand power curve our country is on. Rand Paul has a very wide lens and sees broadly, and sees distantly into the future, therefore he governs for the best long term outcome not the best short-term bounce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Behind all the talk and rhetoric...it basically comes down to a simple premise and an equally simple question. Politicains are all master of the forked tongue and double talk. Consider this....

I am "pro-American"...I am not against the "good" of other nations. I am, However, against this idea of "globalism"...that all countries are equal. They ARE NOT.

Our forefathers worked very hard to make this a great country. It was not intended to "be like everyone else". Rather than stooping to a lower level, the other countries of the world need to step up. If they cannot...too bad, not my concern or problem. I do not want to prop up another country at the expense of this nation. We have much work to do right here to get back on the right track.

I am beyond tired of"foreign aid" for anything beyond disaster relief. The fact that we use tax dollars to pay off despots and third world thug governments so our "global" corporations can exploit them is sickening to me. If the corporatists want to "buy there way in" to other countries...they can do it with their own profits. Leave my tax dollars right here where they belong. We cannot "help" other countries by neglecting our own. We need to have a "strong and healthy" nation in order to be the most effective.

The simple question is this...

Are you for a strong, healthy and superior USA or are you against it?

very simple question and your answers will be telling.

Left or Right....Red or Blue...Dem or repub...Conservative or Liberal/progressive...Two wings of the same bird of prey.

democrats_republicans_are_two_wings_of_the_same_bird_of_prey_zps15f0bb60.jpg

thesheeparescrewed_zpsc6958606.jpg

all of the politicians have stopped working for "we the people"...most have personal ambitions...others play to the Oligarchy/Plutocracy we are swiftly becoming.

There is really only one option in my humble opinion...fire them all...

Edited by Jeremiah65
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.