Remember bold, brave Rand Paul, the noble filibusterer? Unlike the chickenshit so-called “progressive” Democrats, he stood athwart the Senate floor and yelled “stop” when the appointment of head of the CIA was being debated, demanding that “the president or the attorney general […] clarify that they will not kill Americans on American soil”. Paul quit his filibustering when Eric Holder sent him a letter telling him that Obama won’t be sending drones on killing missions over the US anytime soon.
One set of Rand’s base is Christian racists who love his “states rights” rhetoric, and think Austrian economics is the study of how Hitler balanced his checkbook. They bought Paul’s drone position because they were afraid that Obama would be using Hellfire missiles to stop them from exercising their constitutional right to buy 50 pounds of black powder without a background check at the next gun show. But now that a couple of Muslims are running around Boston chucking bombs at the cops, they’re wondering why Paul doesn’t want to use drones on every Muslim in the US. With his campaign money in danger, Paul had to go on Fox to calm the natives:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul said Monday on Fox News Business. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.
“But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities,” he added.
Of course, that caused a shitstorm among the neckbeard faction of the Paul contingent, the young white male nerds who spend most of their time creating Ron-as-Obi-Wan photoshops. That crew of Lord of the Rings re-enactors took to their steampunk-themed Linux laptops to write enraged posts on all the Paulist forums on the Internet. Seeing those, Rand tried to take some of it back, saying armed drones should only be used in “extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat”. In other words if some authority, like the President, says they are an imminent threat, Rand now believes killing Americans on American soil using drones is fine. As long as they’re Muslims, one assumes.
Speaking of the Pauls, Ron is still hanging with Lew Rockwell and the rest of his racist, homophobe friends.
raven
And he endorsed Paul Broun!
jeffreyw
He misheard a famous speech once and is still asking: “What can my country do for me?”
c u n d gulag
So, Rand proved just what I’ve always thought:
Libertarianism’s only guiding principles are – legal pot and porn, and no taxes.
Hey, if Hitler had a tough time balancing his checkbook, why didn’t he hire a CPA who was a Je…
Oh…
Baud
I think it’s great that Ron forgave them for writing racist screeds in Ron’s name behind his back. To forgive is divine.
raven
I’m sorry, that was his goofy old man.
Lurking Canadian
The guy is an asshole on an epic scale. Dude! You are a white senator from Kansas. You’ve got a job until they wheel you out on a gurney. At least have the decency to pick a position, any position, and stand by it.
raven
@jeffreyw: You see this on the previous page?
What’s the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.
SiubhanDuinne
I love the word “athwart.”
NonyNony
So basically Rand Paul believes that the US government should not use drones in surveillance actions over citizens. Nor should armed drones be used to target civilians.
Unless the citizens are involved in a crime, in which case you can use drones the same way that you would use a police sniper.
Unless there’s too much pushback on that from people who idiotically think that there’s something different about a police sniper shooting an armed suspect in the head from a building half a block away and a remote-controlled armed drone shooting an armed suspect in the head from half a block away because DROOONNNNNEEEEZZZZ. In which case drones can only be deployed if there is an immanent threat … unlike, say, snipers who get deployed to go after jaywalkers.
So basically – Rand Paul has bog standard mainstream views on what the police should and should not have the authority to do. Why exactly do libertarians think this guy is a great politician?
Oh right – because most libertarians actually have bog standard views on what powers police should and should not have, they just phrase them in extreme ways so that they can keep up the pretense that they’re something other than Republicans who don’t like religion all that much and think the Drug War is stupid.
Kay
It was all a misunderstanding. Rand Paul’s position was exactly the same as Holder’s when Paul started the filibuster, and it’s exactly the same as Holder’s now.
We could save a lot of time if the DOJ would send a single sentence to Paul explaining any given issue sometime before Paul opens his mouth.
c u n d gulag
@SiubhanDuinne:
Me?
Not tho much – I’m thtill trying to get rid of the one on my ath.
Villago Delenda Est
@NonyNony:
Libertarians are all for expansive police powers to keep their slaves in line.
Central Planning
I think youre confusing LoTR with bobos who like to re-enact Atlas Shrugged.
MattF
This is very much in line with Charlie Pierce’s Five Minute Rule:
“…the rule states that, for five minutes, both the son and the father, Crazy Uncle Liberty (!), make perfect sense on many issues. At the 5:00:01 mark, however, the trolley inevitably departs the tracks.”
I’ll even agree that Young Paul did a good thing by making Holder state a drone policy. HOWEVER… paying attention to either Old Paul or Young Paul for more than five minutes at a time is a big mistake
Baud
@Kay:
That’s not quite right, Kay. Rand would boldly limit the use of drones to extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat, while Holder would cravenly expand the use of drones to extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat.
Kay
I love that he thinks robbery merits execution, on the spot.
And he doesn’t care who does it!
THAT’S the kind of bold truth-telling we need. Truth to power, Rand!
Kay
@Baud:
The same thing happened with the Civil Rights Act. He spouted some nonsensical bullshit for two weeks and then he ended up agreeing with Rachel Maddow.
This is going to take a long time if we have to go through every federal law with the doctor. Perhaps he could do some reading all by himself?
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Lurking Canadian: He’s the senator from Kentucky. I realize all those Senators look alike, but let’s not tar the Kansans with Rand. They have enough to be ashamed of.
satby
@Kay: They all think eobbery, burglary, and looking at them funny merits execution; that’s what all that “self-protection” BS is.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@MattF:
FTFY
satby
@satby: note to self – quit commenting via phone because you can’t fix your typos.
Kay
@satby:
That’s what Stand Your Ground laws are.
Permission to execute. As a side benefit, often the gun owner kills the only witness! HUGE benefit at any half-assed inquiry, the fact that the witness is dead.
Liberty!
chopper
what about your water bed?
Higgs Boson's Mate
Rand is a libertarian grifter. A chip off the old block.
NonyNony
@Villago Delenda Est:
Not really. The Neo-feudalists among them think their armories will be sufficient when the collapse finally comes for them to carve out their own little feudal kingdom. And the rich “libertarians” (like the Koch brothers) are in favor of spending that money on private police forces instead of on the government (so a scaled-up version of their poorer neo-feudalist allies).
Rand isn’t even a neo-feudalist though – he really is just a generic Republican who thinks we should relax our drug laws enough to sell weed. Which makes him maybe mildly less contemptible than the average Republican but I honestly don’t see what libertarians of any stripe see in the guy. (Of course his father was much the same way for me – he was less generic Republican and more crazy racist misogynist Christianist bastard once you actually looked at his voting record – but who cares about shit like that when you’re looking for a politician to support, amiright?)
ETA: maybe mildly less contemptible. His CRA idiocy cancels out his vaguely more permissive stance on the Drug War.
J.D. Rhoades
The only real principle the Paultards have is hating President Obama, but not being able to stomach Mitt Romney.
aimai
@Baud:
Golf claps. Also, if in our dystopian future Rand needs toilet paper, silk stockings, and cigarettes he will “forage” for them while Holder and his ilk will “loot” them.
aimai
@chopper:
“If they want to fly over your hot tub?” Is this the well known California fruit ‘n nude nuts exemption? I didn’t think hot tubs had become such a big deal in Kentucky. Sounds kinda suspect, to me.
WereBear
Libertarians are the opposite of the Xantians in that the Xantians really don’t want you to do ANYTHING except what is in their steely outlines of SIN.
Libertarians don’t really think ANYTHING should be outlawed… unless it impacts them.
Where they meet in Republicanism is how modern Republicans get votes by saying any crazy-arsed thing their audience wants to hear. Does not have to make any kind of sense; they are preaching to the Rationalization Choir.
GregB
Little known fact, the term libertarian was originally called douchebagism.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@MattF: I thought the rule meant that you only start paying attention to the Paul’s after five minutes?
Higgs Boson's Mate
@WereBear:
Libertarians are different because they spend many happy hours discussing “What Rand really meant.”
Kay
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
His father is smarter. Rand Paul was spouting that private business owners should be permitted to discriminate on race.
Private was his big distinction.
Apparently it never occurred to him who would be enforcing this “right”. A state actor. Panic! Backtrack! Lot of words!
He hasn’t given any thought to a whole lot of things in his remarkably sheltered life, which would be fine, except he’s a lawmaker.
different-church-lady
Bah. I’m a lot more worried about the supposed “progressive” nutbags who tried to convinces us Paul’s brave and principled grandstanding was the only thing between them and Obama blowing their asses off by remote control while they pasted OWS posters to lamposts. The fact he pulled the wool over their eyes was final proof for me that we got a bunch of Jeffrey Goines running the resistance.
MattF
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): I suppose that “pay attention and agree” and “pay attention and mock” should be signified by different words…
Jay in Oregon
Next time I hear someone say “Google Ron Paul,” I want to reply “I did. What’s the deal with the racist newsletters?”
Baud
The thing about liberatarians is that they aren’t libertarians anymore. In order to seem more palatable, they’ve become federalists. When faced with a different policy question, their response is not “Government shouldn’t do this,” it’s that the “federal government shouldn’t do this,” but if “this” is a problem, the states should.
Schlemizel
I think you guys are misstating Ayn Paul’s position on drones. He does not want them bothering nice white guys like him and his faithful while they commune with Aquabuddah in their hot tubs, but he does want them to keep track & kill as necessary any muslin people out there – oh, and any criminal he has decided are guilty of petty theft (the gun may be optional he didn’t offer enough evidence of his position. was it the $50, the gun or a combination of the two that warranted summary execution?)
That a pretty clear position for him to stake out
Citizen_X
@aimai:
He is a follower of the Aqua Buddha.
Lurking Canadian
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Oops. Sorry
jeffreyw
@raven: yeah, a golden oldie
spartacus
Hey, Linux isn’t libertarian, it’s Marxist.
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/938/860
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I maintain my position that Crazy Cousin Liberty (!) Jr simply ain’t that bright, in spite of a Palinesque gift for knowing how to reach a small and noisy minority. Kind of like Bush on a smaller scale, less aristocratically entitled. I think that intellectual vagueness shines through and for all my worrywartitude, one thing I don’t worry about is a President Rand Paul. In fact I hope to hell he runs and crazifies the ’16 primary, thought that also has consequences.
Kay
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I agree. It’s been fascinating to watch his progress through his own poorly-thought out theories.
Infuriating, though, because he”s so damned slow.
He seems to need a specific, contemporary event to discredit each belief. We could be at this for a while. He’s not making any connections.
Plantsmantx
@Kay:
Why is his father smarter? Ron Paul has said the exact same thing.
Kay
@Plantsmantx:
Because Ron Paul has the ability to anticipate the problem with it. He knows what comes next. Lunch counters and police.
I don’t think Rand Paul even made the connection between the civil rights act and private entities, and the ADA and private entities., although of course the ADA is a civil rights issue for disabled people.
My personal opinion is he was surrounded by people with his father’s ideas, and he just never thought about how they would work, in practice.
OldBean
Thanks, Mistermix. I was enjoying a perfectly cromulent saturday morning and now I have to call 911 because I’m pretty sure my brain is literally bleeding after reading that. The part of it that hasn’t already oozed out of my ears and fled screaming from my house, that is.
El Caganer
@raven: He knew how to get out of Iraq, too – after all, he was the guy who signed the agreement under which all our military forces were removed.
liberal
@Kay:
I’m completely on board with the claim that Rand ain’t all that bright.
Frankensteinbeck
No, this is NOT it. They’re afraid that Obama will stop them from exercising their constitutional right to beat their children to death if they’re gay, refuse to serve negros in their shop, and run out of town anyone who does not pray in their church. The gun paranoia is not a cause, it’s an effect.
Bruce S
I think Ron Paul is a much less dangerous and despicable figure than his son. The one thing I will credit Ron Paul with isn’t that I might have coincidental agreement with him on the drug war or Iraq (although coming from a quite different set of values and broad perspective). Ron Paul is one of those rare politicians who is true to what he believes – no matter how crazy or reprehensible – and more often than not simply puts his ideological predilections on the table regardless of the political implications. So there’s that – he’s not a phony. This can get you elected to congress in some districts. Rand Paul tends to make political calculations when he speaks – I don’t believe for a minute that there’s an inch of air between him and his father, but he fancies himself more of a “real” politician – more strategic, more of a pragmatist.
A Ron Paul is familiar on the ideological landscape – true believer cranks who are pretty harmless largely because there’s no guile involved in their ravings. Rand is a guy with an equally crackpot and pernicious agenda, but he’s clearly capable of scheming how he can “mainstream” elements of it by political calculation. I don’t think he’s very good at it, but his success in attaining a seat in the Senate as opposed to some obscure congressional district shows a streak of ambition and duplicity in service of gaining some measure of power that eludes his father. And because so much of Paul2’s agenda is pretty nuts by most people’s standards, he ends up lying about it. With a few exceptions, like his newsletter denials, Ron Paul is pretty comfortable being outside of the mainstream waving his arms and, to his credit, isn’t as big of a calculated, scheming fraud as his son. I would put Paul Ryan in the same category as Rand Paul – a guy who betrays extremist beliefs but tries desperately to sugar-coat them (like claiming to be a “good Catholic” when he is clearly in thrall of the philosophically ego-centric and materialist ideology of Ayn Rand that absolutely rejects the values of Christianity) and sell himself as something other than what he, at his core, actually is.
Ron Paul is a harmless nut almost by definition – Rand is on my “evil” radar because he’s essentially just another scheming GOP pol with a handful of quirks.
jshooper
I’m just so satisfied that the loudest and most obnoxious Obama Haters on the left revealed themselves to be run of the mill Paultards.
They tripped all over themselves to explain away Ron Paul’s vile racist underbelly.Some even went so far as saying OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS were the “real” racists because of the “racist drug war” ™
Then when that campaign fizzled out, they rallied around Rand.The hipster douchebag’s #StandwithRand campaign was all the rage. Pres. Obama was an insane constitution shredding madman who was planning on using flying death robots to kill Americans as they left the Wal-Mart parking lot.
Rand was hailed by many ODS “fauxgressives” as a hero.Now that he has proven himself to be the fraud that the rest of us knew he always was, they are EXTREMELY silent about his betrayal.I haven’t heard Greenwald, Sirota or any of the other fake liberal – libertarian paultards weigh in on this.They’re nothing but a bunch of Obama hating frauds who snuggle up to racists when they think they can inflict damage on his administration and the Democratic party in general.
MC Simon Milligan
@Central Planning: I think mistermix was once served a leather mug full of rancid mead at a renfest somewhere and then rolled by a passing gaggle of drunken con-geeks.
BBA
@spartacus: The Linux/free software/open source community is a mix of Marxists and libertarians, with a smattering of the smugly apolitical but very few “mainstream” opinions. Outside the US, they tend to be smugly anti-American regardless of politics. Really the dominant characteristic is smugness.
A lot of this can be traced back to the prosecution of Phil Zimmermann by the US government for releasing PGP. Since then the government’s done a 180 and every web browser now contains the same technology that got PGP in trouble, but these things are hard to forget.
Chris
@Kay:
It’s funny watching people like this rediscover things like “cops CAN use force in extreme circumstances” or “you DO need a government to enforce those ‘property rights’ you’re so happy about.”
It really doesn’t occur to these people that, in the 6,000 years since Jesus created the Earth and the human race, someone else MIGHT have already thought about this. Or that the solutions they came up with MIGHT actually have a pretty good reason behind them, and not just be a conspiracy by The Man to keep you down because they hate your freedoms.
Bruce S
@jshooper:
That was quite a diatribe – but not sure it served the cause of anti-“the loud and obnoxious.” Or that it was convincing as an alternative perspective to careless reductionism in political polemics.
Ayn Randy
I wasted too much time during that whole debate telling progressives to shut the fuck up about how awesome Paul is because of the drone filibuster. It was the most transparent, hypocritical bullshit and it was on display for anyone who spent five minutes checking out what the Principled Libertarian really thought.
Is there something genetic that makes progressives naive to this kind of horse shit? If it’s not Jane Hamsher teaming up with Grover, it’s a few of us standing with Rand Paul.
Redshift
Rand Paul is basically Otto from A Fish Called Wanda with whining instead of combat skills. Except that unlike Buddhism, the central tenet of libertarianism actually is “every man for himself.”
Ruckus
@Kay:
He spouted some nonsensical bullshit for two weeks and then he ended up agreeing with Rachel Maddow.
This sounds like little Andy’s stick. He comes around to a liberal position after making a hard right turn and holding his breath for a couple-three weeks. Do both of them have the maturity of a seven yr old?
OK so I answered my own question.
Ruckus
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Isn’t what C. Pearce is saying is that the first 5 minutes is not totally nonsensical like everything after that, but isn’t better to not listen to the first 5 minutes as well?
Bruce S
@Kay:
I’m don’t believe the father is “smarter” – I’ve never seen anything more sophisticated than fundamentalist dogmatics come out of Ron P’s mouth (“the Gold Standard”.) His thin layer of crazy uncle “charm” is that he doesn’t come off as a phony trying to be clever in pawning off his inner cranky looneytoons notions as anything other than what it actually is – a set of dogmatic first principles that trump pragmatism or counter-evidence drawn from the real world. It’s a religion masquerading as economic and political theory.
Much creepier and more calculated (“smart?” – who knows?) IMHO is that Rand – like Paul Ryan – is persistent in dishonestly dressing this crazy crap up so he can play at Big Boy Beltway politics (potentially a much bigger grift than newsletters and running for President as a fringe “protest” candidate.) So far as I can tell, Daddy never gave a shit about succeeding in the context of Beltway politics.
JCT
@Redshift: Nice catch, except old squirrel-top the self-certified Medicare-payment dependent opthamologist is not endearing or funny at all. Otto was a hoot.
The Pauls and their demented followers are a pox.
Kay
@Bruce S:
I think a lot of people are invested in the idea that there is a libertarian wing of conservatism.
They promoted the Tea Party as libertarian. It’s bullshit, on the ground. The Tea Party in Ohio are heavily religious fundamentalist. That’s why they never objected to GWB. Bush was wildly popular with religious folk.
Chris
@Bruce S:
I agree with this last paragraph, although I don’t think it’s because Ron was “honest.” I just think Ron Paul is a professional grifter who carved out a nice niche for himself as a voice for fringe loonies (everything from unrepentant Strom Thurmond voters to college Marxists), which gives him visibility and popularity but doesn’t require him to actually have any responsibilities.
His son, on the other hand, seems to ACTUALLY want to play a part in “mainstream” politics (via the Tea Party Movement), and that’s what makes him much more dangerous than kooky dad who was content to sit on the sidelines.
SiubhanDuinne
@c u n d gulag:
What a pithy comment!
Chris
@Kay:
Or just, more generally, they’re invested in the idea that there’s some kind of “reasonable,” “moderate” wing left to the Republican Party, and hope Paul’s “libertarian” wing might be that.
Kay
@Bruce S:
We have a Tea Party city council member here who was just indicted by a grand jury for stealing from a non-profit.
What I loved about it was the arrogance. He went to the non profit and confessed, but only after they had contacted the prosecutor. Then he resigned. Then he admitted he had stolen the money in the newspaper.
During this whole 2 week period he was insisting, to me, that he wouldn’t be indicted. They basically had no choice once he admitted a felony on the front page of the newspaper, but that’s how deep the sense of entitlement goes.
scav
@SiubhanDuinne: #1 indeed.
Mnemosyne
@Bruce S:
I remember reading an analysis of the political position of the various candidates in (IIRC) 2008, and the conclusion they came to was that Ron Paul was basically a pure 10th Amendmenter — all of his stated political beliefs stemmed from the fact that he thought the federal government was illegitimately taking rights away from the states that Paul thought were protected under the 10th Amendment.
I think Kay’s right about Baby Paul — he’s someone who’s had a steady diet of this stuff fed to him throughout his whole life and he’s never had to actually think it through. When the answer to every question is “Tenth Amendment,” why even bother to think about whether that’s the right answer?
Bruce S
@Kay:
Libertarianism isn’t consistent with classic “conservatism” – it just shares some prejudices. The Ayn Rand strain in particular doesn’t fit at all with traditional conservatism (one of the strongest attacks on Rand I’ve ever seen was from The National Review dating back to when her epic piece of crap came out in the fifties.) Any alliances are tactical or illusory.
Not sure how the the Tea Party fits into this post, but IMHO the Tea Party was more than anything a fairly classic, if incoherent, outbreak of right-wing, white populism – which almost always draws a large measure of its energy from nativism and racism – a major Tea Party sub-text. Throw in TARP resentment, which fills the “anti-bankers” piece of the populist script, add religious fundamentalism and it’s a pretty predictable eruption (which is why “keep the government’s hands off my Medicare” isn’t as nutty as it seems, in the context of the history of white populism.) While there are some similar-sounding noises, white populism is very far removed from “Reason” magazine libertarianism, but marginal ideologies are always looking for some signs that make them appear less marginal, so you get lots of strange bedfellows.
My own view is that in today’s bizarre political spectrum, the folks who are most “conservative” in the traditional sense of trying to keep our social fabric from coming apart, pragmatically protecting core values of community and family and being suspicious of legislative schemes driven by ideological fervor are liberals. And I don’t have a problem with that.
sonofsamantha
So where are all the fukwads around here who were suddenly saying how great Rand Paul was after he was against the drones?
Yea, I’m looking at you wrong way Cole…caught going the wrong way as usual.
Bruce S
@Chris:
I honestly don’t know what Ron Paul’s motives are – my guess is that he simply believes a lot of crazy bullshit that anyone but a college sophomore or a remarkably narrow mind should be able to see through. I think the newsletters, etc. are just symptomatic. When I’ve seen him in presidential debates, which is about the only exposure I’ve had, he sounds and looks like a nutty old guy more than a salesman.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mnemosyne:
Not as pure as he’d have his followers believe. Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act (Life begins at conception) in 2011.
Bruce S
@Kay:
Living in a city where there is virtually no Republican party, I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that there is a sub-set of politicians who – regardless of party – are only in it for themselves and will lie about anything. I hate to be cynical, but I don’t trust anyone who puts themselves forward in the political arena until they’ve proven themselves trustworthy. I just think there’s something magnetic about politics for a sub-set of people with some deep flaws. You see some evidence of this even among our best (cough, Bill Clinton, cough, cough.) One reason I appreciate Obama so much (even though I sharply disagree with some major aspects of this administration – cough, Tim Geithner, cough, cough.)
Frankensteinbeck
@Bruce S:
The unifying element is assholism. IGMFY is a dominant sentiment in both groups, so they ally fairly easily. Remember, people aren’t inherently rational animals. Their arguments FEEL right to each other. The rich man doesn’t want the government telling him he can’t start a company store, the racist doesn’t want the government telling him he can’t burn a cross on the negro’s lawn, and they listen to each other’s arguments and hear ‘You’re not the boss of me!’ and go ‘Yeah!’
Bruce S
@Frankensteinbeck:
“The unifying element is assholism”
You deserve a Phd in political science for that insight. I’m not being snarky – it’s true. You’ve identified the essential alliance of the selfish and narrow.
different-church-lady
@sonofsamantha: Lots of attacks on Cole around here are off base. This ain’t one of them. Our host fell for it this time, but thankfully he doesn’t buy entire sets anymore.
Haydnseek
@SiubhanDuinne: Me too! I also like “avast.” “Ye mateys!” is optional.
Chris
@Bruce S:
I’m going off of his willingness to ignore the Tenth Amendment whenever it suits him (e.g. that pro-life amendment) and his fondness for loading pork barrel projects onto bills he knows are going to pass anyway, then cynically voting against them in order to preserve his “pure” image.
He’s appealing to nutty old guys (and nutty young guys), so I’ve never found that surprising.
Bruce S
@Chris:
Yeah, but I think he actually totally believes his nutty crap – anomalies in his congressional performance aside. Not sure we’re disagreeing much, but to me the essence of “grifter” is a televangelist or the “angry” talk radio hate-jock. The elder Paul doesn’t strike me as that type of skilled, cynical manipulator so much as an earnest kook. Of course, when you’re that far out it really doesn’t matter much.
Plantsmantx
@Kay:
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “the ability to anticipate what comes next”, but if you mean that he’s better at giving follow-up responses when he’s pressed on assertions like “Private business owners should be able to discriminate”, well…
When pressed on that assertion, Ron Paul has given the same answer as his son- business owners who discriminate will go out of business because people will stop patronizing them.
rikyrah
I’ll say it again….Rand Paul is a racist grifter just like his Daddy.
Omnes Omnibus
@rikyrah:
Well, yeah. In my view, this conversation is just about the specifics of the con.
g
Rand now believes killing Americans on American soil using drones is fine.
Apparently he also believes in capital punishment for robbery, too.
Bruce S
@Omnes Omnibus:
I don’t think Ron Paul is capable of a con – he’s pretty much a totally transparent crank. Rand thinks he’s got a con – but his performance at Howard is evidence of how delusional he actually is. The guy is Eddie Haskell with a copy of Atlas Shrugged in his back pocket.
fuckwit
That sentence is filled to the brim with WIN.