Rand Paul Calls Obama's Criticism of BP "Really Un-American"

Le sigh.

Rand Paul's not done saying silly things yet. On ABC's Good Morning America he ran full tilt into an amateur mistake:

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Give the man a prize. He just said the magic words that will guarantee he stays in the news cycle for at least another 24 hours. Do I agree with the President's attack on BP? Of course not. He's wrong. But that doesn't make his political point-scoring "un-American."

One of the core American freedoms, something not enjoyed even in other parts of "Western Civilization", is the right to score political points by lambasting others. As the Ninth Circuit put it yesterday (PDF), "The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment."

The President's attack on BP is both offensive and based on a faulty premise. But it's not un-American. And after spending the past year or more decrying the same Democratic smear against the Tea Parties, Rand should have known better.

What an amateur. As Drew put it yesterday: the MFM will make Paul the new face of the Republican Party for at least the next six months or so. Oops.

Insta-Update: Several commenters say it is un-American if Obama "puts his boot heel on the throat of BP" and so Rand is right.

Except that Rand didn't say that. He specifically called the President's criticism of businesshis wordsun-American. That's just plain wrong. It has the added something of being awfully bad politics, so there's that too.

Criticizing business has a centuries-long history in the United States and at the moment a plurality of Americans seem to agree with the President. I think Obama's wrong about this (and those Americans who agree with him too), but that doesn't mean he or they are un-American for criticizing BP.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:37 AM



Comments

1 uh.......obama is looking to collect outrageous fines and drive big oil out of business.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 09:40 AM (ucxC/)

2 Yay! Rand Paul every day on AoS!
Those god dammned big mouthed Libertarians saying what they think.
Why can't he be a goodexperienced Republican like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, or Olympia Snowe?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 09:41 AM (wuv1c)

3 Obama IS Un American.

Him and the hateful wife of his.

Not to mention race baiters, terrorist sympathizers, and HYPOCRITES.

Jesus effign Christ I can't WAIT until they are out of office. All he's done is criticize criticize criticize EVERYTHING!

He's an officious turd who has stepped into shoes that are 13 sizes to big for him

UN AMERICAN

Posted by: MelodicMetal at May 21, 2010 09:42 AM (x4S2a)

4
Doesn't BP stand for "British Petroleum"?



Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 09:42 AM (0fzsA)

5 You don't think obama's "un-American"? WTF is the matter with you?

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 09:42 AM (8EieV)

6 Sarah Palin may get a week off. The media has found a new whipping boy. Whether you agree with him or not the media is already in full foaming at the mouth glee trying to score political pointsagainst him.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 21, 2010 09:43 AM (1Jaio)

7 Are the fuckheads that are advising Rand Paul's campaign the answer to the question: What are the dumbasses from McCain's 2008 campaign doing these days?

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 21, 2010 09:43 AM (j9MWE)

8
I get where he was going with it. Obama does takes any opportunity he can to vilify whatever American enterprise stands between him and forcing more government control down our throats.

Rand just selected the wrong company and the wrong instance to make this example work.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 09:44 AM (0fzsA)

9 The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First
Amendment.

Yep. So calling somebody Un-American is perfectly okay.

By the way...Is Obama Un-American?

Posted by: Zuggs at May 21, 2010 09:44 AM (FkKjr)

10 "Why can't he be a good experienced Republican like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, or Olympia Snowe?"

Amen, brother.

I think you can add Scott Brown to that list.

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 09:44 AM (8EieV)

11 I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,
Er ... what is wrong with this? Just because it's a British company doing business in the US doesn't change the truth of Paul's statement.
I don't understand what you find so odd about this, Gabe. The Precedent is UN-AMERICAn ... though, that is incorrect, The Indonesian Imbecile is ANTI-AMERICAN. That goes for his anti-business attitude, no matter the owner of the business.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 09:45 AM (5TNVe)

12
does take

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 09:45 AM (0fzsA)

13
I think saying "boot heel on the throat" does sound un-American.



Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 09:46 AM (p1Q7M)

14 Gabe..he was referring to the "boot heel on the neck" comment. ..and I agree with him.

Posted by: beedubya at May 21, 2010 09:46 AM (AnTyA)

15 bp is the largest gas and oil producer in the united states...one of the largest gas retailers and the largest non us company on the new york stock exchange....from their website

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 09:47 AM (ucxC/)

16 Obama's general attitude that American business and industry requires his boot on their necks is in fact un-American.
And Paul, for all his flaws, is 1000% better than that Marxist Kenyan imbecile.

Posted by: real joe at May 21, 2010 09:47 AM (WjerO)

17 Was Ron Paul accussing Bush of plotting a "Gulf of Tonkin" to make war against little innocent Iran on the House Floor, "Un-American" Rand????

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 09:48 AM (DFDtC)

18 Maybe we should start calling you "Gabrielpundit".

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 09:48 AM (8EieV)

19 did the content of this post change?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 09:48 AM (wuv1c)

20 Gabe, if you hate Rand Paul so much, I'm sure you can find something legitimate to complain about. This isn't even close.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 09:48 AM (5TNVe)

21 yep.....americans don't put their boot heel on companies necks.....that's what commie pinko reds do......and commie pinko reds are UN-AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 09:49 AM (ucxC/)

22 Was Ron Paul claiming the Afghanistan War was "really about Building Oil Pipelines, therefore we must withdrawal"....Un-American Rand?

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 09:49 AM (DFDtC)

23
14, Did you get that, Gabe? The boot-heel-neck connection?

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 09:49 AM (p1Q7M)

24 What's wrong with what Rand said? President Shitheel's desperate attempt to assign blame to everyone except himself is pretty un-American, or at least un-Presidential. Flailing around ineffectually like an incompetent douchebag, especially when he's not in command of all the facts, is Wee-Wee's default position.

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 09:50 AM (u+34p)

25 The President's attack on BP is both offensive and based on a faulty premise. But it's not un-American.
Being anti-business and anti-capitalist is decidedly un-American.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 09:50 AM (5TNVe)

26 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP
what ever you think of Paul, that statement is pretty f'ing ridiculous. It is at the very least inappropriate coming from the POTUS. I don't ever recall him saying anything similar about terrorism.
The President should act presidential, not just in his demeanor, but also in choosing what language he uses.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 09:50 AM (wuv1c)

27
bp is the largest gas and oil producer in the united states...one of the
largest gas retailers and the largest non us company on the new york
stock exchange


All those celebrity chefs don't get to the White House kitchen by bicycle courier, Barry.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 09:51 AM (mR7mk)

28 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP
I don't think he was refering to the sex act that's popular with the kids these days Gabe.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 09:51 AM (wuv1c)

29 The whole "boot heel on the throat" of a business does sound a bit Stalinist/Third Reich-ish...

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 09:51 AM (DrWcr)

30 OVERBOARD!

Posted by: oblig. at May 21, 2010 09:52 AM (x7Ao8)

31 Gabe,

Again you miss the salient point. Paul is "changing the subject." It's pretty obvious. You really need to think before you react.

Posted by: ArcticBoy at May 21, 2010 09:52 AM (90bLF)

32 Not sure what letting Rand Paul win this primary does, in great great harm, to the GOP, Conservatism and the Tea Party movement?
The Paul's give the MSM/Dems the perfect opportunity to quit playing nice with them and use their idiocies to paint the GOP/Tea Party and Conservatism into the Narrative they oh so want.
No Longer will Marco Rubio, a true Conservative, be the face of the Tea Party power this year. Instead Paultardism will be.

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 09:52 AM (DFDtC)

33 Gabe, rewrite your headline to read "Sloppy Posting is Fun!"

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 09:52 AM (p1Q7M)

34 Yeah, I think Paul's view of things is a little simplistic.

Never read TR's 'malefactors of great wealth' piece in history class?

It's not un-American.

Inaccurate, unhelpful, and ill-advised, perhaps, but not un-American.

Posted by: mrkwong at May 21, 2010 09:53 AM (G8Eo0)

35 He tied "Un-American directly to "boot heel on the neck".

Indirectly it emphasizes the Democrat anti business and anti capitalist position. This is a lot like calling them "socialists".

Like the uproar over the Arizona law, I think the vocal left and media would have us believe they are the majority, but polls show 75-85% support border control.

Perhaps the voter will turn out to be smarter than they are given credit for, and already understand the problems of big government. Lower taxes means less boot heel ... and that is a winner.

Posted by: bill at May 21, 2010 09:53 AM (X4Ife)

36 Is the boot-heel on the throat thing a paraphrase or an actual quote of President Shitbrick's?

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 09:53 AM (u+34p)

37 Some of you guys need to start thinking politically, practically: What Rand said is again, dumb dumb dumb politics. There are better ways to say what he was saying, rhetorically. Facts don't matter in politics, especially when the Dems control the MSM

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 09:54 AM (DFDtC)

38 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP
Change "BP" to "Britain" and give it a Bayerische accent, and it could be a quote from Triumph des Willens.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 09:54 AM (mR7mk)

39 Yes, you're right about the politics of it. Yes, you're right about how it's going to play.

Fuck. It. I'm sick of being told to lie back and think of the flag while being called a racist un-American self-hating bigot. If the Dems want to dish it out, I say we throw it right back in their faces.

Posted by: alexthechick at May 21, 2010 09:54 AM (8WZWv)

40
27
heather....but once they get there........they have to work for free.....and they have to stop twittering.........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 09:55 AM (ucxC/)

41 The Paul's give the MSM/Dems the perfect opportunity to quit playing nice with them and use their idiocies to paint the GOP/Tea Party and Conservatism into the Narrative they oh so want.
Uh, no offense, but have you been living under a rock? They've been doing this all along.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 09:55 AM (DrWcr)

42 Can we just get off of this fucking Rand Paul diatribe and get onto something more substantive?
Any thoughts?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 21, 2010 09:55 AM (o+hgo)

43 Lol, Rand Paul on AoS again. As a concerned christian conservative, I got a direct line to Jesus; and he says "more please... for the children"

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 09:56 AM (9Sbz+)

44 Fuck. It. I'm sick of being told to lie back and think of the flag while being called a racist un-American self-hating bigot. If the Dems want to dish it out, I say we throw it right back in their faces.
Posted by: alexthechick at May 21, 2010 09:54 AM (8WZWv)
I'm just about there. I am getting tired of being told to play kissy-face with people who hate us and hate America.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 09:56 AM (DrWcr)

45 the only thing that disturbs me about rand is his hair.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 09:56 AM (ucxC/)

46 In America you have the G*d given right to make a complete ass of yourself. Unfortunately the MFM only reports on Republicans who exercise that right.

Posted by: Germany at May 21, 2010 09:57 AM (OtQXp)

47 So Rand, when Ron Paul accussing American Foreign Policy instead of say, Islamic Ideology and Theology and history, as the root cause of 9/11...."Un-American"???

What about you allying with moonbat Military smear merchants like Adam Kokesh??? Was that "Un-American"....I say yes.

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 09:57 AM (DFDtC)

48 Yep, a "President" who is doing his best to destroy this country is as American as they come, Gabe....
Did someone give that omega male douchebag, Allahpundit, the ability to post here under the usual posters' names or something?

Posted by: 0bama IS "Really Un-American" at May 21, 2010 09:57 AM (VmtE9)

49 I dunno, he makes me like him more and more every day. Guess I'm in the fringe.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 09:57 AM (fo4Wl)

50 I voted for Paul, I give money to his campaign (what little I have). I wish I had a gaggle of Paul's to support. I'll take a well intentioned amateur over the bought-out, sold-out spineless losers that currently inhabit the congress/senate.

Posted by: Oracle of Mcfly at May 21, 2010 09:57 AM (o5vMm)

51

Gabe, if you hate Rand Paul so much, I'm sure you can
find something legitimate to complain about. This isn't even close.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 09:48 AM (5TNVe)
!

Posted by: The Number Nine at May 21, 2010 09:58 AM (7+pP9)

52 Yes, you're right about the politics of it. Yes, you're right about how it's going to play. Fuck. It. I'm sick of being told to lie back and think of the flag while being called a racist un-American self-hating bigot. If the Dems want to dish it out, I say we throw it right back in their faces.
now alex. we all know that only liberal republicans are allowed to speak their mind. When a Libertarian does it he is naive, stupid, and destroys the republican party forever!!1!1!
Besides, Rand Paul would shut up the MFM wouldn't try to destroy the Republican Party any other way. They would totally just give up.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 09:58 AM (wuv1c)

53 There's a difference between "Un-American", and "Anti-American".

Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at May 21, 2010 09:58 AM (erIg9)

54 Some of you guys need to start thinking politically, practically: What Rand said is again, dumb dumb dumb politics. There are better ways to say what he was saying, rhetorically. Facts don't matter in politics, especially when the Dems control the MSM
Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 09:54 AM (DFDtC)
What matters is that people start calling the Indonesian Imbecile the America-hating shithead traitor that he is. He is destroying this nation right before your eyes and you think it's inappropriate to point the least of that out? The Precedent should be answering treason charges, for any of a number of insane things he's done, already.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 09:58 AM (5TNVe)

55 39,

Indeed. Being nice gets you nowhere. Being nice is not the smart move.

Fuck it.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 09:58 AM (p1Q7M)

56 heather....but once they get there........they have to work for free

Yeah...I can sort of see the SS' point about tweeting affecting security, but not paying the man just smacks of "royal command performance."

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 09:59 AM (mR7mk)

57 What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said

What is the THAT in this sentence gabe?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 09:59 AM (wuv1c)

58 Just read your update, Gabe.

Try again.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 09:59 AM (p1Q7M)

59 There's a difference between "Un-American", and "Anti-American".
whoa whoa whoa. Are you saying words mean things?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:00 AM (wuv1c)

60 53 There's a difference between "Un-American", and "Anti-American".
Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Professional Debate Team at May 21, 2010 09:58 AM (erIg9)
Teh Wonis the bridge that unites them.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 10:00 AM (DrWcr)

61 When did Rand Paul become THE MOST IMPORTANT MAN IN THE UNIVERSE?

Get over him. He's a state-wide candidate in a third-tier state. Stop playing the lefts' game.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 21, 2010 10:00 AM (ZJ/un)

62 Do I agree with the President's attack on BP? Of course not.
I don't agree with it either. I don't think Obama was even close to the mark when he said "the system" failed. The system is fine. The system makes our way of life possible. It's BP that failed.
I would have agreed with Obama had he confined his attacks to BP.

Posted by: FireHorse at May 21, 2010 10:00 AM (cQyWA)

63
Obama has vilified all sorts of industries: Wall Street, health insurance, drug companies, any business that doesn't fall in line, any business that does fall in line (wink wink).

Obama doesn't vilify anything union related.


BP deserves some crtisim. Sure, it was an accident, but BPs response has been pathetic. Then again, the federal government's response has been pathetic.




Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 10:00 AM (0fzsA)

64 Mixed feelings on this.

It's not smart, but I think he's right.

Mixed feelings on this.

Posted by: Tommy V at May 21, 2010 10:00 AM (gkc1e)

65 Uh, no offense, but have you been living under a rock? They've been doing this all along.
Yeah, and the point is now they have poster boys, one a Congressman(idiot) and the other nominated by the GOP, by Tea Party support, to the Senate. These 2 idiots give the left lots of Ammo to make this narrative stick to all of us.
Ever read the ROn Paul Newsletters? DOn't think that isn't coming into this at some point. Rand's mother and daughter drew a pay check from them, possibly Rand is tied in someway also. If so, gameover.

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 10:01 AM (DFDtC)

66 Now Gabe's flailing as ineffectually as President Lackwit.

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 10:01 AM (u+34p)

67 BPs response has been pathetic.

How so?

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 10:02 AM (u+34p)

68 the only thing that disturbs me about rand is his hair.....
His campaign could use an image consultant. As much as I hate that people will vote for the guy with the whiter teeth or the shout-out from Jay-Z, that's the electorate.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 10:02 AM (mR7mk)

69 It is also not un-American to point out that Barry is an incompetent clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

We need to do more of that.

Posted by: damian at May 21, 2010 10:02 AM (4WbTI)

70 So what are your feelings on this Tommy V?

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 10:02 AM (fo4Wl)

71 bho's whole admin is un american

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 10:02 AM (ucxC/)

72
No Longer will Marco Rubio, a true Conservative, be the face of the Tea Party power this year. Instead Paultardism will be.
So long as 'tards like Gabriel let the press play them like Pavlov's dog, sure.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 21, 2010 10:02 AM (ZJ/un)

73
Now we're all Rand Paul? I thought we were all Rush Limbaugh. Or are we all Sarah Palin? Or maybe we're just all hyper-rich capitalist pigs? Or is it illiterate backwoods bumpkins? So hard to keep up with what I'm supposed to be every day.

Anyway, the real "new face of the Republican Party" is a bunch of ninnies running in circles panicking about minutiae and playing right along with the dipshittery that passes for political discourse these days.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 21, 2010 10:03 AM (qSRHZ)

74 As much as I hate that people will vote for the guy with the whiter
teeth or the shout-out from Jay-Z, that's the electorate.
hey!

Posted by: doug hoffman at May 21, 2010 10:03 AM (4WbTI)

75 BPs response has been pathetic.

How so?

It hasn't been perfect and wrapped up in ten minutes, of course.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at May 21, 2010 10:03 AM (ZJ/un)

76 Sorry, I'm with Rand. Putting your foot on the throat of business sounds like a communist. He's right--and too many on this blog are willing to wring their hands at the alter of political correctness. How are we going to pursuade the public of our views if our candidates have to walk on eggshells? It seems some on this blog want Rand to fail.
I'm not a Rand fan per se, but if we playby lib rules, we lose. Hell, give him a chance. He will learn from his mistake on MSNBC.

Posted by: Scoob at May 21, 2010 10:04 AM (T7+JL)

77
BPs response has been pathetic.
__________________________
How so?

Uh - the oil is still furiously escaping into the gulf.


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 10:04 AM (0fzsA)

78 I heard Rand Paul and Joe Arpaio went on a whale-killing spree off the coast of Mexico back in '99.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:05 AM (p1Q7M)

79 And it amuses me that dorks with a computer and a little computer skill start a site and turn into the same know it alls that they rail against.

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:05 AM (8EieV)

80 He is destroying this nation right before your eyes and you think it's inappropriate to point the least of that out? The Precedent should be answering treason charges, for any of a number of insane things he's done, already.
---
When it hurts you politically and gets you off message, yes you don't use such buzz terms. There is a double standard in american politics, we have to play by it whether we like it or not.
Arguably, Rand's dad could be charged with Treason charges for repeating Enemy propaganda as fact. At one time he would've been or just challenged to a duel and shot.

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 10:05 AM (DFDtC)

81 Now we're all Rand Paul? I thought we were all Rush Limbaugh. Or are we all Sarah Palin? Or maybe we're just all hyper-rich capitalist pigs? Or is it illiterate backwoods bumpkins? So hard to keep up with what I'm supposed to be every day. Anyway, the real "new face of the Republican Party" is a bunch of ninnies running in circles panicking about minutiae and playing right along with the dipshittery that passes for political discourse these days.
no. no. no. don't you get it. Rand Paul will sink us in the eyes of the media. It will all be Rand Pauls fault. Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul. PAULLLLLLLL

Posted by: AoS at May 21, 2010 10:05 AM (wuv1c)

82 Jesus, maybe we just need need to split as a party. Just get it over with now before we get any nearer to 2012. One side can take Graham, McCain, Allahpundit etc. The other side gets the Pauls, Texas, and Hardees.
Seems like a fair split to me.

Posted by: Oracle of Mcfly at May 21, 2010 10:06 AM (o5vMm)

83 #39 Fuck. It. I'm sick of being told to lie back and think of the flag
while being called a racist un-American self-hating bigot. If the Dems
want to dish it out, I say we throw it right back in their faces.

Cut, jib, newsletter?

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 21, 2010 10:06 AM (9hSKh)

84 Uh - the oil is still furiously escaping into the gulf.

Uh, your statement presumes there's a faster better method of shutting off that flow than what they've attempted so far. Explain what they should be doing then.

Not every problem gets solved in one hour like some shitty TV show, you know.

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 10:06 AM (u+34p)

85 What the hell, Gabriel? "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP" isn't unAmerican? I think any metaphorical application of boots to vulnerable parts ofthe body is unAmerican.
I mean, just imagine the outrage if George W. Bush had said "I'm going to put my boot heel on the throat of these antiwar protesters." Just because you don't like a group's activitiesdoesn't mean you should be employing violent metaphors to indicate how tough you are on them.

Posted by: TallDave at May 21, 2010 10:07 AM (/s1LA)

86 What he said was true; the president of the US should not be trying to cast himself as some kind of "Avenger of the People" by jackbooting business. Beyond un-American, his phrasing was just downright creepy. Those supposedly on the GOP side of the fence aren't exactly helping to correct the leftward drift of the country by getting their frilly little panties in a twist whenever the left tells them to, either.

Posted by: Kerry at May 21, 2010 10:07 AM (98/X2)

87 When it hurts you politically and gets you off message, yes you don't use such buzz terms. There is a double standard in american politics, we have to play by it whether we like it or not.
Arguably, Rand's dad could be charged with Treason charges for repeating Enemy propaganda as fact. At one time he would've been or just challenged to a duel and shot.
Look
Ron Paul = Nut.
We are on the name page, but where we differ is
Ron Paul Rand Paul

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:08 AM (wuv1c)

88 shit the does not qual sign didn't come up in my post at 87

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:08 AM (wuv1c)

89 Or maybe we're just all hyper-rich capitalist pigs? Or is it illiterate
backwoods bumpkins?

Illiterate hyper-rich backwoods capitalist bumpkins.

Watch out for them revenuers.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 10:08 AM (mR7mk)

90 So long as 'tards like Gabriel let the press play them like Pavlov's dog, sure.
--
The MSM/Press/Dems setup debate and dictate the terms. They control it, saying things like this helps them, get us off message.

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 10:08 AM (DFDtC)

91 Comments 1, Gabe 0

Posted by: conscious and playing score keeper at May 21, 2010 10:09 AM (YVZlY)

92 Arguably, Rand's dad could be charged with Treason charges for
repeating Enemy propaganda as fact.


Shit, they don't even charge citizens actively working for Al Qaeda and Hezbollah with treason.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 10:10 AM (mR7mk)

93 Bad politics? Yep, there are better labels. It harms Paul more than it helps him. Fact of life.
But wrong to challenge the WH on it? No, the boot-on-the throat imagery is straight out of Orwell's 1984 (well ok, a boot stamping on a human face, forever). It's about as fucking offensive a statement as I've ever heard from Gibbs, and it's ok with me for Rand to call him on it. Hell, somebody call them on it.
The label "un-American" though is not politically astute. Just call it ridiculousor incrediblyoffensive, tone-deaf, obnoxious, whatever.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 21, 2010 10:10 AM (WvXvd)

94 Illiterate hyper-rich backwoods capitalist bumpkins.

So, we're the Beverly Hillbillies then.

Posted by: damian at May 21, 2010 10:11 AM (4WbTI)

95 Your update doesn't really make sense, either. It's very clear in context that Rand is saying the language used is the issue, not any criticism of business at all.
Keep in mind guys, the MSM's power is dissolving before our eyes. Their histrionics haven't moved the needle an inch on the AZ immigration law. These spurious attacks on Paul as a quasi-racist or full-onnutbar are probably going to fail.

Posted by: TallDave at May 21, 2010 10:11 AM (/s1LA)

96 The MSM/Press/Dems setup debate and dictate the terms. They control it, saying things like this helps them, get us off message.

Posted by: jp

Nope. Fighting Barry and his Socialist buddies is our message.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:11 AM (p1Q7M)

97 I see that LGF is sharing Gabriel's conservative-christian concern. Because that Charles, he cares.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 10:12 AM (9Sbz+)

98 What the hell, Gabriel? "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP"
isn't unAmerican?

Can someone provide a link to when Obama said this, please? When I looked for when/where he said this, I found a WaPo article quoting Rand Paul saying it - as a characterization of Obama's comments, not as a quote.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:12 AM (Kn9r7)

99 Those reports about me advertising sugary cereals and toys to children were complete fabrications! Now, maybe y'all can find something else to post about around here....

Posted by: Rand Paul at May 21, 2010 10:12 AM (VmtE9)

100 BPs response has been pathetic. How so?First, they had no plan to deal with something like this. Of course no one can anticipate all of the details with a bad-case scenario, but to assume that there will never be such a scenario is a level of negligence that surpasses the lack of upkeep on a pipeline in Alaska by a certain oil company.
Second, BP's first reaction was to make sure none of the people being rescued from the burning oil rig would sue the company. I guess they learned a lesson from that oil company which suffered a refinery fire in Texas that killed more than a dozen people some years ago.
Third, there are all of those public statements about how well they're handling the situation. I'm starting to doubt the company's PR.
Fourth: "Uh - the oil is still furiously escaping into the gulf."

Posted by: FireHorse at May 21, 2010 10:12 AM (cQyWA)

101 We are on the name page, but where we differ is
Ron Paul Rand Paul
---
I've heard that, but then I've seen old footage of Rand talking like his dad. yes he's got a better tone and smarter, but paultardism is in his DNA. he has comprimised it some to get nominated, but its still there.
The biggest reason he got nominated was because of his dad, his name, fundraising network and army of Paulnut cult worshipers. Most all of them view Rand as Ron and vice versa for a reason. I think RedState, Demint, Palin really screwed up here tactically, selling this guy to the base.

Posted by: jp at May 21, 2010 10:12 AM (DFDtC)

102 Uh - the oil is still furiously escaping into the gulf.

Uh,
your statement presumes there's a faster better method of shutting off
that flow than what they've attempted so far. Explain what they should
be doing then.Not every problem gets solved in one hour like some shitty TV show, you know.
__________________

Really? Well, I never said anything about a shitty TV show, but OK. It's been how long since this accident first occurred? Now, I'm not an expert, but given all the technology, how hard is it to cap a spill? (a man on the moon and all that) I get that it's really deep (and that it's really far off shore due to our government's insistence and regulation, and that if it were closer-in, it would probably be easier to cap) but the fact remains that this oil is still gushing and it's been weeks and weeks.... Get on with it, BP.



Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 10:13 AM (0fzsA)

103
The root of this post is Gabe's inability to understand what he has read.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:13 AM (p1Q7M)

104 Just end every post with "Rand Paul delenda est" and move on to some subject that's a little less trivial.

Posted by: Heorot at May 21, 2010 10:13 AM (Nq/UF)

105

Come and listen to my story 'bout a man named Aybed
a poor camel jockey, barely kept his family fed
then one day he was shooting at some Joooos
and up through the ground came a bubblin' ooze.

Posted by: The Bel Arabs at May 21, 2010 10:13 AM (4WbTI)

106 Keep in mind guys, the MSM's power is dissolving before our eyes. Their
histrionics haven't moved the needle an inch on the AZ immigration
law. These spurious attacks on Paul as a quasi-racist or full-onnutbar
are probably going to fail.

I agree. I think a new wave is coming over the U.S. At least I hope so. People are seeing through the media's BS. I think people are tired of the slick politicians. Chris Christie is a great example of telling it like it is.

btw, long time no see Tall Dave

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 10:14 AM (fo4Wl)

107
FireHorse - thank you.

"BP's first reaction was to make sure none of the people being rescued from the burning oil rig would sue the company."

That was a particularity and crass pathetic move.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 10:14 AM (0fzsA)

108 Gabe,
Can I ask you asa political consultant, familiar with Kentucy politics, do you think this will cause him to lose in November?
Also, If I may be a dick. You are always telling everyone here about how we need to compromise on gay marriage, despite the fact is is wildly unpopular with the Republican base. Where does Rand Paul stand on gay marriage? If he is for it, why can't you compromise on his "naivete" in return for having a supporter of gay marriage? Or is that a one way street?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:15 AM (wuv1c)

109 Maybe Paul fundamentally understands that everything Zero does is fucking un-American. And that assertion is borne up by Zero's actions. I think Paul has not hurt himself by criticizing Zero. Many of us "bitter-clingers" feel the same.

Posted by: maddogg at May 21, 2010 10:15 AM (OlN4e)

110 Meh. It's true. I just wish he'd said it in a more politically effective way. Something like ...

"The thing that bothers me about this administration is the bullying tone ... this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the neck of BP.' That kind of talk is just unacceptable. BP made a mistake and needs to make amends for it, but we have courts to deal with that kind of thing. We don't need Barack Obama up there threatening companies. We don't need him up there lecturing everyone and telling them how to run their lives every day. It's unpresidential, and frankly, something I'd expect to see in some tinpot dictatorship. Barack Obama needs to understand that this is America, not Venezuela."

Now you've managed to call Obama un-American without actually saying it. And you've also painted him as an outsider with the Venezuela comment and reenforced that he isn't one of us.


Posted by: Warden at May 21, 2010 10:15 AM (fE6tn)

111 "84: Uh - the oil is still furiously escaping into the gulf.

Uh, your statement presumes there's a faster better method of shutting off that flow than what they've attempted so far. Explain what they should be doing then.

Not every problem gets solved in one hour like some shitty TV show, you know."


And wouldn't you think a real problemsolver, not a pimpshit professional politician like owhatthe fuckshisname would say..."OK, so we don't agree on lots of things, but we got a problem here, so what can we (The US) do to help you guys (BP) cap this thing faster? How can we help? We'll haggle later, but lets get this shit done"

Not him. It's all political. That's not what a real leader would do. A real leader would get shit done.


No. He acts like a pussy. Like all the democrats and 2/3rds of the republican party.

I like someone who will say what he thinks...even if he ain't perfect.

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:15 AM (8EieV)

112 85

What the hell, Gabriel? "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP"
isn't unAmerican? I think any metaphorical application of boots to
vulnerable parts ofthe body is unAmerican.

I mean, just imagine the outrage if George W. Bush had said "I'm
going to put my boot heel on the throat of these antiwar protesters."
Just because you don't like a group's activitiesdoesn't mean you
should be employing violent metaphors to indicate how tough you are on
them.

Posted by: TallDave at May 21, 2010 10:07 AM (/s1LA)
I think what Obama was doing with that remark was baiting the opposition into making any manner of spittle-flecked hyperventilating responses that his pet media can broadcast across the country to make his opponents all appear to be unhinged loonies.

And yes, if President Bush had made such a remark he would have been pilloried by that same press. Of course President Bush would never have made any such a remark as that because he was (and still is) an honorable man and not a baiting, trash-talking lowlife like the current occupant of the White House is.

Posted by: Nighthawk at May 21, 2010 10:15 AM (OtQXp)

113 Seriously, did Obama say "I'll put my boot heel on BP's throat" or not?

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:16 AM (Kn9r7)

114 Big deal. Paul is just stating facts. That he chose the wrong label is minutia.

You are right. He should have said,"all this President does is bitch at people and lay blame everywhere except his own doorstep." That is far more accurate.

Geezus people. We had this thing called free speech once. And here I find censorship and criticism which is the same version that I hear from my libtard friends when I mention their teleprompter Jesus giving Calderone free reign to bash my country- that seems pretty un American to me as well.


Posted by: Lunatic, What Comes From the Fringe at May 21, 2010 10:17 AM (uFdnM)

115 well, at least he said something! and about time. i guess we had to wait for the election cycle for any politician to call obama to account for his bullying threats.

'doctors cutting up kids for the money causes high medical costs' - not even the AMA made a peep.

'i'll destroy that insurance company (an HMO) for criticism'- not one word of denunciation.

the list goes on and on.
i don't recall any president making these kind of statements. and not once has he been called on it.

Posted by: gomm at May 21, 2010 10:18 AM (EA+Co)

116 I find it disturbing tosee that Gabe is filching my posts.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at May 21, 2010 10:19 AM (T1boi)

117 Gabriel,
While I agree that Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act were "dumb but accurate," I think you're being too hard on him here. After all, this President has specifically and repeatedlyattackedprivate U.S. citizens (Sgt. James Crowley, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) andcorporations (AGI, Goldmann Sachs, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and now, British Petroleum). You're absolutely right that freedom of speech is a quintessential American value, but that changes dramatically when that speech comes with a threat of action backed by the full force of the U.S. legal and political apparatus.
So, as an analogy, say you and I are two private citizens talking on a street corner. My name is Oback Barama, and yours is B. P. Troleum. Let's say that I'm standing there carrying a Big Stick in my hand, and I start laying into you about something I think you've done wrong, waving my Big Stick, andtelling passers-by that I'm going to"put my boot to your throat."
Congratulations to me! I've just won an all-expenses-paid trip to the local penitentiary on an assaultconviction. And all the "free speech" in the world ain't gonna save me.

Posted by: Mike at May 21, 2010 10:20 AM (VE5vJ)

118 I'm Rand Paul!

Posted by: Spartacus at May 21, 2010 10:20 AM (DrWcr)

119 Y'all need to get the sand out your manginas.

I thought this was AoSHQ, not Let's Whine About How Rand Paul Doesn't Get the Nuancey Nuance Game.

Leave that to Allahpundit.

Does the left spend this much time moaning and crying over much more idiotic Biden gaffes, much less the devoted communists and islamists in their midst? No.

Man up.

Posted by: Danforth at May 21, 2010 10:20 AM (D0Ge0)

120 I read this post of Gabe's and I get to wondering whether Scott Brown hasn't snuck in here, the despicable shithead. Scott Brown thought he was voting for putting the heel on the throat of Wall Street and he loved it!!

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 10:20 AM (5TNVe)

121 The President of the United States is president of all citizens (and corporations that do business in our borders), not just the ones he likes. It may not be "un-American" to poormouth your political opponents (in fact, what could be more American than that?), but it's beneath him and his office. He's turning the office of the President from "Leader of the Free World" into the "Whiner in Chief".

Posted by: Monty at May 21, 2010 10:20 AM (4Pleu)

122 Hayward on Monday acknowledged his company's
responsibility in appearances on American TV and radio shows, a day
after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the administration would keep
"keep the boot on the neck" of BP to fulfill its legal responsibilities.

Posted by: The Bel Arabs at May 21, 2010 10:21 AM (4WbTI)

123 And I am Spartacus! No, wait, I'm Rand Paul too!

Posted by: Rand Paul at May 21, 2010 10:21 AM (DrWcr)

124 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that* sounds really un-American in his criticism of business," he said. "
His use of the word "that" qualifies the sentence by referencing the "boot heel" BS about business.
No matter what any tiny, twistable word that any conservative says, it will be twisted. And libs will twist the untwistable anyway. So I guess he should just stay mute.... or maybe conservatives shouldjust lay off the guy and quit doing the BS of libs.


Posted by: Nonparsing parser at May 21, 2010 10:21 AM (gbCNS)

125 113
Seriously, did Obama say "I'll put my boot heel on BP's throat" or not?

Gibbsy/ Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said it.

The Obama Administration clearly wants to send the signal that it's
keeping the pressure on BP to do everything humanly possible to stop the
uncontrolled flow of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and to get the company
to pick up the cost for cleaning up the mess and the economic losses to
people in the gulf region.So the administration has embraced the violent imagery of Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar who said administration officials would keep their
"boot on the throat" of the energy giant to make sure the company does
all it can and more to address the problems caused by its uncontrolled
ocean gusher.


Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 21, 2010 10:21 AM (9hSKh)

126 I for one am plenty fucking tired of politicians who parse their words to the point of meaninglessness. Let's cut to the chase and call Zero what the fuck he is. What is he? He's a socialist and is expressly un-American. People need to hear that, out in the open rather than whispered into an ear.

Posted by: maddogg at May 21, 2010 10:21 AM (OlN4e)

127 this whole argument reminds me of sb 1070..... no one reads it but they are all an expert on it's intricacies that don't even exist.......it also reminds me of the reaction to the az commissioners statements to la.......if you want to boycott az.....then really boycott az....stop buying our electricity.....the commissioner never ever threatened to stop sending power to ca....rand was talking about the boot heel comment and he didn't say the president was un american he said it sounded un-american.......and the truth be told.....it was un-american......or is it the "new america"? elections have consequences.....and the guy that's sitting in the white house is un american in his actions and in his words.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 10:22 AM (ucxC/)

128 I just wish he'd shut his yapper for, oh, six months or so.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 21, 2010 10:22 AM (2VGuy)

129 Haven't been here in a while, it used to be hard ass...even attended one of the early "moron meet ups".

This place has sure changed..."gettin' squishy wit it".

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:22 AM (8EieV)

130 I get to wondering whether Scott Brown hasn't snuck in here, the despicable shithead

Oh, come now. I knew this was coming the moment he won the election in Massachusetts.

I remember thinking then, "There will come a time when he votes against the GOP on a really unpopular bill. This is the price we pay for having a GOP Senator from Massachusetts. I promise to remember how giddy I am that a GOPer can win any elected seat in Massachusetts, much less Saint Teddy's seat. Whenever I am tempted to hate Scott Brown, I will remember this moment and get over it."

Scott Brown is not, and never has been, and never will be, a rank-and-file GOPer. Not coming from bluest-of-blue Massachusetts. He was always spiritually in tune with the two ladies of Maine more than anyone else on the GOP side. Just take the hit and be glad he's in there for the other votes he'll take on the GOP side of things.

Posted by: Monty at May 21, 2010 10:23 AM (4Pleu)

131 The left (in conjunction with MFM) try to paint the right as their caricature of Limbaugh and Palin and now Paul. They are desperate to transform the TEA party from the the mass in the middle to some sort of far right skinhead group.

At some point they have already "jumped the shark" in misinformation insanity. Except for the 10% noisy far left, most want less government and less of the corruption that permeates DC.

FOX had the guy on that does the graph of audience reaction, and his rant about telling government to "quit spending money we don't have" scored around 89% approval. (84% Dems, 95% Repubs).

Perhaps there was a more perfect way for Paul to make his point, but there is no need to pander to the 10% that will never be won over. And no reason to think most Americans don't understand that Paul is not "The Spokesman" for what this amorphous movement (called the TEA party) stands for.

Posted by: bill at May 21, 2010 10:23 AM (X4Ife)

132

Um if indeed there was a "boot heel" remark, that was in fact un-American. God, the Paul hate just flows on this blog, even if the guy said "puppies are cute."

Unhinged indeed.

(ben, excellent point on marriage)

("He's a state-wide candidate in a third-tier state. Stop playing the
lefts' game." Yes, Rob, yes indeed.)

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:24 AM (PpeVF)

133 And thank you, Lemon Kitten.
I know Obama is anti-capitalist, but moral outrage is due here. My beef with Obama is that he didn't limithis outrage to the legitimate target, which in this case is BP. Obama is going after the entire energy industry with his rhetoric, which is wrong. But I won't defend BP because their actions and inactions have been indefensible.
(I think you can take it from here, L.K.)

Posted by: FireHorse at May 21, 2010 10:24 AM (cQyWA)

134 I took yesterday off, bad mistake. Let's summarize the last few days:



About Last Night.... DrewM: First Hit job on Rand Paul



Rand Paul...It's Going To Be A Long, Long 6 Months - Again DrewM Second hit job



A Little History For Rand Paul - Ace Third hit job and a huge straw man full of bad constitutional law and even more bad history.



Rand's Clarification - Ace - A retarded retraction with a forth hit job.



Rand Paul Calls Obama's Criticism of BP "Really Un-American" - Gabe - 5th hit job


All this from the people who have extolled the virtues of voting for RINOs because its the best we can do and the Party needs a majority. All of this promote the winner of the primary even when we don't like them.

It appears that "we" only want a majority of RINOs and big tent Party hacks. The hypocrisy here is rank.

I am beginning to wonder why I hang out here when a small government Republican is attacked everyday. It appears that our tent isn't so big after all.


Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 10:25 AM (6taRI)

135
While the democrats continue to fuck us over, every word that comes out of Rand Paul's mouth will now qualify as the diversion needed to make sure that the democrats have the media cover they need to continue to fuck us over.


Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 10:25 AM (0fzsA)

136
"Rand Paul Calls Obama's Criticism of BP "Really Un-American"

More accurate: Rand Paul: Obama's 'Boot to the throat' Criticism of BP "Really Un-American"

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:25 AM (p1Q7M)

137 "I for one am plenty fucking tired of politicians who parse their words to the point of meaninglessness. Let's cut to the chase and call Zero what the fuck he is. What is he? He's a socialist and is expressly un-American. People need to hear that, out in the open rather than whispered into an ear."


Good stuff.

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:26 AM (8EieV)

138 Petulant ponitificating politicians perpetually parsing their pronouncements profoundly pisses people off.

Posted by: The Alliterative Avenger at May 21, 2010 10:26 AM (v+QvA)

139 BPs response has been pathetic.
I agree, but unless Obama uses the heel of his Jackboot to step on and plug the leak, acting like a 3rd world dictator isn't helping

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:26 AM (wuv1c)

140
"I for one am plenty fucking tired of politicians who parse their words
to the point of meaninglessness. Let's cut to the chase and call Zero
what the fuck he is. What is he? He's a socialist and is expressly
un-American. People need to hear that, out in the open rather than
whispered into an ear."


This.

Posted by: Dang Straights at May 21, 2010 10:27 AM (fx8sm)

141

126

damn straight maddogg


Gabey just had to get his "anti-Paul" quota in for the day.

I don't even know/like the guy and the mindless hate from the chief here and his fai . . I mean merry cob loggers here is already making me root for this guy.


Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:28 AM (PpeVF)

142 Better for our enemies in the MFM to focus their crusade on Paul in KY where he has a solid lead than on some other candidate in a closer election. It would be hard to nationalize the KY race when Paul is a rogue outsider.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 21, 2010 10:28 AM (3iMgs)

143 It has been awile...what is MFM? I know it's some form of MSM...

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:28 AM (8EieV)

144 We're going to keep our boot heel on the throat of the teabaggers, I mean, tea party protesters. Call me un-American, come on, I DARE you!

Posted by: Robert Gibbs at May 21, 2010 10:28 AM (v+QvA)

145 Posted by: Monty at May 21, 2010 10:23 AM (4Pleu)
That's all true, but there are bad bills and there are BAD BILLS. On top of that, it was clear that Brown was too stupid to understand what the elections and primaries just meant, since that is obviously what spooked him and made him fold like a cheap, dirty, despicable, smelly suit.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 10:29 AM (5TNVe)

146 143 It has been awile...what is MFM? I know it's some form of MSM...
Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:28 AM (8EieV)
Mother
F***er/ing
Media

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 10:29 AM (v+QvA)

147 143 It has been awile...what is MFM? I know it's some form of MSM...
Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:28 AM (8EieV)
Motherfukkinmedia

Posted by: maddogg at May 21, 2010 10:30 AM (OlN4e)

148 Gabe, IMO you're dissecting words too much. At first glance, the quote reads very much like a criticism of the language B to the O used, not a his freedom to give general criticism of business. If I try really hard, I can see where you read it differently, but most non-attorneys will read it for what it is...calling out B to the O for using language a dictator would use.

BTW, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks that B to the O will not leave office willingly, in any sense of the word.

Posted by: The Hammer at May 21, 2010 10:30 AM (YBTwf)

149 Scott Brown is not, and never has been, and never will be, a rank-and-file GOPer. Not coming from bluest-of-blue Massachusetts.
Hence the hopeless quest of Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at May 21, 2010 10:30 AM (3iMgs)

150 Gabriel is confused. For reasons which are even a mystery to himself, he would have you believe that his views are slanted to the right. But his views are also often nuanced to be more those of a flaming, um,liberal. Theconflicting thoughts spinning around inside of his head must make it a wild, crazy, mixed up place, what with rational thoughts colliding with irrational thoughts, sporatically short-circuiting his brain. What the fuck did he just say today?

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 10:30 AM (ITzbJ)

151 Guys, Y-not is right; she usually is. Obama didn't use the word "bootheel". (Or is that two words?)
What Rand Paul has done is to channel Obama's general attitude toward business, as shown here byObama's scapegoating of BP. Obama ignored this shit untilhe figured out that he could make a villain out of BP.Reuters has taken notice too.
It's hypocritical of Obama, given BP's pastsupport for him. (Also Reuters.) And then there's the safety award he gave BP last year. BP sucks, but clearly they thought they were doing okay; the US government didn't tell them otherwise until a week after the disaster.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 10:30 AM (9Sbz+)

152 @122 and @125

Thanks. Salazar said it on CNN on May 2nd.

Someone should have called him on it - which I gather no one did. Having said that, I don't think that calling Obama out personally on a remark made by one of his cabinet members almost three weeks ago is a very good tactic. For one, Rand Paul really implies Obama made the remarks, which he didn't. For another, the scale of the disaster seems to be much bigger now than it appeared to be a couple of weeks ago, so I don't think that public sympathy has shifted in any way toward BP, quite the reverse.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:30 AM (Kn9r7)

153 Gabe, you are wrong in your update. He was clearly referring to the boot to the throat comment.
What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,"
He said that phase sounds un-American in his criticism. Not that his criticism sounded un-American as you said.

Posted by: robtr at May 21, 2010 10:31 AM (fwSHf)

154 Do anyone of the the real smart people here who know everything think that Paul's comments will hurthim inKentucky. You do know this isn't a nation wide election he faces, right?

Posted by: Oracle of Mcfly at May 21, 2010 10:32 AM (o5vMm)

155 More accurate: Rand Paul: Obama's 'Boot to the throat' Criticism of BP
"Really Un-American"

But that's not accurate.

Salazar made the remark, not Obama.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:32 AM (Kn9r7)

156 Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 21, 2010 10:13 AM (0fzsA)

To recap - you're imagining a fantasy world where BP should've capped the spill by now ... just because. You can't actually point to anything they should've done to cap it and haven't, you just think it magically should've been capped by now.

Magical thinking - a surefire plan of dealing with the real world. You sure you didn't vote for Obama?

Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 10:32 AM (u+34p)

157 They've demagogued us a racists, lunatics, and, yes, 'un-american'. And it worked, because look who won power and are now trying to destroy the country.

It's time we hit back. If we haven't learned that rolling over and 'going along to get along' doesn't work, then we're doomed.

This president and his liberal followers deserve no quarter. It's time to be as nasty and hateful to them as they have been to us.

Posted by: blindside at May 21, 2010 10:32 AM (x7g7t)

158 152 @122 and @125Thanks. Salazar said it on CNN on May 2nd.
Gibbs said it too.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 10:33 AM (v+QvA)

159 Got it.

But what about MDSGM (mainstream democrat semen guzzling media)

Posted by: LtE113 at May 21, 2010 10:34 AM (8EieV)

160 Meh. Nontroversy. Nancy Pugloser called tea-partiers un-american, which ticked us off but the nation didn't care. Now I would think calling actual Americans that for speaking out would end a politicians career. But alas, no.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 21, 2010 10:34 AM (7VvJB)

161 Rand is correct. Our Little Man-Child President is Un-American. Obama is a Socialist and would be at home in Iran, NK, and Syria. Let's speak the truth about Obama, He is gross !

Posted by: Buster Hymand at May 21, 2010 10:34 AM (k7Ddt)

162 Preach it Rand! At best he was being politically incorrect, GOOD FOR HIM. We always talk hereabout taking the fight to these assholes; fighting fire with fire...Rand has done just that. JIB-CUT-Newsletter please! MFM is gonna go on their smear regardless Rand is the flavor this week, next it will be Djouthen Toomey and so on. Just wait till They get a hold of Linda McMahon, SNL's cooter will be sweating something fierce.

Posted by: dananjcon at May 21, 2010 10:34 AM (pr+up)

163 Now, I'm not an expert, but given all the technology, how hard is it to cap a spill? (a man on the moon and all that) I get that it's really deep (and that it's really far off shore due to our government's insistence and regulation, and that if it were closer-in, it would probably be easier to cap) but the fact remains that this oil is still gushing and it's been weeks and weeks.... Get on with it, BP.---LK

I love the casual presumption that someone, somewhere has a pat answer for every disaster because, hey--"teh technology". You obviously couldn't be bothered to learn anything about engineering or deep sea extraction, but you're sure the magical solution is out there and BP is willingly pouring millions of oil into the gulf, wasting resources, threatening the future of our ability to extract gulf oil reserves--for what payoff, exactly?

The fact that a significant percentage of scientists who should know better fell for (or worse, pretended to) global warming tells me we're pretty deep into the second half of Atlas Shrugged. I have no faith in technology because the system of education has been perverted to one of indoctrination. Idiocracy, we are here.

Posted by: Kerry at May 21, 2010 10:34 AM (98/X2)

164 And while I don't disagree with Rand Paul's statement regarding BP, would someone please remind Rand what exacty this game is about. He is the teaparty candidate. Period. That means the MFM will go to great length to make sure he loses in Kentucky. Why - because a Rand Paul victory in KY is a Tea Party victory and the MFM meme that the Tea Party is too extreme for Americans is shattered if they start getting victories.
So, Rand, here is the deal. For the next 6 months, stay on script. Every other sentence should be "our deficiet is out of control" and that sentence should be followed by " unemployment is at 9.9 or 10 or whatever percent" and that should be followed by "we need to quit spending money we don't have and promote private business in order to create jobs". There Rand, that is your script for the next 6 months. No more babble about the Civil Rights act, no more babble about BP.
You have the lead --- the less said, the better.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 10:34 AM (OWjjx)

165 ynot.....the administration is un-american the president has set the tone rand should issue a correction.......the president via his administration sounds un-american

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 10:35 AM (ucxC/)

166 155,

More accurate: Rand Paul: Obama's 'Boot to the throat' Criticism of BP "Really Un-American"

But that's not accurate.

Salazar made the remark, not Obama.
Posted by: Y-no

Yes, but it is more accurate. How about this?

Even more accurate: Obama Administration's 'Boot to the throat' Criticism of BP "Really Un-American"

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:35 AM (p1Q7M)

167 Thanks. Salazar said it on CNN on May 2nd.
Gibbs reinforced it in his morning press briefing when asked about it and said that was the administrations position though. If it wasn't he could have said Salazar misspoke as seems to be the fallback position for democrats.

Posted by: robtr at May 21, 2010 10:35 AM (fwSHf)

168 listen, y-not,


when GIbbs says something, BO says it. If Salazar says it too, that's HIS administration. HE is responsible. These are his agents, HE said it.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (PpeVF)

169 Gabe, your update makes me question your reading comprehension.

I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.

Paul did NOT say, "I think he sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

He first referenced the boot heel and then said that sounded un-American in his criticism of business.

In other words, he's singling out the boot heel part as un-American within Obama's larger criticism of business.

Posted by: Warden at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (fE6tn)

170 #110, Warden, exactly.

Also in case it hasn't been mentioned, Robert Gibbs is the one who said this (at least the only one I heard say it, or rather saw in a press conf video). I was pretty stunned at just how obnoxious it sounded.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (WvXvd)

171 So Paul isn't very polished. So what? Is this going to hurt his chances for election in November? That's the question. I suspect the answer is "no" at least with respect to this comment, so...meh.

Posted by: Fred at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (xWGQr)

172 Gibbs' job is to speak for the administration. So while Barry may not have said it himself, it was said by Gibbs who speaks on behalf of Barry and his adminstration. Barry, to the best of my knowledge, has not repudiated this statement.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (v+QvA)

173 #34:
Yeah, I think Paul's view of things is a little simplistic.

Yes, because the complex view is working oh-so-well, thus far.

Posted by: blindside at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (x7g7t)

174 You're right Zimriel, the word "heel" was not used.

The Obama Administration clearly wants to
send the signal that it's keeping the pressure on BP to do everything
humanly possible to stop the uncontrolled flow of oil in the Gulf of
Mexico and to get the company to pick up the cost for cleaning up the
mess and the economic losses to people in the gulf region.




So the administration has embraced the violent imagery of Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar who said administration officials would keep their
"boot on the throat" of the energy giant to make sure the company does
all it can and more to address the problems caused by its uncontrolled
ocean gusher.



But those words sounded to some observers as though the administration
was suggesting that the company was somehow dragging its heels. If the
administration just wanted to indicate it was going to keep the pressure
up on BP why not just say it that way?

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 10:36 AM (fo4Wl)

175 Rand Paul is acting as a sacrificial anode. What he said about property rights and our un-American President is exactly right. Anyone who is afraid of speaking the truth here is afraid of being called a racist. I am not a racist, and I am not afraid of being called a racist. In fact, I live in hope that someone who is calling me a racist will attempt to use deadly force on me or another. Where I live, that's an opportunity to thin the heard, b**ch.

Posted by: Thorvald at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (Yj4zn)

176 Between HA and AoS you would think Paul is going to single handedly destroy the GOP chances in November.
Nice of you to tell us who is acceptable to you.
By the way, Obama will willingly sign a bill soon that extends unemployment - paid for by screwing business to pay for it.
Yeah, that Rand Paul is a real nut.

Posted by: jjshaka at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (NDgjf)

177 Obama isn't un-American, he's anti-American.
Slight confusion in terminology, but that's what you can expect from the Ron Paul cult.

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (PZLW0)

178 If this guy just shut-up, he'd be a shoe-in for Senator.

As it stands now, he's running out of feet to shoot.

Posted by: Sgt. Hulka at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (Krmxt)

179 Gibbs is only the President's spokesman. I'm sure that "boot on their throats" was just something he came up with on his own, certainly not from his discussions on the matter with our Marxist In Chief....

Posted by: Boot on your throat at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (VmtE9)

180 Thanks for the link. So, it wasn't Obama floating the fascist imagery; it was Salazar, one of his more moderate flunkies. Did Obama step up and say that talk was out of line? If not, then that's the voice of his administration, and Rand is right.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (9Sbz+)

181 Ken Salazar said it Dave. My whole thing above was supposed to be a quote. If Gibbs says it, isn't it just as good as if Obama said it? He is their spokeshole, right?

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 10:37 AM (fo4Wl)

182 Salazar made the remark, not Obama.
His flunkies speak the dirty words that the Chicago mobster condones. No grace-saving comment about that remark from Salazar was ever made by Obullshit, so it's fair game.

Posted by: Nonparsing parser at May 21, 2010 10:38 AM (gbCNS)

183 Rand Paul is not going to lose in Kentucky for calling that ass in the white house unamerican. He might be crowned effin king of bluegrass, but he sure as hell won't lose.
Vermont we ain't.

Posted by: Oracle of Mcfly at May 21, 2010 10:38 AM (o5vMm)

184 OT: A BETTER POST

It took Governor Christie about 2 minutes to veto the latest democratic
tax hike in New Jersey.
stolen from gateway.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 21, 2010 10:39 AM (7VvJB)

185 Seriously, what happened to "support whoever wins the primary"

The Rand guy isn't David Duke, for fuck's sake, no matter if you cob loggers wish him to be



Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:39 AM (PpeVF)

186 Ken Salazar said it Dave. My whole thing above was supposed to be a quote. If Gibbs says it, isn't it just as good as if Obama said it? He is their spokeshole, right?
No, don't you remember when Ari Fliescher said people should be careful with what they say, it was never blamed directly on Bush... It's not like the spokes person for the White House speaks for the Whi....uh oh

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:39 AM (wuv1c)

187 169,

Yes.

Maybe Gabe needs to drink plenty of coffee before he posts.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:39 AM (p1Q7M)

188 OT: A BETTER POSTIt took Governor Christie about 2 minutes to veto the latest democratic tax hike in New Jersey.stolen from gateway.
But was Rand Paul invovled?

Posted by: AoS Co-bloggers at May 21, 2010 10:40 AM (wuv1c)

189 The commentors here have their "boot on the throat" of Gabe.

Posted by: Ken Salazar at May 21, 2010 10:40 AM (YVZlY)

190 "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.'"

What part of "from the President's administration" do you not understand? Are Salazar and Gibbs freelancing private citizens, or are they part of "the President's administration"? No fair looking in your textbooks....

Posted by: Boot on your throat at May 21, 2010 10:40 AM (VmtE9)

191

What about this being the most "on message" WH in history?

THis administration's lackeys don't fart unless it's in tune with his Grace.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:41 AM (PpeVF)

192 He is the teaparty candidate. Period. That means the MFM will go to
great length to make sure he loses in Kentucky. Why - because a Rand
Paul victory in KY is a Tea Party victory and the MFM meme that the Tea
Party is too extreme for Americans is shattered if they start getting
victories.

The three-toothed, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping bitter clingers in KY will elect Paul no matter the MFM says.

Trust me, I lived in Kentucky.

Posted by: Ed Anger at May 21, 2010 10:41 AM (7+pP9)

193 You know it would be funny if it weren't so sad. You would think a right wing site would defend our agenda and those who advances it and instead you have to read this moronic defence of Obama and offence on Paul for not thinking Obama is pro-american. I mean how we expect politicians passionately defend our cause when a premier right wing blog gives an avenue to a person bent on being some sort of "respect the left" police.

I have no problem with criticism of our side by our side, but slamming a dude for calling Obama unamerican?! You gotta be kidding me.

Posted by: AlexD at May 21, 2010 10:41 AM (Va7a1)

194 No fair looking in your textbooks....

Damn, I hate it when you pull a pop quiz on me.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 10:41 AM (fo4Wl)

195 Am I the only one picturing Drew and Gabe on their knees, arms in the sky, yelling "PPAAAAAAAAULLLLLLLL".

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:41 AM (wuv1c)

196 gabe....."le sigh"...... un-american

Posted by: phoenixgirl at May 21, 2010 10:42 AM (ucxC/)

197

lulz ben.

But you left a few people out of that picture.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:42 AM (PpeVF)

198
The three-toothed, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping bitter clinger

Paw, is thayt yew, Paw?

Posted by: Dang Straights at May 21, 2010 10:42 AM (fx8sm)

199 The commentors here have their "boot on the throat" of Gabe.

Posted by: Ken Salazar at May 21, 2010 10:40 AM (YVZlY)
Yeah but everyone thinks were nazis anyway so whats the problem.

Posted by: robtr at May 21, 2010 10:43 AM (fwSHf)

200 The Pauls are out there, but they are not 1/10th bad as the commie Barry admin. What a pity the GOP leadership is not ready to counter the MarxSpewMedia attempt to paint Paul as the face of the GOP with a 2nd contract with America or SOME sort of leadership move. If all the GOP can do is whine about their biggest oddball being painted as the face of the party this country may not make it.

I think a lot of people are damned frustrated with the government growth club, they understand we have a 2 party country and are willing to make an attempt to make the GOP conservative like the socialists took over the Dems, but if the country club set of the GOP resists changing from being Democrat Lite we will see a new party by 2014, if Barry has not pulled a Hugo Chavez by then.

Posted by: palerider at May 21, 2010 10:43 AM (9i141)

201 PJM, I'm just sayinI know Gibbs said it because I saw it. "We're gonna keep our boot on the throat of BP".
And yeah, he didn't invent that all by himself and try it out without running it by the boss first.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 21, 2010 10:43 AM (WvXvd)

202 Gibbs said it too.

Thanks. I missed that.

Look, the administration is thuggish. That's certainly true. But I think I agree with the folks who pointed out that this is off-message for Rand Paul. And I think that defending BP from remarks made by Obama's proxies/subordinates nearly three weeks ago is not smart, both because of the timing and because public sympathy toward BP is rather small. It doesn't help that BP has "British" in the company name, either.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:43 AM (Kn9r7)

203 Our boot isn't on Gabe's throat; it's... somewhere else.
I'll need another boot.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 10:43 AM (9Sbz+)

204 This high quality of reading comprehension from a supposed lawyer certainly explainsthe drafting of such well-crafted legislation as the Health Care System Rape Act of 2010....

Posted by: Boot on Gabe's throat at May 21, 2010 10:44 AM (VmtE9)

205

zim,

all these boots are starting to get crowded in there.

or maybe not.

zing!

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:45 AM (PpeVF)

206 jeeebus, the frigging stock market is jumping around like madonnas limo.

Posted by: robtr at May 21, 2010 10:45 AM (fwSHf)

207 The three-toothed, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping bitter clinger

Paw, is thayt yew, Paw?
Posted by: Dang Straights

Yer sister sure is purty.

So's yers.

Wanna trade?

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:45 AM (p1Q7M)

208 Boot on your throat BP - yeah, Gibbs saying that is somehow not part of this Administration's criticism of business. Huh?

Posted by: reginaldL at May 21, 2010 10:45 AM (1WxGg)

209 Except that Rand didn't say that. He specifically called the President's
criticism of businesshis wordsun-American. That's just plain
wrong. It has the added something of being awfully bad politics, so
there's that too.

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of,
'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds
really un-American in his criticism of business,"

Sounds like a strained reading of this quote to me, Gabe. In his criticism of business, saying he'll put his boot heel on the throat of BP sounds really un-American. What it sounds is post-Weimarian.

Do ALL the cob loggers have a hard-on for Rand Paul? I guess I understand. He's on our side, he's not an establishment Republican, and he has the backing of the Tea Party.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!


Posted by: FUBAR at May 21, 2010 10:46 AM (1fanL)

210 can we save all this angst and griping over the next few months and you replace the menken quote with "RAND PAUL IS A RACIST HATERZ!!!111!!!eleventy!!!!!11!"

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 21, 2010 10:47 AM (PpeVF)

211 Hey I don't know what Rand said and doubt it will be the last thing we will cringe at. But I think it is backwards what Obama and his commie pals are doing. Clean up the freakin mess and cap the well and help BP do that in any way possible. Then go after BP all you want. They ain't going any where.

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 21, 2010 10:48 AM (0GFWk)

212 Do ALL the cob loggers have a hard-on for Rand Paul? I guess I understand. He's on our side, he's not an establishment Republican, and he has the backing of the Tea Party.OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Posted by: FUBAR at May 21, 2010 10:46 AM (1fanL)
The more the MFM like AoSHQ attack Rand Paul the stronger he gets!

Posted by: robtr at May 21, 2010 10:48 AM (fwSHf)

213 The three-toothed, knuckle-dragging, bible-thumping bitter clingers in KY will elect Paul no matter the MFM says.Trust me, I lived in Kentucky.
Perhaps. But it is more than that. Like it or not, Rand Paul is being branded the Tea Party candidate. Perhaps what he says does nor does not hurt him in Kentucky. But elsewhere? What if the Tea Party developes a negative rating in places other than Kentucky - say, Florida. Does that impact Rubio? How about Nevada?
Its a 6 month marathon. Every conservative and Tea Party candidate has the winning message. Stay on script - hammer the failures of this administration, hammer home the need to promote the private sector. Don't go wading into the weeds to fight battles the media wants you to fight.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 10:48 AM (OWjjx)

214 The big question is: Was it a stompy boot on the throat?

Posted by: ONT Moronettes at May 21, 2010 10:49 AM (YVZlY)

215 I'm tempted to send Rand some cash after this.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 10:50 AM (9Sbz+)

216 The business of America is Business. This country was founded because of a bitter tax dispute that hurt colonial businesses.

America thrives when American business thrives.

Accordingly, any action or agenda that hurts American business is inherently Un-American. That is all.

Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 10:51 AM (j2O76)

217 Yer sister sure is purty. So's yers. Wanna trade?
Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:45 AM (p1Q7M)
Trade?

Posted by: Three-toothed knuckle-dragging Kentuckian at May 21, 2010 10:51 AM (v+QvA)

218 Oh and I am pretty sure I heard a sound bite of Barry making the Boot on the Throat statement first and Salazaar and Gibbs repeated it. Thanks mom for helping elect a commie thug POTUS.

Posted by: palerider at May 21, 2010 10:52 AM (9i141)

219 214 The big question is: Was it a stompy boot on the throat?
Posted by: ONT Moronettes at May 21, 2010 10:49 AM (YVZlY)

Stompy boots? Of course not! They are $14,000 alligator boots by Manolo Blahnik, you peasant!

Posted by: M'Chel at May 21, 2010 10:52 AM (VmtE9)

220 All Rand Paul needs to do is recount his time in Vietnam. I remember him being there with me during the Tet Offensive.

Posted by: Dick Blumenthal at May 21, 2010 10:53 AM (OWjjx)

221 The Tea Partiers/Conservative/Whateveryouwanttocallit wing of the Republican Party needs to get its shit together. Seriously.

Enough with the "anti-American" this or that, siding with beauty queens and idiot plumbers to get their message across if they really want to make noise this November.

Quite frankly,you can feel the momentum switching to the Democrats. In politics, perception is reality, and unfortunately for the GOP, the perception is established by a MSM complicit in pushing the left-wing agenda. This Rand Paul BS over the last 48 hours exemplifies this. And there's really nothing the GOP can do about that between now and election day.

What they can do is try....and I know this is hard for most of the GOP....try and NOT MAKE ARSES OF THEMSELVES. Focus like a laserbeam on JOBS and the economy. Stop the BS about screaming "MARXISM" and "SOCIALIST" and emailing "Obama the Negro" jokes to each other, etc. Stop giving the left-wingers any red meat for fucks sake.

Im in the camp that believes not winning PA-12 was a wake up call for conservatives. Look whats happening in the PA-Sen race. Fuck, the Republicans BETTER WIN THAT FRACKING SEAT. And that's not a given right now.....

Where's the Tylenol?!

/rant

Posted by: Olliander at May 21, 2010 10:53 AM (6uiF7)

222 America thrives when American business thrives.

I agree. (Which is one reason it drives me nuts when people go off on Apple Corp.) This administration is grotesquely anti-business.

The trouble here is appearances. BP appears to still be a British company. Their global HQ is still in London.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:54 AM (Kn9r7)

223 To put some knowledge toMallamutt: the fascist imagery coming out of twosenior figures of this administration - one the President's own spokesweasel - isn't "the weeds". It's more like"the fairway". It's the whole ethos of this horrible administration.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 10:54 AM (9Sbz+)

224 Gabriel has the most rational irrational thoughts that I've ever read here.

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 10:55 AM (ITzbJ)

225 Perhaps. But it is more than that. Like it or not, Rand Paul is being branded the Tea Party candidate. Perhaps what he says does nor does not hurt him in Kentucky. But elsewhere? What if the Tea Party developes a negative rating in places other than Kentucky - say, Florida. Does that impact Rubio? How about Nevada?
Mallamutt. Come on man. They've been doing this before Rand freaking Paul. We're racists, all white, hate blacks, etc etc. We've been hearing it before paul and we will hear it after paul. It is an inevitability. The media has been trying to destroy the tea party since its inception. If they couldn't do it with that nutbag Debra Medina, they won't be able to do it with the much much less crazy by comparison Rand Paul.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 10:55 AM (wuv1c)

226 The trouble here is appearances. BP appears to still be a British company. Their global HQ is still in London.
Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 10:54 AM (Kn9r7)
Yes, but don't their Gulf of Mexico operations employ a lot of Americans?

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 10:55 AM (v+QvA)

227 When you use the term un-American and Obama in close proximity, you aren't very far off, ever.

Posted by: kansas at May 21, 2010 10:55 AM (mka2b)

228 224
Gabriel has the most rational irrational thoughts that I've ever read
here
------

Ahem.

Posted by: ace's epic non-apology apology post at May 21, 2010 10:56 AM (Kn9r7)

229 To put some knowledge toMallamutt: the fascist imagery coming out of twosenior figures of this administration - one the President's own spokesweasel - isn't "the weeds". It's more like"the fairway". It's the whole ethos of this horrible administration.
Yea - that issue will just drive the vote out in November. Jobs...no, debt....no. healthcare....no. Lets make the election about fascist imagery.
Thanks for the knowledge.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 10:57 AM (OWjjx)

230 "What if the Tea Party developes a negative rating in places other than Kentucky - say, Florida. Does that impact Rubio? How about Nevada? "

You don't understand the TEA party movement. Unlike most of the well scripted props we see in politics, the party really did rise up from the people. That's why it won't go away despite the best efforts of The R's or D's, Allahpundit, and now sadly Ace.
The people won't get a negative rating of themselves.

Posted by: Oracle of Mcfly at May 21, 2010 10:57 AM (o5vMm)

231 Better Rand Paul: Obama's 'Bootheel to the Throat' Attitude Toward Business is Un-American.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 21, 2010 10:57 AM (1fanL)

232 We've been hearing it before paul and we will hear it after paul. It is an inevitability. The media has been trying to destroy the tea party since its inception. If they couldn't do it with that nutbag Debra Medina, they won't be able to do it with the much much less crazy by comparison Rand Paul.
Ben - one slight difference. Medina lost. Paul won. And yes, they have been trying to do it. And, bluntly, its a fight you don't need to fight. The message is there: hammer it home.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 10:59 AM (OWjjx)

233 Oil workers are not Americans, they are enemies of Gaia!

Posted by: Comrade Obama at May 21, 2010 10:59 AM (VmtE9)

234 Criticizing business has a centuries-long history in the United States
YAY! Relativism-blog

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (wuv1c)

235 Yes, but don't their Gulf of Mexico operations employ a lot of
Americans?

Absolutely.

I'm talking appearances, not substance.

I don't think Rand's remarks were a fatal error, but I tend to think that bandying about the "un-American" charge is a bad idea -- for conservatives -- because it whips up the MSM. The result tends to be that even soft news shows like Good Morning America and the afternoon talk shows pick it up, giving the impression that conservatives are running around calling people un-American. The media gets saturated with "dissent is patriotic" stuff... and I think that tends to sway the folks in the middle towards the side that has been accused of being un-American. So it hurts conservatives to do it.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (Kn9r7)

236 I, for one, would like some R's to start acting like they don't care to be elected/re-elected if it means emasculating themselves and their values. See Gov. Christie (Balls of Titanium-NJ).

I am no Paul supporter (don't know enough about him) and his dad freaks me out, but he's showing the willingness to say words.

Scott Brown (Spineless Moderate-MA), otoh, rolled over on the regulation reform (cough cough) after his concerns for how the legislation affected MA banks were met. Nice tank job, Scotty. What about how the regulation will affect the fng rest of the financial world?

Squishy is as squishy does.

Posted by: The Hammer at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (YBTwf)

237 So who is the REAL face of the Republican party?
Paul?
Steele?
McCain?

Posted by: Fritz at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (GwPRU)

238 I think Rand is on fire. He is Nuclear and the left and MFM fear him. Let him jack it up their ass's. It is about time someone call the Commie-Pigs what they really are rather than being politically correct. I hope he gives MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC a heart-attack. Finally someone with Softball Sized Balls......

Posted by: Buster Hymand at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (k7Ddt)

239 What an amateur. As Drew put it yesterday: the MFM will make Paul the
new face of the Republican Party for at least the next six months or so.
Oops.

Yep, the shitweasels on MSDNC couldn't get enough of him this morning. Just wait until they start asking him about 9-11 and the war on terror and he vomits forth the usual libertarian bullshit, then they'll be trying to make him the 2012 GOP nominee.

Posted by: koopy at May 21, 2010 11:02 AM (ctR4U)

240 That some feel the need to help the opposition by
assisting with framing the criticism (some undeserved)is aggravating to
say the least.


Posted by: polynikes at May 21, 2010 10:59 AM (m2CN7)
I mean dayum. No Democrats out there need their brownholes scoped?

Posted by: FUBAR at May 21, 2010 11:02 AM (1fanL)

241 The thing I like most about Rand Paul is regularity. Clock radio goes off, get up, kiss the dog, let the wife out, do my stretches, head to the kitchen, start the coffee, lay out the meds, hit the shower, cram down the metamusil, read today's episode of the Perils of Pauline.

Today he tried something 'new': to change the subject (there are SO many subjects to change, he's bound to get pretty good at this) he raises Obama. I take that as a hopeful sign; it's a stand-by, like 'Take my wife -- please'. He's learning. Mind, he'll be hit pretty soon with the line of questions designed to head the interviewee politician off the cliff into the abyss of birtherism. Will he see it coming? What on earth will he say in response? This is all very exciting.

There's a line-up of msm news and commentary hosts and reporters outside his door to rival a bread line from the 1930s. They were standing outside Sarah Palin's door, but now she's so yesterweek.

Posted by: Mister Helpful at May 21, 2010 11:03 AM (zfRju)

242 238
So who is the REAL face of the Republican party?

Paul?

----

Rand is widely quoted as saying he does not consider himself to be a Republican - he sees himself as a Ron Paul style libertarian - so I don't think he's the face of the GOP. He decided to run as a Republican with the intent of getting elected and moving the GOP to his dad's version of libertarianism.

At least, that's how he's been quoted.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 11:03 AM (Kn9r7)

243 So who is the REAL face of the Republican party?

Paul?
Steele?
McCain?


Posted by: Fritz at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (GwPRU)
Palin. Ryan. Dale Peterson.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 21, 2010 11:04 AM (1fanL)

244 Gabriel has Rand Paul in her slam book.

Posted by: Chris Paul - From the Key at May 21, 2010 11:06 AM (m1Chw)

245 Quick, give him moderate talking points so he'll sound like McCain.

Posted by: kansas at May 21, 2010 11:07 AM (mka2b)

246 Yes, but don't their Gulf of Mexico operations employ a lot of Americans?

Yes, they do. But whether BP is British or not is not the point. The Obama regime is also going after Toyota. He is also going after every American- and foreign-owned healthcare organization in the country. And banks. And anyone else he can find in the fucking yellow pages.

The Obama regime is un-American because it's anti-business.

Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 11:09 AM (j2O76)

247 Rand Paul and Gov. Christie are awhiff of fresh air compared to the stench of Obama and the Socialist-Dem Party.....

Posted by: Harold Gerohn at May 21, 2010 11:09 AM (k7Ddt)

248 You don't understand the TEA party movement. Unlike most of the well scripted props we see in politics, the party really did rise up from the people. That's why it won't go away despite the best efforts of The R's or D's, Allahpundit, and now sadly Ace.
And at one point, Ross Perot was going to win the Presidency. And Rossfor Boss t-shirts were all the rage. Then Ross jumped the shark. Today - let me know if you find one person willing to actually admit they voted for Perot.
Now, I know, I know, the tea party is not idetified by one person: yet. But, if the various higher profile representatives of the tea party start jumping the shark, the less committed members leave. Then your movement is...............well, not what it once was. Or could be.
Also, just to be clear: I really don't care about Rand Paul, Ron Paul, St. Paul or whatever Paul you can name. I agree with Ron Paul on somethings, not on other. The point here is a simple one: why go to these places. The message that got Rand Paul the nomination was "Washington is broke, our country is broke, we need to focus on jobs and quit spending money we don't have". Great message - why wander off message if you don't need to.
Yea, I know - its great fun to sit around and talk about fascism and socialism and communism and all the other isms. But, while we here have the liberty to do that - we aren't running for anything, Rand Paul does not. Many acandidate has blown a campaign by saying stupid crap (see, e.g., Ford, Gerald "Poland is a free country". See, also, Moore, Clayton "sit backl and enjoy it").
My advice to him was simply stay on message. Its the same advice I would give any other Republican this year. Now, if those ardent supporters of Ron Paul view that as unwarranted criticism of the Paul brand - sorry, but it is what it is.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 11:09 AM (OWjjx)

249 How many jackholes out there actually know "BP" means British Petroleum? I mean besides the jackholes here.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 11:10 AM (fo4Wl)

250 Paulistinians. Obamabots. The irrational urge they all have to defend their boy's every utterance is FUCKING IDENTICAL.
Arguing from emotion is what liberals do. What bugs me about either Ron Paul or his lackwit son is their ability to turn otherwise rational people into spittle-flecked moonbats. You can all kiss my rebel dick.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 21, 2010 11:12 AM (OW0nw)

251 Kudos to Ben. All of you who want to criticize Rand Paul's tactical mistakes, go ahead, but some of you are basically saying that he lacks the "nuance" of a go-along-with-the-Commiecrats-to-get-alongRINO. Well, he does.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:12 AM (tH7KR)

252 Oh no, Rand Paul said something controversial! The GOP is doomed! *faint*

Posted by: Bloggers on AOSHQ at May 21, 2010 11:12 AM (FkKjr)

253 248 Yes, but don't their Gulf of Mexico operations employ a lot of Americans?Yes, they do. But whether BP is British or not is not the point. The Obama regime is also going after Toyota. He is also going after every American- and foreign-owned healthcare organization in the country. And banks. And anyone else he can find in the fucking yellow pages.The Obama regime is un-American because it's anti-business.
Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 11:09 AM (j2O76)
I believe we are in agreement.

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 11:12 AM (v+QvA)

254 The face(s) of the GOP right now are Brewer and Palin.

Posted by: Moron with proper ID under his Leopard Snuggie at May 21, 2010 11:13 AM (Ks4nX)

255 @250
Yep.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 11:13 AM (Kn9r7)

256 251 How many jackholes out there actually know "BP" means British Petroleum? I mean besides the jackholes here.
Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 11:10 AM (fo4Wl)
We're morons, not jackholes! You take that back!

Posted by: Insomniac at May 21, 2010 11:14 AM (v+QvA)

257 He is also going after every American- and foreign-owned healthcare
organization in the country. And banks. And anyone else he can find in
the fucking yellow pages.


Every business with more than ten employees. And I'm not so sure the others are safe.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 11:14 AM (mR7mk)

258 I be thikn thats Randel Paul is Unamerikan. I be workin me butt off buts cannot get a 100,000 dillor job outs hear in Las Angeleas. I be graduate of High Schrool buts stilll cannots gets a goody jobs at Boring Aircroft at Long Beech .... This is racist I beleve .. Presidence Obamama is be tri-ing to fax this....

Posted by: LaQuisha LargeAss Proud Welfare Recipient at May 21, 2010 11:15 AM (k7Ddt)

259 Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 10:25 AM (6taRI)

Tell you what Vic, I'll stop pointing out Rand Paul is saying dumb shit when he, um, stops saying dumb shit.

BTW- here's everything I wrote about Paul in my "About Last Night" post...

In Kentucky, Rand Paul and the tea party movement just
wiped out establishment Republican Trey Greyson. I still think a
guy who is comfortable hanging out on the radio with Alex Jones is a
very bad idea for Republicans. I hope he manages to stay focused and
disciplined enough to win in November.

Paul has some work to do to get
Greyson supporters on board for November. If Greyson Republicans
don't come home or just stay home, a safe Republican seat could go to
the Democrats.
You can call it a 'hit job' but personally, I think my concern he would say something stupid has been pretty well justified.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:15 AM (FUSSG)

260 Was Ace carrying the admin password when he was ambushed by a Stench of Rand Paul-hating hobos? He needs to follow better data security protocols....

Posted by: Hobo Hunter at May 21, 2010 11:15 AM (VmtE9)

261 "My advice to him was simply stay on message. Its the same advice I would give any other Republican this year. Now, if those ardent supporters of Ron Paul view that as unwarranted criticism of the Paul brand - sorry, but it is what it is. "

I'm sorry but Paul is doing what has to be done. He's acting like an adult, not a pol. He's calling out Obama on some very outrageous statements by his goons. Many hearts are all aflutter right now, but once everyone sees that Paul didn't die for the offense others will become more bold and begin to speak the truth openly about this lousy socialist president.

Posted by: Oracle of Mcfly at May 21, 2010 11:16 AM (o5vMm)

262 I'm pretty sure I heard Paul say "boy" in there somewhere....

Posted by: Maureen Dowd at May 21, 2010 11:17 AM (OlN4e)

263 Sorry, Gabe - I'm so fed up with mealy-mouthed politicians who wouldn't say crap if they had a mouthful of it (and they usually do!) , I find Paul refreshing and hope he gives them what for - and I would be willing to bet there are plenty others who agree with me! I'm tired of PC crap. Let's hear from some Libertarians.


Posted by: Robin at May 21, 2010 11:17 AM (6uXZa)

264 Many hearts are all aflutter right now, but once everyone sees that Paul didn't die for the offense others will become more bold and begin to speak the truth openly about this lousy socialist president.
Exactly. Rand Paul is blundering tactically--he should never have gone on Rachel Madcow's show. But that said, so many of you here bashing him are, frankly, going wobbly, as Thatcher put it.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:19 AM (tH7KR)

265 Yea, I know - its great fun to sit around and talk about fascism and socialism and communism and all the other isms. But, while we here have the liberty to do that - we aren't running for anything, Rand Paul does not. Many acandidate has blown a campaign by saying stupid crap (see, e.g., Ford, Gerald "Poland is a free country". See, also, Moore, Clayton "sit backl and enjoy it").
Not buying that. How many stoopid things did 57 state Zero say while campaigning? Who is the Fucktard in Chief? Ford would have lost anyway.

Posted by: Maureen Dowd at May 21, 2010 11:20 AM (OlN4e)

266 You can call it a 'hit job' but personally, I think my concern he would
say something stupid has been pretty well justified.

Well Drew, if a Dem wrote negative comments about a Republican would you call it a hit job?

Where is that big tent you advocate so much for?

Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 11:21 AM (6taRI)

267 Damn sock.

Posted by: maddogg at May 21, 2010 11:21 AM (OlN4e)

268 Not buying that. How many stoopid things did 57 state Zero say while campaigning? Who is the Fucktard in Chief? Ford would have lost anyway.
Posted by: Maureen Dowd at May 21, 2010 11:20 AM (OlN4e)
What do you know, you dried-up, bitter old hag?

Posted by: Helen Thomas at May 21, 2010 11:21 AM (DrWcr)

269 Well, looks like the GOP (and now the Tea Party) are going to engage in yet another circular firing squad.
At some point the realization that there is an actual, harmful enemy out there who needs to be confronted or victory will be theirs does have to sink in...doesn't it?
I"m not feeling so optimistic at this point.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 11:22 AM (5/yRG)

270 Some Gotcha Journalism msm type is bound to go after him for this:

"Hell, I was born here, an' I was raished here, an' dad gum it, I am gonna die here an' no sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me biscuit cutter."

Who can argue with that authentic libertardian gibberish?

Posted by: The Epistle of Saint Paul at May 21, 2010 11:23 AM (zfRju)

271 At some point the realization that there is an actual, harmful enemy out there who needs to be confronted or victory will be theirs does have to sink in...doesn't it?
Right, and Paul is confronting that enemy.

Posted by: maddogg at May 21, 2010 11:24 AM (OlN4e)

272 Sarah Palin may get a week off. The media has found a new whipping boy.
Whether you agree with him or not the media is already in full foaming
at the mouth glee trying to score political pointsagainst him.

I wouldn't have said such a thing--just thought it.

Obama is a disgusting dangerous disgrace, so what's the downside to such a comment? The comment will rouse more sleeping patriot-voters than it will rouse leftists, so I'm fine with it.

Besides, give Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman a week off...

Posted by: ParisParamus at May 21, 2010 11:24 AM (bN5ZU)

273 So who is the REAL face of the Republican party?
Paul?
Steele?
McCain?
Posted by: Fritz at May 21, 2010 11:00 AM (GwPRU)
MFM response: Hitler

Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 21, 2010 11:25 AM (1Jaio)

274 Well Drew, if a Dem wrote negative comments about a Republican would you
call it a hit job?
Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 11:21 AM (6taRI)


It's possible to criticism someone with out it being a hit job.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a few complimentary statements I've made here about liberals or Democrats. You'll find plenty of take downs on the likes of McCain, the Maine gals, George Pataki, Mitt Romney and even George W. Bush.

If you want blind cheerleading, this isn't the place. It never has been.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:28 AM (FUSSG)

275 274 Well, the problem is that Rand Paul is the "face of the confrontation" for now.
Nothing against him per say; Sarah Palin was the "face of confrontation" too. I'm not really a fan of either Paul, but at least this one is doing that confronting, so props to him for that. What I am suggesting is that more than just an individual here and there need to become "the face" -- otherwise you get individuals out there, who tend to get picked off one by one...and the opposition as a whole get labelled according to what "dirt" the MFM throws on said individuals. Get more people confronting, and maybe you wouldn't feel the obligation to engage in those circular firing squads either.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 11:29 AM (5/yRG)

276 You are always telling everyone here about how we need to compromise on gay marriage, despite the fact is is wildly unpopular with the Republican base. Where does Rand Paul stand on gay marriage? If he is for it, why can't you compromise on his "naivete" in return for having a supporter of gay marriage? Or is that a one way street?
Fuck you, Ben. I have never once told you that you our anyone else "needs to compromise on gay marriage."
I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. That's cool. It'd be an awfully boring blog if no one ever disagreed. But I do have a problem with you making shit up about what I've said. Everything I've ever written is easily searchable. So there's no excuse for you making shit up. Don't do that.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 11:29 AM (IkTb7)

277 Not buying that. How many stoopid things did 57 state Zero say while campaigning? Who is the Fucktard in Chief? Ford would have lost anyway.
Rand Paul does not have the media, Obama does. So, Obama can (andwill) continue to say stupid stuff and get away with it beacuse of the lap dogs in the media. It is a luxuryconservatives do not have. As for Ford, the fact that he evaporated a 25 point deficit to lose by 2 makes one wondered. More importantly, without the Poland comment, Ford is probably ruled to have won the debate and continue his momentum. Still missing the big point: you have a great message, use it.
Why is Chris Christie so loved around here: cause he sticks to a very simple message "we are broke so no....I am not going to spend any more money". That is acting like an adult.
Look, like it or not, the vast majority of elections are focused on the mushy middle. You can appeal to them with a core conservative message: we are broke, the economy is broke, Washington is broke and we need to fix it by quit spending money and growing jobs in the private sector. Or you can try to win by fighting side issues. But, to each his own.

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 11:29 AM (OWjjx)

278 "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,"
"Insta-Update: Several commenters say it is un-American if Obama "puts his boot heel on the throat of BP" and so Rand is right.
Except that Rand didn't say that. He specifically called the President's criticism of businesshis wordsun-American. That's just plain wrong."
Huh? He didn't say that?? No, that's exactly what he said. No offense, but I think you've misplaced your glasses or something. It was the use of the "boot heel on the throat" phrase, a government official sounding like a thug, that he saw as objectionable, not simply criticism. That couldn't be more clear, and here you are saying he never said it.
"sounds really un-American IN his criticism of business".

Posted by: Landru at May 21, 2010 11:29 AM (GHpB7)

279 The MFM is trying to sink this guy quick and paint him as a nut. Let's not join them. I have noticed a number of bloggers being a little too eager to jump on the "He's a nutcase bandwaqgon." Chill guys. We're gonna win this thing.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at May 21, 2010 11:30 AM (rurh0)

280 Lemon Kitten: "Uh - the oil is still furiously escaping into the gulf."


Uh - it's evaporating as fast as it's coming out. Quit hugging that tree and get your facts straight.

Posted by: Fred Furburger at May 21, 2010 11:30 AM (CTxS+)

281 If you want blind cheerleading good spelling and stellar math skills, this isn't the place. It never has been.
FIFY

Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 11:31 AM (OWjjx)

282 Obama also said he would "trust, but verify" with BP, echoing Reagan's stand with the Soviets.

Rand is right; Obama sounds like Chavez.

Posted by: Noel at May 21, 2010 11:33 AM (Hh13R)

283 #281: Like I said, so many of you are displaying RINO-like "nuance".
The fact is that the Obamunists *are* essentially anti-business.
Feel free to criticize Rand Paul's frankly legion tactical blunders, many of which are craptastical, like lending viewers to Rachel Madcow, for starters, and like trying to discuss amending the wrongs of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the "four legs goood, two legs baaaaad" liberal media kangaroo court.
But he is definitely spot-in here.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:34 AM (tH7KR)

284 Posted by: Mallamutt at May 21, 2010 11:31 AM (OWjjx)

Don't forget quality html skilz.


Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:34 AM (FUSSG)

285 Well, looks like the GOP (and now the Tea Party) are going to engage
in yet another circular firing squad.
At some point the realization that there is an actual, harmful enemy
out there who needs to be confronted or victory will be theirs does have
to sink in...doesn't it?
Some people would rather be pure serfs than dirty free men.
Most people would rather be serfs than free. Hitler "took away the freedom to starve" and people loved him for it. FDR started on the same route. Now people would rather cede control of their prescriptions to the government rather than pay for those prescriptions themselves...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 11:35 AM (mR7mk)

286 " It was the use of the "boot heel on the throat" phrase, a government official sounding like a thug, that he saw as objectionable, not simply criticism."

After triple-reading the quotes I come to the same conclusion. I could be missing a sentence fragment or two, in which case I'll accept correction, but otherwise this whole tempest in a teapot makes absolutely ZERO sense. We're essentially discussing something that didn't happen as being a defining moment for the Republican Party.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 21, 2010 11:36 AM (qSRHZ)

287 I'd rather though that we not give the other team a list of our plays
during the game.
Posted by: polynikes at May 21, 2010 11:32 AM (m2CN7)

That's a good point. I mean if no one here ever criticized a Republican or a conservative, why the MFM and the Democrats would be lost on how to go after us.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:36 AM (FUSSG)

288 So there's no excuse for you making shit up. Don't do that.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 11:29 AM (IkTb7)

There's also no excuse for a complete lack of reading comprehension being used as the root of yet another hit piece. Don't do that.

Posted by: Gabe's balls while he walks down the street at May 21, 2010 11:37 AM (VmtE9)

289 If you want blind cheerleading, this isn't the place. It never has been.
blind cheerleading? no.
giving the benefit of the doubt to our own side? yes
non stop hit jobs based on benign quotes? no
The jist of the past few posts... Rand Paul WAAAAAHHH.

there are legitimate issues of contention to be had with Paul, specifically on foreign policy, but no they're picking petty quotes like this, that are misread by the writer to boot.
You can't choose what words you'll pay attention to in a sentence.
Gabe just kind ignores the "that" and "in" in rand's statement.

it's kinda like he made up his mind a long time ago and now everything he sees confirms he pre-determined bias.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 11:37 AM (wuv1c)

290 First for those here who are saying that apparently only liberal leaning Republicans are allowed to speak their minds without criticism you can shut your pathetic mouths. You know damn well that when those RINOs start spewing their crap they get called out here all the time. But they have something in common with Rand. When they speak the media is always right there and ready to get their quote and blast it over the airwaves.
I think what we're about to find out is that Rand Paul is a lot like his daddy. In the sense that he is very willing to open his mouth and promote himself over the party. I find any candidate unwilling to support the eventual winner in a primary to beunfit, and that's what his daddy did in 08. And Rand is going to be all too happy to go on the MFM and speak his mind. And he's going to say something that is unpolitical. But along with that he apparently lacks the ability Chris Christie has. And since he's happy to open his mouth he's eventually going to say something really really stupid.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (oVQFe)

291 wow Gabe, you do not like this Rand Paul character. Look, it matters not if you like him or the press likes him....all that matters is that the voters in Kentucky like him. With 60% of the vote. They do.

Your damned if you do and damned if you don't. The guy is an eye surgeon, not a politician. If he wanted to be a politician he would not have become an eye surgeon. But, he seems to have a calling and he is not a republican candidate, he is the first elected TEA party candidate. And, it appears that he is uninterested in pandering to Mitch and the crew.

Americans are sick of career politicians desperately trying to hold on to their power and forgetting that the voters put them in a position of power. A lot of folks are pissed that their cards and letters about HC were wholly ignored. They are looking for someone they can trust to do the "will of the people who elected them". They are looking at character and moral heft. They are looking for someone who is honest and believes in government transparency. They are looking for a good honest hardworking person and they found it in Rand Paul.

The reason why we ended up with McCain as the candidate in the last election was because he was the only candidate that survived the vicious vetting of republicans and conservatives. Rudy would have eaten the two dems for lunch. But, as I recall, people were concerned about his demeanor and his wearing of a dress on SNL and a whole lot of other BS so out he went. I really hope that people realize that the voters have spoken with Rand Paul and they are unlikely to change their mind. Let's just hope he doesn't turn out to be Scott Brown II.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (p302b)

292 Are Mom and Dad having a fight?

Posted by: Little Moron at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (Ks4nX)

293 That's a good point. I mean if no one here ever criticized a Republican or a conservative, why the MFM and the Democrats would be lost on how to go after us.
A good many of them are such dim-bulbs that, essentially, Drew, yes. I am reminded of the saying "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent". Why concede the to the Demunists their customaryracebaiting?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (tH7KR)

294 Pretty stupid, IMHO, to defend BP at this moment; they are ultimately responsible for this accident, they were calling all the shots on the drillship.

Remember, this is the same BP that Sarah Palin sued in relation to spills on the North Slope back when she was governor.

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (xlmQD)

295 Have you checked out the guy's wife? If you judge the man by his good taste in women, Rand Paul will be a breath of fresh air in Congress. Well, maybe not. That would put him in the same category as Dennis Kucinich.
Hmmmm, you know, there are other similarities between Paul and Kucinich. Perhaps there's the insight to what we'll be getting; their taste in women. The prettier their wives, the loonier their politics are. And why? Because subconsciously while they're talking politics, they're anxious to go home and to get laid.

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 11:41 AM (ITzbJ)

296 Well, if Rand Paul is going to develop a nasty habit of plain speaking, maybe we should get him a dedicated Teleprompter. That always works great.

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 21, 2010 11:42 AM (qSRHZ)

297 Personally I only care what the man says up to the point that he damages himself amongst the class of people that matters most, the ones that decide elections.

You know who I am talking about, complete uninformed idiots.

Never underestimate the powers of the Stupid, what they lack in abilities, they make up in sheer numbers...

Posted by: rawmuse at May 21, 2010 11:43 AM (+JrzC)

298 The prettier their wives, the loonier their politics are.
So, your saying Michelle is hawt? Or am I the exception to the rule?

Posted by: The Bammster at May 21, 2010 11:43 AM (OWjjx)

299 After triple-reading the quotes I come to the same conclusion. I could be missing a sentence fragment or two, in which case I'll accept correction, but otherwise this whole tempest in a teapot makes absolutely ZERO sense. We're essentially discussing something that didn't happen as being a defining moment for the Republican Party.
THANK YOU Lincolntf! Why are some of you so hell-bent on not just repeating predictable libmediatalking points, but frankly *giving* them new ones? A smart Demunist (Oxymoron, I know) would be reading some of your posts here and taking notes.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:44 AM (tH7KR)

300 Gabe,
You're telling me you've never once advocated Gay Marriage on this blog or make arugments that Gay Marriage is a right?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 11:44 AM (wuv1c)

301 Ok, I've been told on here (quite vigorously from time to time) that I need to swallow my objections and vote for a certain senatorial canidate because everyone needs to show "party loyalty" and if I don't the Dem will win (which would be bad, and I'd be aiding and abetting if I voted third party or chose not to vote).
Ok, fair enough; it's probably true -- and yes, much as I can't stand said canidate and find him to be very bad (and find any defense of the guy by conservatives or Republicans laughable at best) I'll vote for him (because in the long run, he probably is better than the Dem).
Now, consider my take on this kerfluffle with Paul (who I am not a fan of but he is your canidate, and what sort of Dem is he running against? or is it ok to vote Dem, orcriticizewhen the Repub canidate isn't the right type?).

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 11:45 AM (5/yRG)

302 Hey, quit attacking Gabe. That's punching down of the highest order, and I will have none of that!

Posted by: somegai at May 21, 2010 11:45 AM (VmtE9)

303 How many jackholes out there actually know "BP" means British Petroleum?

Why does that matter? Toyota is a Japanese company. Thyssen-Krupp is German. Hyundai is Korean. If he could, that little manchild in chief would put his boot on their throats, too. They're businesses, they make money and he can't stand the thought of it. That is inherently Un-American.

I was never a Rand Paul supporter. He, his father and the bots that follow them so religiously have ideas that stretch the meaning of dickwaddery. But calling out Obama for his treatment of BP, and labeling it as he did was right on, right on.

We need more people saying that the Obama regime's agenda is Un-American.

Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 11:45 AM (j2O76)

304 What Paul said was absolutely correct. Obama was sounding lexactly ike his bosom-buddy Chavez.
All this hang-wringing makes you sound like those two fucking eunuchs on HA.

Posted by: TexasJew at May 21, 2010 11:46 AM (ikmC5)

305 #295 buzzion: I grant you that *tactically* Rand Paul has been a mess.
But for some of you to go after Rand Paul for pointing out the simple fact of Obamunist business bashing, well, that's something else. That's something frankly RINO.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:46 AM (tH7KR)

306 Hmmmm, you know, there are other similarities between Paul and Kucinich.
That's also someone his daddy has expressed admiration for and a willingness to work with I believe. Yeah that's a great guy right there for a conservative spokesman. Someone willing to work with one of the the looniest lefties in the House.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 11:47 AM (oVQFe)

307 Posted by: Abdominal Snowman at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (xlmQD)

I didn't get that he was defending BP so much as he was defending capitalism and American Business. He is right, BP hasn't said they wouldn't take full responsibility and pay for everything. The comment about the boot on the neck was uncharacteristic of any American. It would have been wholly appropriate if they said FU to the US and everyone would have been thrilled to hear that but when they haven't said anything of the sort, the commenters who talked about a boot to the throat look stupid. You don't think every American said "what was the point of saying something like that when the company appears to be fully cooperating?" and then don't you think many Americans thought about the comment and thought of at least ten places where the comment would have been wholly appropriate and all we got was deafening silence? He was simply pointing out that the administration isn't having normal reactions and he did quite a good job at it.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 11:47 AM (p302b)

308 The jist of the past few posts... Rand Paul WAAAAAHHH.
Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 11:37 AM (wuv1c)


I'm kind of meh on this particular controversy. "Un-American" is a pretty hefty charge to throw at a President and you really should have something more than some BS statements in mind.

That said I'm not losing sleep over it. My guess is Paul will say worse before this is over, or Monday.

As for yesterday though...get over it.

It was news. We post and comment on news here. What should have been done? A circle the wagons, hear no evil defense?

It would have looked pretty bad to have done that only to have him capitulate on the matter a few hours later.

He got schooled on it by Jim DeMint and Jeff Sessions to name just two. He issued a CYA statement backing down from his earlier and long held beliefs.

Paul said some politically untenable things that also happened to have be wrong in the minds of a lot of people. Don't get mad at Ace and I over that.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:48 AM (FUSSG)

309 But, he seems to have a calling and he is not a republican candidate, he
is the first elected TEA party candidate.

He won a primary.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 11:48 AM (Kn9r7)

310 The guy is an eye surgeon, not a politician. If he wanted to be a
politician he would not have become an eye surgeon.

There's a LOT of doctors running for Congress this year. Overdue, I think...we need more people in Congress trained in fields other than law, with experience in fields other than politics. Medicine, engineering, hell, even catering would be a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 21, 2010 11:51 AM (mR7mk)

311 But for some of you to go after Rand Paul for pointing out the simple fact of Obamunist business bashing, well, that's something else. That's something frankly RINO.
Are they going after him for that or his choice of words in his going after?

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 11:52 AM (oVQFe)

312 Don't get mad at Ace and I over that.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:48 AM (FUSSG)
Well, then don't talk to I like that.

Posted by: TexasJew at May 21, 2010 11:52 AM (ikmC5)

313 I am reminded of the saying "no one can make you feel inferior without
your consent"
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:40 AM (tH7KR)


Here's the thing, just because liberals don't like a guy doesn't mean I have to.

I have some real problems with Rand Paul that have nothing to do with the CRA or today.

Please fill me in on when it became acceptable for good conservatives to go on the Alex Jones show and troll for votes and money?

Did I miss a memo?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:52 AM (FUSSG)

314 "314
But, he seems to have a calling and he
is not a republican candidate, he
is the first elected TEA party candidate.

He won a primary.


Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 11:48 AM (Kn9r7)"Yes I know but what I'm saying is that you can't expect the guy to act like a republican cause he didn't run as a republican and he is blazing new territory, he is running as the TEA party candidate. Maybe when you are the TEA party candidate you can say things to offend both dems and republicans and still get the seat?

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 11:52 AM (p302b)

315 I'm gonna keep my Ugg boots on the throat of all of you!!!

Posted by: Evil Spambot at May 21, 2010 11:53 AM (qSRHZ)

316 But, he seems to have a calling and he is not a republican candidate, he is the first elected TEA party candidate. He won a primary.
Yah, and some of us would like him to win the general election and defeat the Demunist.
Remember when the libertarian and hardcore conservative "purists" were accused of staying home, not votingand letting the Obamunists win?
Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. Which factions of the GOP are really not the team players?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 11:55 AM (tH7KR)

317 The commentors here have their "boot on the throat" of Gabe.
Posted by: Ken Salazar at May 21, 2010 10:40 AM (YVZlY)
I'm the only thing standing between Gabe and the pitchforks.
Maybe Gabe thought that wasn't un-American of the Ineligible Ibecile from Indonesia, either.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 11:55 AM (5TNVe)

318 Now, consider my take on this kerfluffle with Paul (who I am not a fan
of but he is your canidate, and what sort of Dem is he running against?
or is it ok to vote Dem, orcriticizewhen the Repub canidate isn't the
right type?).
Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 11:45 AM (5/yRG)


Has anyone here said don't vote for the guy or vote for the Democrat?

I seem to recall John McCain getting the shit kicked out of him in the primaries and even in the run up to the general. Yeah, there was some rally around the team thing but we didn't ignore his more egregious actions but as far as I know, we all said vote for him. No one at any point said, meh, go with Obama.


Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 11:55 AM (FUSSG)

319 Lesson: the truth hurts in an increasingly self-destructive nation that likes to continually lie to itself asit approaches the cliff.
Even mixed metaphors can be right sometimes..

Posted by: TexasJew at May 21, 2010 11:56 AM (ikmC5)

320 Y-Not,
See, that's the worst part of all this. I remember very clearly the comment. It was made by some Obama official a week or so back.
And now the fucking idiots in the press are trying to make it sound like Rand Paul just invented this phrase to describe the Obama admin's handling of the issue!
It's fucking infuriating.
It was Ken Salazar, btw. Fucking idiot MSM.

Posted by: TallDave at May 21, 2010 11:56 AM (/s1LA)

321 So who's throat does he have to threaten to put his boot heel against before it's Un-American? The Tea Party, Rush, Glenn Beck, the GOP, Ace? Does he have to specify that it's a jackboot instead of just a regular boot?

Just looking for the threshold here. Traditionally I'm not sure Americans are fond of putting their boot heel at anyone's throat.

I know...let's play "What if a Rethuglican said it".

You're allowing your distaste for this candidate to color your perception. Do I want Rand Paul to be the face of the GOP? No. Do I think conservatives should become tools of the Liberal Media (birm) in chastising every word Paul utters? No, it's not constructive.

Posted by: semitough at May 21, 2010 11:56 AM (a8p0Q)

322 Actually, Paul is 100% right. Obama threatened ex post facto laws and taxes, conviction and punishment without due process, and demanded bribes campagin contributions to democrats.

The president gets no First Amendment protections when speaking as a federal official.

Posted by: dusty at May 21, 2010 11:58 AM (j8aSQ)

323 what you guys are forgetting is that regular folks want to see regular folks like themselves running for these seats. They have had enough of "career politicians". they haw also had enough of the system as it is. This is America, everyone is supposed to be able to have a chance at public office. But, since money is such a consideration, the average American has no shot. More and more people on the wal mart line are talking about changing that system. the founders didn't say only career politicians and lawyers can serve the country, did they? but, most other Americans have been shut out. would have been good to have had a couple of former hedge fund senators in the mix to educate everyone else on what is going on. Maybe we wouldn't be teetering on the edge of the "W".

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 11:58 AM (p302b)

324 323 Uh, go back to some of the Mark Kirk posts and tell me that those who objected to him didn't get hammered with not being brand loyal or warned that sitting out the election or voting third party wouldn't be a really, really bad mistake.
Now...how many posts have been put up by Paul since he won this primary?

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 11:59 AM (5/yRG)

325 I know...let's play "What if a Rethuglican said it". .
Posted by: semitough at May 21, 2010 11:56 AM (a8p0Q)
Let's not forget how the MFM went apoplectic because Bush APPROPRIATELY and COIRRECTLY used the word "crusade" to describe our fight against the savage jihadists.
But, the MFM likes a treasonous usurper inthe White House, instead, who is as dumb as a box of rocks and tries to ally with COMMUNIST CHINA against a US state. And now he's pulled the same treasonous shit with Mexico.
There is no winning with the MFM and Gabe ought to stop carrying water for them.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 12:01 PM (5TNVe)

326 Just to get kinda, sorta back to the original topic: somebody put me some knowledge -- is KY a right to work state?
If it is, then in a round about way, Paul may have a point; even if knowledge that BP is a British firm was a widely known given.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 12:02 PM (5/yRG)

327 Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. Which factions of the GOP are
really not the team players?

I think it's too early to say what Republican voters will do in the general election vis a vis Rand.

It does chafe me that he is being praised for having such huge cajones compared to most GOP politicians for calling out Obama in what I think is a pretty questionable way (both in terms of timing and appearances) when he did not have the cajones to run as a Libertarian or as an Independent or as a Tea Party candidate. He applies political expediency just like the rest of them and ran as a Republican because that increased his chances of winning.

He's a politician, not a particularly experienced one apparently, but still a politician. I don't see elevating him as something other than that.

So that being the case, the statements he makes should be assessed based on the same ones we'd use to critique any politician, including voter appeal and the related "how will this play in the media" factor. I think that there's a good case to be made that defending British Petroleum right now is not a smart move.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 12:02 PM (Kn9r7)

328 All the Pubbies have to do now is to run commercials saying that "Dr. Rand Paul speaks the truth, and the Washington socialists don't like it. They'd prefer to be able to destroy our nation's future in peace"
Then one picture of Rachel Maddow chasing a blond girl scout down the street , and ... it's Sweet Victory

Posted by: TexasJew at May 21, 2010 12:03 PM (ikmC5)

329 The jist of the past few posts... Rand Paul WAAAAAHHH.Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 11:37 AM (wuv1c) I'm kind of meh on this particular controversy. "Un-American" is a pretty hefty charge to throw at a President and you really should have something more than some BS statements in mind. That said I'm not losing sleep over it. My guess is Paul will say worse before this is over, or Monday. As for yesterday though...get over it. It was news. We post and comment on news here. What should have been done? A circle the wagons, hear no evil defense?It would have looked pretty bad to have done that only to have him capitulate on the matter a few hours later. He got schooled on it by Jim DeMint and Jeff Sessions to name just two. He issued a CYA statement backing down from his earlier and long held beliefs. Paul said some politically untenable things that also happened to have be wrong in the minds of a lot of people. Don't get mad at Ace and I over that

Is that the only option? There are just two extremes. Circle the Wagon, or continual excoriation?
From what I've read, you, Gabe, and to a lesser extent Ace, don't like Rand Paul..Fine. I'm not sold on him either and I absolutely hate his father.
However, I am not going to blame him for the sins of his crazy father. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubtto a fellow republican.
Doesthis blog has contentious debate? Yes, clearly. However its just the volume and tenor of the posts themselves that lead me to believe you simply don't like Paul and will settle for the pettiest issues to dump on him.
Reread this post and tell me this is a big issue. Tell me that it matters. Tell me it is of even the most mild importantce.
Rand Paul shouldn't speak openly about his beliefs. He should stay on message until he gets elected. I get the conventional wisdom. I really do.
But what happens when he speaks his mind and still gets elected?
And more importantly, since when can we control what the MFM does? As was said by other commenters hear, Gingrich, Abramoff, Palin, Bachman, Limbaugh, Beck... the list goes on. The MFM will try to destroy this party and the Tea Party movement and anyone involved in it whether the party candidates "stay on message" or not.
I for one am not going to get to concerned that the media is going to lay into Rand. If not Rand then someone else.
Post whatever you want. Its fine. Some of it is legitimate. I just would like to point out the weak nature of this specific post, and the hand wringing over Rand Paul.
Believe me, I am not mad at all. People can have debates without anger.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:03 PM (wuv1c)

330 Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 11:59 AM (5/yRG)

And if Mark Kirk had said something mind boglingly stupid that made national news, we would have posted on it.

How many posts went up about Paul during the primary campaign? I'm guessing somewhere in the neighborhood of zero. If we were on an anti-Paul jihad, you would have noticed.

He said something very dumb (several times) and it made news. What would have any of us do? Ignore it?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 12:04 PM (FUSSG)

331 damn i really need to proof read for grammar and spelling

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:04 PM (wuv1c)

332 If you want blind cheerleading, this isn't the place. It never has been.


Blind cheerleading?! Are you for real? The post slams a dude for saying Obama is unamerican for christs sake! Coming from the same guy who earlier slammed those people who think Avatar have a leftwing message. Methinks you're mixing avoiding blind cheerleading with attacking your side to feel superior.

Imagine what fun would it be if all righty pundits followed this magnificient lead and start attacking each other whenether someone is less than respectful..."today DrewM of AoS called Obama dumb. Now I may disagree with President's politics but it surely doesn't warrant such a personal attack on his intelligence...etc etc"

It's surreal I have to say things like this on a right wing blog. Or maybe we shouldn't even call it "right wing blog"? You know to avoid this nasty "blind cheerleading"? Surreal.


Posted by: AlexD at May 21, 2010 12:04 PM (Va7a1)

333 BP is the largest single oil producer in the US. They employ many thousands of Americans all over the world in high-paying jobs.

Posted by: TexasJew at May 21, 2010 12:04 PM (ikmC5)

334 #329 THANK YOU unknown jane. It seems like this is always a one-way ratchet--we have to put up with the RINOest of RINOs over the Commiecrat, but the "nuanced" among us are free to sit out a generalelection because the GOP candidate did one little thing they deem inappropriate, evenif the rest ofsaid GOP candidate is spot-on.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:05 PM (tH7KR)

335 How many commenters are from Kentucky? If the MSM succeeds in making Rand a topic for discussion every day - even here - then we need some Bluegrass morons' perspectives.

Posted by: Jean at May 21, 2010 12:05 PM (qU2w5)

336 By now, Ed Morrissey has filled up seven Depends undergarments.
HEARTACHE..

Posted by: TexasJew at May 21, 2010 12:06 PM (ikmC5)

337 Gabe,
You're telling me you've never once advocated Gay Marriage on this blog or make arugments that Gay Marriage is a right?
Changing your tune now, Ben. I'm sure I've advocated for gay marriage, definitely in comments, anyway. But that's not what you accused me of. You said that I am "always telling everyone here about how we need to compromise on gay marriage, despite the fact is is wildly unpopular with the Republican base." Then you used that false statement to suggest that I should therefore"compromise" when it comes to Paul's naivete.
In fact, I have never said that you need to "compromise on gay marriage", much less one I'm "always" writing here at the HQ. Your statement was a false accusation, a strawman.
That you're changing your tune now, "oh, I meant something else" suggests you recognize your error, but are too proud to say "oops, got carried away with the attacks."

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (IkTb7)

338 .....the fuck?
'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American - Rand Paul (from your own fucking excerpt!)
"Rand didn't say that" - Gabriel Malor
What the fuck do they do to you people in Law School?

Posted by: gebrauchshund at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (d7k0J)

339 what you guys are forgetting is that regular folks want to see regular folks like themselves running for these seats. They have had enough of "career politicians". they haw also had enough of the system as it is. This is America, everyone is supposed to be able to have a chance at public office. But, since money is such a consideration, the average American has no shot. More and more people on the wal mart line are talking about changing that system. the founders didn't say only career politicians and lawyers can serve the country, did they? but, most other Americans have been shut out. would have been good to have had a couple of former hedge fund senators in the mix to educate everyone else on what is going on. Maybe we wouldn't be teetering on the edge of the "W".
Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 11:58 AM (p302b)
So you would support kicking out Ron Paul.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (oVQFe)

340 What the fuck do they do to you people in Law School?
Posted by: gebrauchshund at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (d7k0J)

Wouldn't you like to know....

Posted by: Rum Sodomy & the Lash at May 21, 2010 12:10 PM (VmtE9)

341 335 Drew...how many posts went up that were rather favorable Kirk...and he hasn't said anything, but how he has VOTED has said a lot (and the posts were pretty much defending him vis a vis that). To which , ok, yeah, I'll vote for him, but...
As for this bit with BP -- if KY is a right to work state, then putting a boot on the throat of foreign companies, that like to operate out of rtw states, is threatening the livelihood of many workers in said states. An arguement could be made that el precedent would like to see rtw states suffer loss of jobs in favor of union states. In that regard, Paul may have a point -- how "American" is it to take work away from American workers in order to favor crony unions?

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 12:10 PM (5/yRG)

342 Totally disagree on this one. I criticized what he said about the Civil Rights Bill, but what he said here is spot on. It is UN-American for a PRESIDENT of the United States to talk about putting his boot to anyone's throat, business, private citizen, or cops that have "acted stupidly." This is just piling on, not sure what is up about that. Paul will do stupid things, and say some stupid things, and he will be under a microscope now because that is the way the MSM and the Dems will try to pull the wings off the fly, but I will be damned if I help them. The difference between us and them is we can offer valid criticism of our officials. I did so concerning Bush. This is ridiculous. Obama's tone and speech is being pointed out by Paul, and he is 100% correct, what the hell is the matter with some of you?

Posted by: Jehu at May 21, 2010 12:11 PM (nbwOA)

343 It does chafe me that he is being praised for having such huge cajones compared to most GOP politicians for calling out Obama in what I think is a pretty questionable way (both in terms of timing and appearances) when he did not have the cajones to run as a Libertarian or as an Independent or as a Tea Party candidate. He applies political expediency just like the rest of them and ran as a Republican because that increased his chances of winning.
Gee, what happened to the "Big Tent"???? Like I said, the one way ratchet. Big Tent is open for RINOs, but closed for Libertarians, eh?
And once again, it is sad that speaking the plain truth about Obamunist business bashing is "questionable". You can say he should have used better words, but that is *tactical*.
Just like his blunders in expounding on the 1964 Civil Rights Act with Rachel Madcow were *tactical*. We all know that starting with Title 9 there are craptastical aspects of that Act, even if the intentions were otherwise noble.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:11 PM (tH7KR)

344 So you would support kicking out Ron Paul.
Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (oVQFe)
Well, I'm unemployed and looking for work, so I'm available.

Posted by: David Frum at May 21, 2010 12:11 PM (ikmC5)

345
"So you would support kicking out Ron Paul.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (oVQFe)"I don't understand the question? Thought i was pretty clear.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 12:11 PM (p302b)

346 My observations of Rand Paul: I heard him speak for the first time the other night on The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly doesn't like Ron Paul, and he went after Rand Paul with everything he had. Rand stood his ground and answered all the questions. In that regard, Rand is just like his old man - he will answer the questions, and it does not matter who asks them. I can totally understand why he would go on the Maddow show - he is not ashamed of his beliefs, UNCONDITIONALLY.
I also noticed that Rand Paul is Ron Paul lite. He seems much more conservative on foreign policy, but is about the same on economic policy. I think the MSM is trying to make Rand Paul into Ron Paul. They will fail (as long as the paulbots stand down and don't do anything crazy).

Posted by: Hutch at May 21, 2010 12:12 PM (rakN9)

347 338
BP is the largest single oil producer in the US.

Yeah, but right now the public is getting deluged with stories about how bad the spill is. They really aren't thinking about jobs, unless they work in that sector.

I follow a bunch of the conservation groups on Facebook - Audubon, Nature Conservancy, several other bird groups, including Ducks Unlimited - and I get about a dozen updates each day on the oil slick.

As a rational human being - and a scientist - I am not particularly moved by the anti-BP messaging, but I really think most people are. Particularly when the media - news outlets but also entertainment industry - are completely in the anti-business, pro-Obama pocket.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 12:13 PM (Kn9r7)

348 I don't understand the question? Thought i was pretty clear.
Its pretty simple. Paul is pretty much a career politician by now.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:14 PM (oVQFe)

349 They will fail (as long as the paulbots stand down and don't do anything crazy).
That's like asking a cell not to divide.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:15 PM (oVQFe)

350 Gee, what happened to the "Big Tent"???? Like I said, the one way
ratchet. Big Tent is open for RINOs, but closed for Libertarians, eh?

When someone announces at the start of the campaign that they are in their heart of hearts a Ron Paul Libertarian but will run as a Republican to change the party, I don't think that is an example of profiles in courage.

I didn't say he should be kicked out of the party (although I think one could make that case for his dad as well as the Maine sisters and some others), I merely pointed out that he is not the non-politician politician that some say he is. He plays the same game as the others so he should be criticized in the same way. In other words, he's not "Joe the Plumber," he's a professional politician.

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 12:16 PM (Kn9r7)

351 Gabe,
You're telling me you've never once advocated Gay Marriage on this blog or make arugments that Gay Marriage is a right?
Changing your tune now, Ben. I'm sure I've advocated for gay marriage, definitely in comments, anyway. But that's not what you accused me of. You said that I am "always telling everyone here about how we need to compromise on gay marriage, despite the fact is is wildly unpopular with the Republican base." Then you used that false statement to suggest that I should therefore"compromise" when it comes to Paul's naivete.
In fact, I have never said that you need to "compromise on gay marriage", much less one I'm "always" writing here at the HQ. Your statement was a false accusation, a strawman.
That you're changing your tune now, "oh, I meant something else" suggests you recognize your error, but are too proud to say "oops, got carried away with the attacks."

Now you start paying attention to the details of sentences. If only you had done so before writing this post. I would consider claiming as you do that the sentences i write and read only mean what I wish them to and not what they actually say, but I won't
Have you uttered the exact words "you all have to comprimise on gay marriage"? i don't have the capacity to search this blog for that exact sentence. Since I claimed that without checking all the previous posts or threads where you wrote on this blog, then yes it was unfair to make such a claim. I will happily concede that.
However, I would stand by the fact that many of your posts, maybe 1 in 4, pertain to gay marriage.
However, I don't consider my pointing outyou're predetermined dislike of Rand Paul to the point that you wrote the tripe above as an "attack".

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:17 PM (wuv1c)

352 That's like asking a cell not to divide.

Ahem.

Posted by: erythrocyte at May 21, 2010 12:17 PM (Kn9r7)

353 From what I've read, you, Gabe, and to a lesser extent Ace, don't like
Rand Paul..Fine.
Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:03 PM (wuv1c)


You think I like Paul less than Ace? Interesting, I thought he tore into him harder than I did.

Here's the thing as far as yesterday, for different reasons and to different degrees we both thought Paul was wrong...on tactics, the law and to a degree, the morality of his position.

How exactly does one shade that? Why should one do it? I don't get paid by Rand Paul (or anyone for blogging) so why should I carry his water?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 12:17 PM (FUSSG)

354 Little Moron, #297: Are Mom and Dad having a fight?
No, Little Moron, they're taking a nap. Leave them be.

Posted by: FireHorse at May 21, 2010 12:18 PM (cQyWA)

355 Gee, what happened to the "Big Tent"???? Like I said, the one way ratchet. Big Tent is open for RINOs, but closed for Libertarians, eh?
Right because RINOs never ever ever get blasted here for their idiotic statements right Curmudgeon? There's never been a post critical of McCain for McCain-Feingold. The bloggers all supported Crist in Florida especially his buddy buddying with Obama and playing footsie with the Teachers Union. And they all love Lindsey Graham don't they?
But they give some criticism to one of your golden boys and you get all butthurt.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:19 PM (oVQFe)

356 THANK YOU unknown jane. It seems like this is always a one-way
ratchet--we have to put up with the RINOest of RINOs over the
Commiecrat, but the "nuanced" among us are free to sit out a
generalelection because the GOP candidate did one little thing they
deem inappropriate, evenif the rest ofsaid GOP candidate is spot-on.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:05 PM (tH7KR)

RINOs don't get blasted here? That's your position?

Who exactly said they would sit out the general and urged others to do the same? I'll wait.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 12:20 PM (FUSSG)

357 Where's the TylenMidol?!-- Olliander

FIFY

Posted by: Kerry at May 21, 2010 12:21 PM (a/VXa)

358 When someone announces at the start of the campaign that they are in their heart of hearts a Ron Paul Libertarian but will run as a Republican to change the party, I don't think that is an example of profiles in courage.
Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus could not be reached for comment. *Every* faction of a political party wants to push said party more to its direction. But somehow it's only wrong when they do it and not you, right?
I didn't say he should be kicked out of the party (although I think one could make that case for his dad as well as the Maine sisters and some others), I merely pointed out that he is not the non-politician politician that some say he is. He plays the same game as the others so he should be criticized in the same way. In other words, he's not "Joe the Plumber," he's a professional politician.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:21 PM (tH7KR)

359 "353

I don't understand the question? Thought i was pretty clear.


Its pretty simple. Paul is pretty much a career politician by now.

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:14 PM (oVQFe)"I think I don't know enough about Ron Paul to make that determination. I do like his audit the fed bill and apparntly so do a lot of his peers but that one has been kicked under the rug. I think we are becomming a stale country. You need different voices in public office. When everyone, repbulcian or dem, thinks in lockstep, you get what we have now. We need people who think for themselves, don't think in lockstep and aren't intiidated if we are to salvage what is left of this country. Oddly enough, I'm an independent but I have mroe use for the conservatives than the republcians.
I'm watching CNBC and chris dude and BF are out there talking. why, after they were major makers of the mess, are they llowed to stand up there and blather when they should be cowering in the corner worrying about being arrested? why is no one challenging them? this is what is truly infuriating the American people.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 12:22 PM (p302b)

360 357 That's like asking a cell not to divide.Ahem.
Posted by: erythrocyte at May 21, 2010 12:17 PM (Kn9r7)
Fine, a Singe celled organism not to divide. Happy?

Posted by: buzzion at May 21, 2010 12:22 PM (oVQFe)

361 Woops,I hit the send key too fast.....
I didn't say he should be kicked out of the party (although I think one could make that case for his dad as well as the Maine sisters and some others), I merely pointed out that he is not the non-politician politician that some say he is. He plays the same game as the others so he should be criticized in the same way. In other words, he's not "Joe the Plumber," he's a professional politician.
So what? I don't care. I care that he is (on domestic issues anyway, certainly not foreign policy) pushing the GOP in a direction I think it needs to go.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:23 PM (tH7KR)

362 Not to mention we have a President that is now attacking a State in this Union, based upon a political agenda. To do so by using a foreign President in our own Congress is unconscionable, somebody should have stood up in Congress and said something right then and there and damn Congressional decorum. I have to believe God Himself is taking a hand right now, unless American's have lost all self respect, the sight of Dems standing up and applauding a Foreign President lecturing us about our laws when his same laws are far more draconian than ours, and he admitted to such in an interview on the same damn day!

Well that sight should enrage Americans, and reveal to the millions that have not been paying attention that we have a cabal in charge of this country that have an agenda that is anti-American, UN-American, and set to destroy our unity, our economy and our standing in this world, compared to that this focus on Rand Paul is Inspector Clouseau giving a ticket to the blind Pencil Vendor while the bank robbery takes place behind him in full view.

Posted by: Jehu at May 21, 2010 12:23 PM (nbwOA)

363
I'll say the same thing as I did when AoS was putting anti-Huckabee posts day after day in 2008: What's the fucking point?

Spend your time and energy on something more useful. Let the Left tear down and criticize the Republicans -- they're much better at it.

Posted by: Mr Whoopi at May 21, 2010 12:24 PM (uFokq)

364 Ugh...
Is Paul an ideal canidate? I would say "no".
Isit potentially harmful to have him as the face of the tea party and/or the Repubs? Possibly -- trending probably
Is he nonetheless your party's canidate from KY? Sure is; for better or worse, he is.
Might it not be wise to run something a bit more shall we say...glowing about him? I should think so; otherwise you are indeed doing the left's job for them -- and that is a very big problem on the right side of the aisle that needs to be addressed. By all means, he should be criticized when need be, but you'd better throw a bone every once and a while, just sayin'.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 12:27 PM (5/yRG)

365 From what I've read, you, Gabe, and to a lesser extent Ace, don't like Rand Paul..Fine. Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:03 PM (wuv1c) You think I like Paul less than Ace? Interesting, I thought he tore into him harder than I did.Here's the thing as far as yesterday, for different reasons and to different degrees we both thought Paul was wrong...on tactics, the law and to a degree, the morality of his position.How exactly does one shade that? Why should one do it? I don't get paid by Rand Paul (or anyone for blogging) so why should I carry his water
Well, i thought Ace did a bit of a walk back in his second post.
There are more than two extremes. As I believe I said above, I'm not asking you to carry his water. I'm not asking you to stop writing about him. I'm not asking you withhold your legitimate concerns about Paul.
I was simply stating that the volume of the Rand posts, and most specifically this one lead me to believe you guys don't like Rand Paul, enough so that we readers should be expecting 6 months of , "Rand Paul is the worst and will destroy our party" posts.
We are a "big tent" party. We've sat with leftists. While most everyone here hated John McCain, most if not all of use voted for him. If it were Rand Paul in place of John McCain, I would venture to say you wouldn't have circled the wagons around the party's candidate. Is that a fair assumption?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:27 PM (wuv1c)

366 Members of the Republican Liberty Caucus could not be reached for
comment. *Every* faction of a political party wants to push said party
more to its direction.

I guess I'm missing the point you're making.

Rand Paul is quoted as saying that he considers himself to be a Libertarian, not a libertarian Republican (or whatever the GOP faction calls itself). He apparently identifies himself so strongly with something other than a Republican that he felt he had to justify to his Libertarian supporters why he was running in the GOP primary. He also indicated that the version of Libertarianism he espouses is the Ron Paul type.

I am merely saying that I'd put him in the same category as any person who sticks an R after their name with the intention of voting 'independently.'

We can debate about whether or not the GOP leadership in Congress is any good, but when someone tells me I should support a candidate because they are a Republican, I tend to double-check that they really are a Republican... just as folks do/did with McCain or Olympia Snowe and just as the Tea Party people did with that fake "tea party" candidate recently.

I believe in my heart of hearts that Rand Paul will vote with the GOP more often than with the Dems, but I do not trust that he will vote with the GOP on some key issues that are of importance to me. And I don't want the GOP to become the Libertarian party. If I wanted that, I'd call myself a Libertarian and work to make that party electable.

Posted by: erythrocyte at May 21, 2010 12:28 PM (Kn9r7)

367 Right because RINOs never ever ever get blasted here for their idiotic statements right Curmudgeon? There's never been a post critical of McCain for McCain-Feingold. The bloggers all supported Crist in Florida especially his buddy buddying with Obama and playing footsie with the Teachers Union. And they all love Lindsey Graham don't they?
Wow, way to animate that strawman into a living Frankenstein monster. I have just run across a post suggesting the Paulians get kicked out of the Grand Old Party before even coming toyours. (this topic may hit the 1000 comment reply yet!)
But they give some criticism to one of your golden boys and you get all butthurt.
"Golden Boys"? really? I have stated time and again that the Paulians are bonkers with respect to foreign policy and need to be laughed off. But domestically, they are in line with what the AOS Morons are supposed to like. Period.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:28 PM (tH7KR)

368 And what Jehu said above.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 12:29 PM (5/yRG)

369 Eek. I have many erythrocytes... some are sentient, apparently!

Posted by: Y-not at May 21, 2010 12:30 PM (Kn9r7)

370 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 12:08 PM (IkTb7)

^ MEOW!!!!! Pffttt!!! Pffttt!!!!

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 12:31 PM (ITzbJ)

371 RINOs don't get blasted here? That's your position?Who exactly said they would sit out the general and urged others to do the same? I'll wait.
Oh puhleeze, Drew. Everytime the Obamunists pass another horrid bill, there is at least one snarky comment about how this is the fault of the "purists" for sitting out the congressional elections 2006 and the general elections of 2008 and letting the Obamunists win.
For the record, I am not a purist and have never sat out an election. Even the RINOest of RINOs is usually better than the Democrat, unless said Democrat is really a Blue Dog / Boll Weevil.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:31 PM (tH7KR)

372 Rand Paul needs to shut the fuck up.
Libertarian/Republicans who support him and care about the issues need to TELL him to shut the fuck up.
This is what happens to movement candidates who spend all of their time around others in the movement. They don't know how to speak to anyone else. They dont grow movements, they just go along for the ride.
His views on Obama/BP and the warped application of the Civil Rights Act have plenty of merit. Those views are more important than he. His grade-school-level approach to discourse will ensure that those views, and a bunch of Libertarian/Republican views, remain just a series of movement talking points that never actually result in change.
So, keep talking Paul, if you want to ensure RHINO control of the GOP.

Posted by: CJ at May 21, 2010 12:32 PM (9KqcB)

373 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American - Rand Paul (from your own fucking excerpt!)
"Rand didn't say that" - Gabriel Malor
What the fuck do they do to you people in Law School?
gebrauchshund, you truncate the Rand Paul quote to buttress your position and then use that to attack me. If you're position were really so strong, you wouldn't need to do that. In fact, Paul went on to say "that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Words matter.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 12:33 PM (IkTb7)

374 gebrauchshund, you truncate the Rand Paul quote to buttress your position and then use that to attack me. If you're position were really so strong, you wouldn't need to do that. In fact, Paul went on to say "that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
what does the that refer to in that sentence?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:35 PM (wuv1c)

375 The Gabe speaketh: Fuck you, Ben. I have never once told you that you our anyone else "needs to compromise on gay marriage."
Your attitude on gay marriage has consistently been that those of us who support the traditional definition of marriage ought to share a tent with those, like you,who support redefining it. You extended this to CPAC, a self-defined "conservative" group. When you did that, you imposed aredefinition of "conservative" upon that group.
Thus, a group which was set up to defend traditional values need[ed] to compromise on gay marriage. You're not a conservative. Which is fine; I'm not, either, and I have my own differences with them (creationism for a start).
But what I don't do is tell everyone in this thread "I've never told conservatives they need to compromise on (here) biology standards". I got a paper trail years long on this topic just like you do on yours.
So go fuck yourself, Gabe. You are not fooling anyone.

Posted by: Zimriel at May 21, 2010 12:35 PM (9Sbz+)

376 We're going to need a bigger boot.

Posted by: Sheriff Barry O'Brady at May 21, 2010 12:36 PM (4WbTI)

377 I love Denis Kneale: "It's nice to see that Eric Schmidt's close freindship wit the president and the WH didn't influence the decision"

Even on CNBC you can get a political comment across...a lot of folks missed it...too funny

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 12:36 PM (p302b)

378 gebrauchshund, you truncate the Rand Paul quote to buttress your position and then use that to attack me. If you're position were really so strong, you wouldn't need to do that. In fact, Paul went on to say "that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
what does the that refer to in that sentence?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:38 PM (wuv1c)

379 I was simply stating that the volume of the Rand posts, and most
specifically this one lead me to believe you guys don't like Rand Paul,
enough so that we readers should be expecting 6 months of , "Rand Paul
is the worst and will destroy our party" posts.
Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:27 PM (wuv1c)


If you have any thought that there's a coordinated "get Rand Paul"
effort, I assure there's not. We're not that organized.

We don't coordinate posts and sometimes that leads to uneven posting in
terms of timing and content.

Let me pull the curtain back on the Ace of Spades editorial policy...there's pretty much none.

When Ace asked me to blog here his instructions were "keep it newsy". In over 2 years that about all he's ever said to me about content.

Not to sound like a suck up but Ace is incredibly generous in sharing the
space he's created. I know he's disagreed with some stuff I and others have written. Sometimes he engages it, some times he doesn't. He's also given us the green light to disagree with him. That may be a flaw in the eyes of some but I think it speaks
very well of him.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 12:38 PM (FUSSG)

380 #377: OK, you are unhappy with tactical blunders. And you are right to be. I winced when I heard Rand Paul even went on the Rachel Madcow show, let alone stuck his foot in his mouth there.
But manyhave taken Paul's blunders as "evidence" of how unsavory and wretchedPaul is, and how he should be drummed out of the GOP. This coming often from people who urge the GOP to have a Big Tent and accomodate the fence sitters and moderates.
Those people are David Frum wannabes, even when they don't realize it.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:38 PM (tH7KR)

381 when did AoSHQ become the new establishment ivory tower?

Posted by: Ranting Paul at May 21, 2010 12:39 PM (SfpsN)

382
Words matter.

okay, Barack Obama.

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 12:41 PM (uFokq)

383 Everytime the Obamunists pass another horrid bill, there is at least one
snarky comment about how this is the fault of the "purists" for sitting
out the congressional elections 2006 and the general elections of 2008
and letting the Obamunists win.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:31 PM (tH7KR)


When you say "comment" I take it to mean here in the comment section because I don't think you can find many (if any) main page posts saying that.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 12:41 PM (FUSSG)

384 another day, another Rand Paul-bashing post on AoSHQ.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 12:42 PM (yCH89)

385

You're not a conservative. Which is fine; I'm not, either, and I have my
own differences with them (creationism for a start).

Zim, I say this as a Catholic conservative. I love you, but you are being dumb. "Creationism" is no more "conservative" than blue laws.

Earth is 4+ billion years old. That's not a political position.

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 12:45 PM (UaxA0)

386
One more thing, Gabe, I can only speak for myself but I'm guessing nobody clicks on AoSHQ to see what Gabriel Malor is thinking. That goes for Drew, too.

Nobody gives a shit what you think. I come here to read about current event in politics and culture and to see what Ace has to say about those things.

Your role here is put up a post about something you know about, which apparently isn't too much. Read more, educate yourself, and grow up before you start sharing your opinions.

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 12:45 PM (uFokq)

387 5 points

Rand Paul is to AoSHQ, as Sarah Palin is to:

a - Hotair.com
b - LittleGreenFootballs.com
c - Frumforum.com
d - All of the above

Posted by: Chris Paul - From the Key at May 21, 2010 12:46 PM (m1Chw)

388 Ace is a great bartender. Steele sucks in tactical message coordination. Rand needs some polish, but maybe thats the way Kentucky boys like him.

Posted by: Jean at May 21, 2010 12:46 PM (PjevJ)

389 Big Tent for me, but not for thee

Posted by: RINO at May 21, 2010 12:47 PM (yCH89)

390 However, I would stand by the fact that many of your posts, maybe 1 in 4, pertain to gay marriage.
Wow. You are out of your fraking mind. One in four? Perhaps one in a hundred. Maybe one in two-hundred.
I have written perhaps a thousand or more posts here. Google can only find 63 with both the words "gabriel malor" and "gay marriage" in them. Many of those are straight news reporting and not advocacy at all. (example). Some of them, I didn't even write. (example).
There's no good way to get an exact count, but here's my rule of thumb for "gay posts" (and not just "gay marriage" posts). If it's news, I'll post on it. And I usually gauge the newsworthiness of an issue by whether it's getting covered elsewhere on the right. In fact, I post less frequently on gay issues than both Hot Air and the Corner. But that's just because if I talked about gay shit as much as them, you would complain that it's all I talk about.
If you think one in four of my posts is about gay marriage (or, giving you a little slack, even about something gay) then you are clearly not paying attention.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 12:47 PM (IkTb7)

391 I was simply stating that the volume of the Rand posts, and most specifically this one lead me to believe you guys don't like Rand Paul, enough so that we readers should be expecting 6 months of , "Rand Paul is the worst and will destroy our party" posts.Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:27 PM (wuv1c) If you have any thought that there's a coordinated "get Rand Paul" effort, I assure there's not. We're not that organized. We don't coordinate posts and sometimes that leads to uneven posting in terms of timing and content.Let me pull the curtain back on the Ace of Spades editorial policy...there's pretty much none.When Ace asked me to blog here his instructions were "keep it newsy". In over 2 years that about all he's ever said to me about content.Not to sound like a suck up but Ace is incredibly generous in sharing the space he's created. I know he's disagreed with some stuff I and others have written. Sometimes he engages it, some times he doesn't. He's also given us the green light to disagree with him. That may be a flaw in the eyes of some but I think it speaks very well of him.
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression i thought it was a collusion. I don't recall saying that at any point.
I stick by the fact that it is clear you and Gabe don't like Rand Paul. You don't have to collude for that to be an accurate assessment.
I'm not going to stop reading the blog if ther is a Rand Paul post every day. I love this site and the writers, yourself and Gabe included.
I just feel that it is fair that i point out something i see as a pattern and some things I see as inconsistent.
Mainly pertaining to this hand wringing about Rand Paul needing to shut up or the media will destory the tea party, republican party, etc. The MFM will attempt to do it no matter what. I don't recall a ton of hand wringing when Palin or Bachmann said somethign that can be misconstrued and used by the media as a bludgeon. My guess is you don't dislike them as much as you do Rand Paul.
I like that this blog is random in many ways. It can be about serious issues, ugg boots, and jokes about killing and cannibalizing homeless people. Ace does a fantastic job.
However, something else I like is the spirited discussions in the comments sections. That is one of the strongest aspects of this blog.
So, please don't take my criticism over this minor issue as some sort of personal indictment of the whole blog or format.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:47 PM (wuv1c)

392
Gabe, I will happily continue our "gay" discussion, but first could you clarify this for me.
If you're position were really so strong, you wouldn't need to do that. In fact, Paul went on to say "that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
what does the that refer to in that sentence?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:49 PM (wuv1c)

393

seriously. Chris Paul's (no relation I guess) got it right. It's irrational hatred of Paul here at AOSHQ.

Gabe, it's really rich for you to say "you truncated my words" when you blatantly ignore the word "that" in Paul's comment.

I say this as one with no love for libertarianism as an ideological pose.

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 12:49 PM (UaxA0)

394 Watching Ben and Gabriel is like watching two mud-wrestlers who have an aversion to getting muddy.

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 12:49 PM (ITzbJ)

395 #380: Zimriel, in his blunt way, hits it. Is the Big Tent truly big?
It seems to be the One Way Ratchet. The Libertarians, Traditional Religionists, and border patriotsin the GOP always have to give in, and teh Log Cabins and the "anything for Big Business" typesin the GOP don't.
(Kind of like how the MFM treats the GOP with respect to the Demunists, come to think of it).

Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 21, 2010 12:49 PM (tH7KR)

396 You know we have this nice little democratic republic here with a nice capitalist system and I would hate to see it go down the tubes. We need people willing to stick their neck out for our American system.

So now business is the bad guy? Meantime, our lawmakers are just as culpable but they have "the power" so we are supposed to just go along? There is plenty of blame to go around. There is a laundry list of names on it starting with that NAFTA democrat and his wife with the huge butt. Business was not along, maybe if the S E C would have been looking at the markets instead of the Pron we wouldn't be in this position right now.

To start we need a wholesale chang over in congress and the senate. That is what Americans are thinking. Both parties are missing this. I know you want to underestimate the American people. They are a patient group. But, right about now, with 20% unemployment, small business imperiled, people losing their homes and just scraping by, their patience is wearing thin. The dems see this more than the republicans. the dems are sending out emails from the campaign every single day now. They are desperately trying to keep it together for the elections and for the next election. don't think that regular Americans believe everything they read in the MSM, which is why some want to get rid of the internet, it is too much of an information source. And don't think people didn't notice that commencement speech which was anti technology. (mostly anti apple since eric fancies himself as their competition and el presbo is erics BF) It's going to get intereesting and eating your own isn't the way to go.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 12:50 PM (p302b)

397
btw, I encourage everyone to checkout that fraud conservative gay group that Gabe has been pimping on this blog, the group called GOProud.

Look at their website and see just how conservative they are. They are a mirror image of the log cabin republicans. Both groups are a joke who only care about advancing the homosexual radical agenda and will support candidates who support their agenda.

They don't give a rip about conservatism or the GOP.

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 12:51 PM (uFokq)

398

and gabe, limiting the search to "gay marriage" is disingenuous (perhaps intentionally)

"Marriage" is far claoser to teh mark, and produced 526 results.

I'm not arguing htose are all YOUR posts or comments, or that they all have to do with teh ghey. But some of them do, and to not include them and stand on that "record" is false.

And how anyone espousing gay marraige can claim the mantle of "conservative" is beyond me--quite apart from whether or not it's a good idea policy wise

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 12:55 PM (UaxA0)

399 Gabe,

are you not going to address my question at 397?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:55 PM (wuv1c)

400
or 'Gabriel' 'prop 8'

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 12:56 PM (uFokq)

401
I told Gabriel several months ago to stop thinking he's smarter than the average AoS reader.

We are not to be fucked with.

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 12:57 PM (uFokq)

402 You guys need to understand there is politics in politics. Evenwhen you are right, there are stupid ways to express it.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 21, 2010 12:58 PM (2VGuy)

403 Sorry Gabriel, but I think you are way too soft once again.

It is precisely his words on the subject that made it "un-American". How dare his administration use that imagery to even attempt to criticize a private industry. How dare this president attack, once again, an entity for supposed wrong doing without him even knowing all of the facts. He did the same thing with the city cops who arrested his friend. He verbally accused and bashed them on national media. That is at the very least, UN-PRESIDENTIAL.

And, when you pile all of this on, and look at it in the big picture, then swirl in the boots on the throat... he is becoming more and more un-american.

And if your defense is that other people do it... then those people are un-American. Americans don't fly off the handle and pre-judge guilty without the facts! We don't allow are leaders to do that either.

No. What he has said is definitely un-American.

Posted by: captainfish at May 21, 2010 12:58 PM (+2+jA)

404 We don't need more anti-war republicans

Posted by: KoolAid at May 21, 2010 01:01 PM (SfpsN)

405 Way to go, Paultards. Thanks to your political cockworship of Ron Paul, you've elected a son who is even more politically inept than his father.

Now, we're stuck with this fuckwit who is going to make it even easier for the MSM and the libs to paint the Tea Party (and conservatives in general) as ignorant racists.

Thanks.

Posted by: Clever Moniker at May 21, 2010 01:02 PM (qs11W)

406 Gabe,
I conceded that I was wrong to say you openly used the phrase "you've advocated we compromise on gay marriage".
You're not going to address the crux of my issue with this post? That you intentionally disregard the word "that" in his statement which changes to meaning completely from you you claimed it to be?

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 01:02 PM (wuv1c)

407 They are a mirror image of the log cabin republicans. Both groups are a joke who only care about advancing the homosexual radical agenda and will support candidates who support their agenda.
Mr. Slate demonstrates, and not for the first time, his inexplicable ignorance of GOProud. In fact, Tom Campbell is the only California GOP primary candidate for Boxer's senate seat to come out in favor of gay marriage.
GOProud unveiled an advertising campaign against him and issued a statement comdemning him for proposing a gas tax increase, his anti-Israel actions, and his ties to questionable islamic organizations. Scroll down to the April 14 and April 5 posts.
Mr. Slate, your smear of GOProud has no basis in fact.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 01:02 PM (IkTb7)

408 407 I understand that very well; what I don't understand is the seeming addiction to eating your own (that's a politics-politics issue as well, isn't it?).
But by all means, carry on.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 01:03 PM (5/yRG)

409 Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 12:51 PM (uFokq)

Just checked. Haven't seen anything wrong with them. They are no social cons by definition, is that what you mean?

Posted by: AlexD at May 21, 2010 01:03 PM (Va7a1)

410 Just to make it clear, the other two Republicans in that race both oppose gay marriage. GOProud has urged Republicans in California to unite behind either of them.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 01:04 PM (IkTb7)

411

brewer, you're my bud, and I don't really know enough about Paul to care about him, but saying that a boot to the throat of a business is "un-American" is not a poor way to express teh sentiment that this administration is thuggish and anti-business. In fact, I think it is downright pitch perfect.

I don't think I like Paul. But I know I don't like the piling on I'm seeing based on what apprears to be just the dude's last name.

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 01:06 PM (UaxA0)

412 You're not going to address the crux of my issue with this post? That you intentionally disregard the word "that" in his statement which changes to meaning completely from you you claimed it to be?
The word "that" certainly applies tothe immediately preceding sentnce. But he also hooks it to the broader "criticismof business." I didn't ignore the "that." I accepted the entirety of the sentence.
(Also, Ben, be a little looser on timing of responses. There are a lot of you and just one of me. And I do have other things going right now, too.)

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 01:06 PM (IkTb7)

413 "It is precisely his words on the subject that made it "un-American".
How dare his administration use that imagery to even attempt to
criticize a private industry. How dare this president attack, once
again, an entity for supposed wrong doing without him even knowing all
of the facts. He did the same thing with the city cops who arrested his
friend. He verbally accused and bashed them on national media. That
is at the very least, UN-PRESIDENTIAL."

You read my mind!

I'm tired of the expectation that politicians have to be perfect with everything they say. That there is no room for error and clarification. That you can "die" on the strength of an answer to a question. Particularly since BO answered lots of questions and most people chose not to believe his answers and now they are wondering what happened. Real people aren't perfect, sometimes have trouble communicating and are sick of the MSM. Whetehr you like it or not, Rand Paul is well, refreshing.

hey, I love Thaddeus McCotter....and was told on another site that he could never be president since he is a terrible speech maker? I laughed a lot and was simply incredulous. the republicans first need to work on the double standard. The country can't survive on the idea that dems can say or do anything and still get elected but republicans are held to a Mother Theresa standard. and, let me tell you, that woman had fire in the belly, she wasn't always a saint.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 01:07 PM (p302b)

414 Just to make it clear, the other two Republicans in that race both oppose gay marriage. GOProud has urged Republicans in California to unite behind either of them.
You're still reading. Great.
I'm a domestic Libertarian. I don't think the states should be involved in any marriage. If you want be married. Great. I wholly support you and did not mean to impugne you in any way.
But please address, defend, concede, whatever that the crux of this post was based on a statement by Rand in which you deliberatly ignored the word "that" to fit a preconveived dislike of the man.
And no I am not a Paulbot. I hate Ron Paul. But i do not believe his son should carry his fathers sins. He should be given a chance. We are a big tent party, and that means accepting libertarians as well as mccain type ledties.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 01:08 PM (wuv1c)

415 An eye doctor and political novice, Paul defeated a rival recruited by Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. He immediately invited Obama, whose approval ratings in Kentucky are fairly low, to campaign for the state's Democrat.
I don't think the media realizes that this line is an even bigger shot at Barry. In fact, I wish Barry would campaign heavily this year. It's worked so well for Dims.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 21, 2010 01:08 PM (1Jaio)

416 I don't think I like Paul. But I know I don't like the piling on I'm seeing
based on what apprears to be just the dude's last name.

It's not piling on if they're both complete fuck-ups.

Posted by: Clever Moniker at May 21, 2010 01:08 PM (qs11W)

417 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 01:04 PM (IkTb7)

But have you made sure they are sufficiently respectful to the left? For all we know they might have called some lefty politician "unamerican". You can't be too vigilant.

Posted by: AlexD at May 21, 2010 01:08 PM (Va7a1)

418 I don't understand is the seeming addiction to eating your own
What is worse,to continue letting someone shoot themselves and you in the feet or to makea case that we take away their gun? By your logic, we should lay off Michael Steele.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 21, 2010 01:08 PM (2VGuy)

419 Gabe is fat.
How fat is he?
Gabe is so fat that he has to go to a car wash to take a shower.
(visualize Gabe waddling through a car wash like a big, fat penguin.)

Posted by: Ben's script writer at May 21, 2010 01:10 PM (ITzbJ)

420
Does GOProud or do they not only endorse Republican candidates who are in favor of extra-marital rights for homosexuals?

And will GOProud endorse a Republican who is against repealing DADT?

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 01:10 PM (uFokq)

421 and gabe, limiting the search to "gay marriage" is disingenuous (perhaps intentionally)"Marriage" is far claoser to teh mark, and produced 526 results. I'm not arguing htose are all YOUR posts or comments, or that they all have to do with teh ghey. But some of them do, and to not include them and stand on that "record" is false.
Actually, it only comes to 142 results. (You have to click to the end of the results to take out duplicates.)
I was accused of writing about "gay marriage" in one in four posts so that's what I searched for. But even taking your broader point, even if we accept the "marriage" posts, it comes no where near writing about gay marriage 25% of the time.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 01:10 PM (IkTb7)

422 What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business,"

"That" refers to the statement of "boot heel on the throat of BP"
"In" refers to his specific use of this phrase when criticising business.
This specificsentencedoesn't say that criticising business is unamerican. It says his use of this phrase when criticising business is unamerican.
I don't see how this can be construed any other way.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 01:11 PM (wuv1c)

423 I'm tired of the expectation that politicians have to be perfect with everything they say. That there is no room for error and clarification.
I guess we all owe Michael Steele an apology.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 21, 2010 01:11 PM (2VGuy)

424 Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 12:47 PM (wuv1c)

No, I get you didn't say we colluded but when I thought about it it seemed like people might come to that conclusion or wonder about it so I just thought I'd put it out there.
However, something else I like is the spirited discussions in the
comments sections. That is one of the strongest aspects of this blog.

Amen.


Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 01:13 PM (FUSSG)

425

Here it is, fellas:

Paul saying "unamerican", even in Gabe's least charitable interpretation of it, is no different from Joe Wilson's "YOU LIE!"

Look at where were you on that, and it will possibly show the anti-Paul bias that you are expressing.

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 01:13 PM (UaxA0)

426 "428

I'm tired of the expectation that politicians have to be perfect
with everything they say. That there is no room for error and
clarification.

I guess we all owe Michael Steele an apology.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 21, 2010 01:11 PM (2VGuy)"for me, the jury is still out on Steele.

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 01:15 PM (p302b)

427 Paul saying "unamerican", even in Gabe's least charitable interpretation of it, is no different from Joe Wilson's "YOU LIE!"


Don't tell him or the next thing we will be commenting on is a post denouncing Wilson.

Posted by: AlexD at May 21, 2010 01:16 PM (Va7a1)

428
hahaha, you mean this post?

Tom
Campbell - Wrong on Israel, Wrong on Fighting Global Extremism, Wrong
for Gay Voters


Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 01:16 PM (uFokq)

429

what Steele says is ANTI-GOP brewer. Paul is at worst impolitic.

Both may hurt the electoral chances of the party, but only one is condemnable.

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 01:17 PM (UaxA0)

430 I think we can safely convict Steele for his inartful comments--as of sometime last year.

Posted by: rdbrewer at May 21, 2010 01:17 PM (2VGuy)

431
yeah way to branch out, GOProud

the entire post is about gay crap!

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 01:17 PM (uFokq)

432
Steele isn't a candidate. Try again, rdbrew.

Besides, everyone agrees Steele is a tool. But this anti-Paul post is just plain foolish. Barack Obama is indeed un-American and I don't mind at all when a candidate says so.

It's quite refreshing to hear someone on our side hit back, for a change.

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 01:21 PM (uFokq)

433
So while it's nice that homocons have had a spotlight this past week
from bloggers on the Right and the Left, and from the legacy media,
let's not get distracted. The President is still trying to cripple our
healthcare system. His activist EPA is going forward with carbon dioxide
regulation even if the Democratic Congress doesn't pass a climate bill.
He's almost certainly going to get to replace another Supreme Court
justice this year. And we've still got the November 2010 elections
coming at us. Eye on the ball, folks.

posted by Gabriel Malor February 24, 2010

*attacks Rand Paul*

Posted by: Chris Paul - From the Key at May 21, 2010 01:21 PM (m1Chw)

434 gebrauchshund, you truncate the Rand Paul quote to buttress your position and then use that to attack me. If you're position were really so strong, you wouldn't need to do that. In fact, Paul went on to say "that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Words matter.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 12:33 PM (IkTb7)
What The Precedent said certainly was really un-American in his criticism of business. Do you really not understand that, or are you just playing stupid?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 01:22 PM (5TNVe)

435 The furor regarding Rand is a little misplaced. If your worried about the image of Republicans outside of KY being besmirched, don't the guy's last name is Paul - no one takes him seriously. If your actually in KY, I think the MSM pile-on helps and I am willing to be Ron Paul is fairly popular there as well. We have never been able to make what McKinney or Stuart Little say stick to other Dims, Rand is insulated by the surname Paul in the same manner. My relatives in Salyersville and all over Maggofin Co are going to vote as many time as possible for Rand.

Posted by: Jean at May 21, 2010 01:22 PM (PjevJ)

436 423Last time I checked, Michael Steele wasn't running for election; your boy Paul is. Last time I checked the MFM wasn't going after Steele trying to make him the face of your party/movement/political ideology.
But yeah, I do rather see the hypocrisy of going after Steele and turning around and propping people who are just as bad as him; perhaps worse because Steele isn't voting in Congress right now.
But by all means, criticize whoever in your own partyyou don't like ad nauseum from now until election day,...and then by all means get the heartache and soul searching when the Dems win a majority again.

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 01:25 PM (5/yRG)

437 #377: OK, you are unhappy with tactical blunders. And you are right to be. I winced when I heard Rand Paul even went on the Rachel Madcow show, let alone stuck his foot in his mouth there. But manyhave taken Paul's blunders as "evidence" of how unsavory and wretchedPaul is, and how he should be drummed out of the GOP.
Not me, Curmudgeon. I realize that candidates who don't come from the Proper Republicans Club will have rough edges. But they owe it to the ideas to look beyond the "movement" and speak to the rest of the country in a way that can persuade them.
I guess I am more upset over his Civil Rights comments than this. He didn't give one second of thought to how it would sound, because he has spent so much time speaking, and listening, only to people who agree with him.

Posted by: CJ at May 21, 2010 01:25 PM (9KqcB)

438 I've got to get back to work.
Gabe I swollowed my pride and conceded I made a blanket generalization about your advocating compromise on gay marriage. I regret brining it up because it diverted from my main issue of contention.
I do not expect you to do the same and concede this post was just about your dislike of Rand Paul and not on the merit of the quote you cited, which has a clear meaning.
There are hundreds of things to disagree with Rand Paul on. His foreign policy, appearing on Alex Jones radio show, his not refighting historical issues that are for now settled(as in DrewM's post), etc.
This quote was the weakest choice, as it needed to be misconstrued in order to even qualify as a "dumb statement".
I am only arguing on the merit of this specific criticism of Rand.
I just think the conclusions you drew in this specific instance were unfair and were more revealing of your dislike of the man than any legitimate gripe you were trying to make.

Posted by: Ben at May 21, 2010 01:26 PM (wuv1c)

439 "He specifically called the President's criticism of businesshis wordsun-American. That's just plain wrong."
Um, no, YOU'RE wrong. Obama's relentless campaign against capitalists, of which BP is just the current target, is un-American, and if you don't think it is, then you don't understand what makes America great.

Posted by: Nick at May 21, 2010 01:26 PM (S2Q0B)

440 The furor regarding Rand is a little misplaced.
Posted by: Jean at May 21, 2010 01:22 PM (PjevJ)
It's much more than "a little misplaced". The arguments against Paul, and what he said, are stupid and wrong andshow that certain people have no concept of what being American means, evidently.
Gabe sticks up for the shithead in the White House who wiped his ass with bond holders' contracts and told them, "I am the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks." Gabe stands up for the guy who allied with foreigners - communist China, even - in an attack againsts a US state (treason, in my book, plain and simple). Gabe shows that he has no clue ... or worse.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 01:29 PM (5TNVe)

441
Is everyone sitting down? Good because I'm about to serve everyone here a dose of reality.

Right now, right now, Scott Brown is doing more to harm the GOP than Rand Paul. Brown voted for Chris Dodd's bill.

Chris Dodd should've been made a laughing stock
by the GOP, not someone you 'work' with in finding 'solutions' to our problems (that were created by Dodd and the Democrats in the first place).

When we don't win either chamber this November you can blame Scott Brown for not helping to make distinctions between Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by: Mr. Slate at May 21, 2010 01:31 PM (uFokq)

442 Gabe sticks up for the shithead in the White House who wiped his ass with bond holders' contracts and told them, "I am the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks."
Oops. the Indonesian Imbecile made that threat to the bankers. It's hard to keep track of the un-American attacks on business that come out of this putrid White House.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 01:31 PM (5TNVe)

443 The Paulbots are the tea party. Just wait till R&R Paul start in on bringing ALL American troops home and cutting aid to Israel to ZERO.

Posted by: Georgie at May 21, 2010 01:32 PM (I+7Zv)

444 Oh yay, all this infighting has summoned a troll...

Posted by: unknown jane at May 21, 2010 01:34 PM (5/yRG)

445 I don't see the problem with what he said, at all.

Gabe, you'd prefer he'd be a squish? What's the issue here?

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at May 21, 2010 01:36 PM (bWNr4)

446 What's the issue here?
Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at May 21, 2010 01:36 PM (bWNr4)
Cowardice, most likely. That's the best face that can be put on it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 01:39 PM (5TNVe)

447 Why does that matter? Toyota is a Japanese company. Thyssen-Krupp is
German. Hyundai is Korean. If he could, that little manchild in chief
would put his boot on their throats, too. They're businesses, they make
money and he can't stand the thought of it. That is inherently Un-American.

What the hee haw heck are you talking about? My point was that people don't hate BP because it has the word "British" in it and for that matter, most people don't even know that it has that word in it.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 01:41 PM (fo4Wl)

448 btw, isn't Kentucky a traditional home of the oil and gas industry in the United States? Why is it in any way bad politics for him to defend that industry then...?

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at May 21, 2010 01:41 PM (bWNr4)

449 All of ya'll going on and on with the gay bashing need to get off that because not only is it BS but it isn't the real topic or concern here.

The real topic here is that in two days we have had 5 posts with negative implications (is that mealy mouthed enough) about Rand Paul who is NOT Ron Paul and who has, in fact, distanced himself from his Dad's foreign policy BS. How many of you folks would go out in public and say you disagreed with your father's policy at work?

We saw hits because he went on NPR and Madow as a dumb move. Well that probaly was but didn't we hit on Obama because he refused to go on Fox? There is no mention of all the times that Rand Paul has been on conservative talk shows. We only seem to single out these two shows where he was crucified for actually explaining the real Constitution as opposed to the rubber one that seems to be "settled law" now. Well, Plessy was settled law for a long time as well and that seems to be OK to overturn.

All I ask for is a little bit of that "big tent" that has been advocated so much here in the past. And before any of you say it, I am NOT one of those idiotic Paul-Bots.




Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 01:47 PM (6taRI)

450 Petty, petty, petty. Give it a rest. What Rand Paul said was no big deal. Your squabbling about it is playing right into the hands of the Democrats
Although it might improve his image if he were to get a crew cut or a buzz cut, ya think?

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 01:48 PM (ITzbJ)

451 now I have to support Steele because I support Rand Paul?
I bash on Steele because he hurts the conservative movement, not just by what he says but by what he does.
I am aware that "sophisticated" urban republicans believe that anyone who isn't just like them hurts the Republican Party.
I don't give a shit about the Republican Party.
average Joe Conservative out there in the heartland likes people that think like Rand Paul, the GOP alienates them at their own peril.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 01:59 PM (yCH89)

452 Christy is WAY past the stage of "fat"

Posted by: Georgie at May 21, 2010 02:05 PM (I+7Zv)

453 Le sigh.
Zut alors! The froggish accoutrement is propos.
Quelle horreur. Dis indefatigable enfant terrible.. (comment dit-on, ahmayreecan cowboyee?), iz simply outrageous!
He lacks, how you say, l'esprit de l'escargo that expemplifieszi sophistique statesman la mon hero Obama. You can tell byzi conspicous lack of creasage in ees pantalons and zi lack of cullotes.
Salut, Monsieur Paul.
J'ai dit salut, Monsieur!

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 02:07 PM (IsLT6)

454 Christy is WAY past the stage of "fat"

He's festively plump.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 02:08 PM (fo4Wl)

455 Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 01:47 PM (6taRI)

I think you are misreading the criticism from yesterday, especially Ace's.

It's not that there's just disagreement over tactics but Paul's understanding of the law and even the morality of his position.

You originally termed the posts 'hit jobs'. They aren't, they are serious disagreements about serious things. Is that off limits because the guy has an 'R' after his name?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 02:09 PM (WYB4C)

456 look at Rand Paul's numbers, he crushed the establishment GOP canidate, crushed him!
how many more wake up calls does the Establishment need?
The Left is ALWAYS going to blast any true conservative relentlessly, they hold off on the moderates until October of every other year because they know that they can bully a moderate into caving in to their demands, they blast real conservatives non-stop because they know they can't.
don't join the chorus!

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 02:10 PM (yCH89)

457 It is becoming obvious that Rand is being targeted by the left for the Palin treatment. Don't sell them short, they're good at this. Remember the "Bristol is Trig's mother", the wardrobe fiasco, SNL, the Alaska charges - all the rest. All BS, but they did damage.

The idea is not limited to Kentucky, the goal is to discredit the Tea Party, conservatives and ultimately limit Republican wins.

The attack on the quote about the Civil Rights Amendment was held over until after the Primary. After the Primary. Think about why that might be.

Just as with Palin, they will do damage to the extent that we let it and to the extent Rand feeds it, unwittingly though it may be.

Posted by: Robert at May 21, 2010 02:11 PM (cd6Ip)

458 They aren't, they are serious disagreements about serious things.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 02:09 PM (WYB4C)
This word, "serious". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya at May 21, 2010 02:13 PM (5TNVe)

459 Le sigh. Le sigh. Le sigh.
1) RP says it's un-American to unfairly demonize someone, even an "evil" oil company. You say it's as American as apple pie, because it's "political point-scoring" that we see all the time. Shame on you, to imply that the slimy behavior typical of our politicians defines what is, or is not, "un-American".
2) Shame on you, with your strawman. RP in no way claimed that you don't have the 1st Amendmentright to say un-American things. He obviously would not only agree that the President has the right to say such things, but he would also defend the fact thatthe President has the right to say such things.He didn't claim the President's actions were unconstitutional (and beleive me, he's familiar with the word), he gave his personal opinion that they are "un-American".
3) What RP is alluding to (as you should know) is that the treatment of BP is part of a broader attack on big business in general - something that is obviously fueled by Obama's socialist agenda. Socialism is un-American (actually, I'd go so far as to call it"anti-American"), and so it is wholly appropriate to refer to the President's behavior as such.
4) In your update you conveniently isolate the term "criticism of business", and ignore its context. After the "heel" part, he says "I think that sounds really un-American"... and referred to this, using the context,as an instance of "criticism of business". He did not give any sort of blanket condemnation of criticizing business.
5) Knock yourself out in criticizing this guy, but at least be fair.
6) The exisitance of the Tea Party that has put him where he is was the result of a lot of ordinary Americans who are not usually involved in politics noticing that a LOT is going on that is"un-American", and they've noticedthat amost of that is being pushed through by Obama. Anybody who is shocked or horrified at the notion of Obama doing something "un-American" is so high on HopeAndChange KoolAid that they would never support RP anyway.Withregard toKentucky, in parcticular, one of Obama's next moves is to try to bankrupt the coal industry, which is extremely important to that state's economy.

Posted by: Optimizer at May 21, 2010 02:14 PM (JC+x3)

460 I wouldn't sigh so much. Now, I don't know Rand Paul from a hole in the ground--never seen a picture of the guy, never seen him on TV, never read a thing by him. Nada. Nothing. Bupkus. So I don't have a dog in the hunt vis a vis Rand Paul.

But I think what he is saying is that what the President might, just might be doing is not just attacking a business, but using that criticism to attack the entire idea of business, and in that sense--if this is what is Rand Paul is really trying to say then I think he is right on two counts. The first is that in that sense it is unAmerican--one can criticize the actions of industry without denigrating the idea of industy; and in the second he is probably right that the Chief Executive is actually trying to move in a direction of destroying the credibility of business as a free and independent force.

You know, I'm just going to lay it on the line. The other side is going to win and win permanently if you guys stop refusing to engage in issues because you get so wrapped up in how it effects elections. Unfortunately, the only spokesmen of any prominence or effectiveness you have for conservative-libertarian-classic liberal ideas, the only way you have to reach a larger audience that doesn't listen to Limbaugh on their own, are candidates for office. Shouldn't be that way but here we are. So sometimes we need to recognize it is far far far more important to refute the assumptions and place the ideas out there than any single election contest result. Because as the last 15 years will show, you can win the elections and still be worse off than before.

So let the man talk.

Besides, my understanding is that the other side has been doing quite a bit of calling others "un-American" the last few years. I think they will have a hard time getting the vapors, and seeing the media do the classic doublestandard--hyping Paul's "divisive language", ignoring, say, Pelosi's--is a formula that is not going to work forever. Credibility is not necessarily an endlessly-replenished resource.

Posted by: Horatius at May 21, 2010 02:18 PM (tfJ3W)

461 So, all these "gaffes" are going to make Kentucky voters mad at Rand Paul, is that it? All those diversity uber alles, big govmint-lovin' Kaintucks?
Mmm hmm.I'm quakin' in my boots, that's for sure.

Posted by: J. Moses Browning at May 21, 2010 02:22 PM (9uSk0)

462 This word, "serious". I don't think it means what you think it means.
Heh.
No seriously though, this is serious fuckin business. This 'having acriticalopinion of comrade Obamus Christus' bullshit is uncalled for, unacceptable, extreme racist hatey racism.
This is why we can't have nice things free speech, Birchers.
That is practically tantamount to questioning his patriotism. It's like Rand Paul wants Obama to fail or something.
How unamerican would that be. Sacre bleu, I am le faint.
We must surrender immediately or we'll only make it worse on ourselves.
Let us practice our song, mon amis.
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig, festem Schritt.
Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen,
Marschier'n im Geist in unser'n Reihen mit.
Die Strae frei den braunen Batallionen.
Die Strae frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann!
Es schau'n aufs Hakenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen.
Der Tag fr Freiheit und fr Brot bricht an!

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 02:24 PM (IsLT6)

463 Entropy is so hawt when he talks in that there accent.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 02:25 PM (fo4Wl)

464 Aw, look at the Libertine getting street cred for criticizing another Libertine - ain't that cute?

But I agree that Obama isn't "un-American" for criticizing BP. He's "un-American" because he hates America and everything it stands for and wants to destroy it.

Posted by: Adjoran at May 21, 2010 02:29 PM (3hg5M)

465 Listen to the Paul nutriding. It's like you want to blurt out, "Yes, we can!" When talking about him. Look for the Libertarian label. But you'll need an x-ray machine to see it through a Paultard's head, as it's sewn on the end of. Ron's cock. Not a lick's worth of difference between y'all and the Otards.


Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 21, 2010 02:29 PM (vmba3)

466 No more arguments on the Rand Paul subject from me. I have said my piece and we will have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Vic at May 21, 2010 02:30 PM (6taRI)

467 But I agree that Obama isn't "un-American" for criticizing BP.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 21, 2010 02:29 PM (3hg5M)
But, even in that restricted constext, The Precedentwas un-American in the way he specifically criticized BP. In fact, I would challenge anyone to find one "American" idea that the Indonesian Imbecile has ever expressed. Ever. Though it is nice how likes to preface many of his un-American/anti-Americancomments with "it's not that I want to punish you for ..." LOL.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 21, 2010 02:33 PM (5TNVe)

468 Has anyone ever won a general election by running on a pure Tea Party platform?

I don't mean TP endorsed, or incumbents now seeking TP endorsement.

Not even one of the winners in any of the special federal or state gubernatorial elections since the 2008 November elections has run on a pure Tea Party platform.

Why is that?

Obviously, the TP movement has only been around since the spring of 2009.

I'm pretty sure the ONLY candidate to even RUN in any such election on a pure TP platform, was Doug Hoffman in the NY 23rd.

The msm conventional wisdom was the result there was some sort of rejection of the TP platform. Or confirmation of the Will Rule: all politics is local.

But it wasn't really a fair test. Hoffman didn't compete for the GOP nomination. In fact, the GOP nominee stabbed him in the back over the very weekend before the special election.

All of which seems to make Rand Paul's winning the Kentucky GOP primary pretty darned important.

What is a "pure Tea Party platform" anyway?

Right now it's synonymous with Rand Paul's platform.

What is Rand Paul's platform?

For certain it includes:

1. unrestricted freedom for American ophthamologists;
2. full funding by the federal government of all ophthalmology fees;
3. generally smaller federal government;
4. elimination of federal regulations;
5. elimination of the Federal Reserve system;
6. ending all federal government bank bailouts;
7. elimination of the EPA;
8. elimination of all federal government involvement in education;
9. curtailing the Americans With Disabilities Act down to the power to ask employers to try and place wheelchair-bound employees work space on the ground floor;
10. elimination of personal income taxes;
11. elimination of taxes on corporations;
12. ending all tax payments of any kind out of the state of Kentucky to the federal government;
13. issuing tax credits to address regional pocket poverty;
14. ending all foreign wars;
15. ending all foreign aid assistance; and
16. ending U.S. dues payments to the UN.

Is that a sustainable policy platform?

Only if by "sustainable" it means an end to the federal government.

Why doesn't Rand Paul just say that?

Right now the Democrat party is in third place in voter identification across the nation.

The biggest group is non-voters;
followed by registered independents;
then registered Dems;
then registered Republicans.

You have to figure TP'ers as either a subset of Republicans or in 5th place.

Is the pure TP platform a winning platform?

It's mostly not the GOP platform. We've had seven Republican presidents since the Second World War and not a single one of them has reduced the federal budget, or the federal budget deficit, or the federal debt, or the size of the federal bureaucracy.

Not even one.

Is the pure TP/Rand Paul platform a winning platform in any state?

Over the last 60 years, the state of Kentucky on average has taken in $1.53 in federal assistance, transfer and investment payments for every $1.00 sent out of Kentucky to Washington, D.C.

My take is the only way that Rand Paul can hope to win the Senate seat in Kentucky is by hoping to fool enough voters into believing he's not for total elimination of the federal government.

In other words, that he may talk like a TPer, or a libertarian, or maybe both, but he's actually a Republican.

That means he has to lie.

Libertarianism is very principled.

Lying is unprincipled.

However, lying politicians get an awful lot of face time on the msm.

We're going to see an awful lot of his face over the next 6 months.

Posted by: Dead Kenny at May 21, 2010 02:33 PM (zfRju)

469 So, all these "gaffes" are going to make Kentucky voters mad at Rand Paul, is that it? All those diversity uber alles, big govmint-lovin' Kaintucks?
Mmm hmm.I'm quakin' in my boots, that's for sure.
This. I know a bunch of Kentuckians (my current boss is one) and "gaffes" and "political incorrectness" don't really count for much there...
I disagree with Paul on a number of things, but here's what I know, he's not going to vote to raise taxes, he's not going to be in favor of subsidies, and he's not to engage in the kind of BS "class warfare" so popular in D.C. today. That being the case I can live with his eccentricities and, tbh, he's miles above some of the RHINOs we've got now.

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at May 21, 2010 02:35 PM (bWNr4)

470 Absolutely. I'm talking appearances, not substance. I don't think Rand's remarks were a fatal error, but I tend to think that bandying about the "un-American" charge is a bad idea -- for conservatives -- because it whips up the MSM. The result tends to be that even soft news shows like Good Morning America and the afternoon talk shows pick it up, giving the impression that conservatives are running around calling people un-American. The media gets saturated with "dissent is patriotic" stuff... and I think that tends to sway the folks in the middle towards the side that has been accused of being un-American. So it hurts conservatives to do it.
Pre-cisely.
I speak for no one here but myself, what bothers me is how it plays to the apolitical voters we need to win. Period. The MFM-manufactured rhetorical charges are aimed squarely at them. I object when the guy we need to win gives up a touchdown because it's unnecessarily harder. Unforced errors.
Stupid.
Now in the scheme of things, this is more like a 2-pointer to me, but if it turns into one after another I'm really going to wish the guy would just shut up. Because if he fumbles more,he's Not. Helping.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 21, 2010 02:43 PM (WvXvd)

471 the end of the Federal Government as we know it, is not the end of the Federal Government.
the Federal Government of the past 100 years or so is not even a "federal" government it is a massive, over-bearing, soul-sucking, centralized monster.
morepeople are waking up to that fact everyday.
actually I don't care much for the Paul's but I do like what they have come to represent which is a clean break from the past100 years.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 02:46 PM (yCH89)

472 Good old Rush is using the boot-heel reference about Obuttass. I love my man Rush!

Posted by: Nonparsing parser at May 21, 2010 02:47 PM (gbCNS)

473
Not a lick's worth of difference between y'all and the Otards.
Who are you talking about? Name names, fuckstick or shut the fuck up. All you turds with the general insults: start quoting comments and backing up your shit.

Posted by: Dash Riprock at May 21, 2010 02:48 PM (uFokq)

474 "459
Christy is WAY past the stage of "fat"

He's festively plump.


Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 02:08 PM (fo4Wl)"He's incredibly sexy

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 02:56 PM (p302b)

475 "36
Is the boot-heel on the throat thing a paraphrase or an actual quote of
President Shitbrick's?


Posted by: Waterhouse at May 21, 2010 09:53 AM (u+34p)"Wasn't it one of his funny little snarky mean spirited quips? Like the "they're not getting the keys back" quip which made the republicans sound like teenagers ill equipped to govern and wanting the car anyway?

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 02:58 PM (p302b)

476 I'd rather see Jack Conway win the seat at this point. Yeah, it'll cost
the GOP any chance of control of the chamber, but tough. Republicans,
particularly those in Kentucky, should have thought about that before
drinking the Paulian Kool-Aid

So then you don't want the Healthcare bill repealed? It's more important to teach Kentucky Republicans a lesson?

Posted by: Zuggs at May 21, 2010 03:04 PM (FkKjr)

477 ,he's Not. Helping.
Looking back, helping the hyperventilating hasn't helped so much. Time to try a different approach.
Paul will run the way he will run. You can vote for him or note vote for him, donate or not donate. You can like it or not like it. You can wish he'd shut up, or speak more. Wishing won't make it so. It's not your call. He is who he is, he's been nominated, and he'll run.
You can keep quiet, or you can bitch and moan and kvetch and create wedges and start fights...But I must ask you...
Is that really helpful?

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:05 PM (IsLT6)

478
@452 What the hee haw heck are you talking about? My point was that people
don't hate BP because it has the word "British" in it and for that
matter, most people don't even know that it has that word in it.

And my point is that whether the name has "British" in it is irrelevant.

In post 444, Nick says "Obama's relentless campaign against capitalists, of which BP is just
the current target, is un-American, and if you don't think it is, then
you don't understand what makes America great."

I could not agree more. My listing the other foreign companies with investments in the US was to show that it doesn't matter where the checks are signed--if the company is profitable then the Obama regime has them on the "to do" list.

Again, the business of America is Business. The free enterprise system creates wealth, promotes freedom and gives everyone a chance at the brass ring. "Free enterprise" is a term that makes leftists like Obama sneer in contempt. He does not believe that the means of production should be left in private hands. In fact, the concept of private property is as foreign to him as well.

If anyone thinks that his agenda is Un-American, then you don't understand what Obama is about and you underestimate the threat his agenda poses to our country. He is Un-American, and even a kook like Rand Paul is right in saying so.

It is not a political mistake to tell the truth.

Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 03:06 PM (j2O76)

479 It's depressing to realize how many people would be clambering aboard
with David Duke if he suddenly came back and started talking about
bailouts.

A-MOTHERFUCKING-MEN. I love Sarah Palin, but when she quit, I was like WTF? Endorsing Rand Paul was worse.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 03:07 PM (mHQ7T)

480 Rand Paul is the new Sarah Palin in terms of having his every utterance reviewed in excruciating detail by both the left and the right.

Posted by: exceller at May 21, 2010 03:08 PM (jx2Td)

481 I'd rather see Jack Conway win the seat at this point. Yeah, it'll cost the GOP any chance of control of the chamber, but tough. Republicans, particularly those in Kentucky, should have thought about that before drinking the Paulian Kool-Aid.
Shorter War Between the Undead States:
RACISM!
RACISM!
RACISTS!
OOGA BOOGA DAVID DUKE! KKK! RACISTS!

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:08 PM (IsLT6)

482 I guess only massive beaurocracy and centralized planning of all aspects of our lives is the ONLY way to keep the racists at bay.
yes, it's better to be a slave than a racist.
so say we one, so say we all.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 03:08 PM (yCH89)

483 What the hee haw heck are you talking about? My point was that people don't hate BP because it has the word "British" in it and for that matter, most people don't even know that it has that word in it.
Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 01:41 PM (fo4Wl)
I just hate them for trying to snow us by starting to refer to themselves as "Beyond Petroleum." Oh, yeah, they're so hep with the enviro-lunes. They probably even moved the company to Greenland!

Posted by: Nonparsing parser at May 21, 2010 03:10 PM (gbCNS)

484 Hey whatevs.
I'd rather see a democrat win AZ then John McCain so let's do it.
"Big Tent" is how we shall refer to it, in Orwellian fashion.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:12 PM (IsLT6)

485 if you are free you're free to be racist.
therefor
freedom = racism
that's some sound logic there, let me tell ya.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 03:12 PM (yCH89)

486 He is Un-American, and even a
kook like Rand Paul is right in saying so.

Except in this case, Rand Paul is just covering for Obama. BP is as guilty of corruption as Obama... one paid the bribe, and the other took it. Both of them are un-American, because our coastlines were destroyed by this oil spill, and neither of them did anything to prevent it or clean up afterward.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 03:13 PM (mHQ7T)

487 I'd rather see a democrat win AZ then John McCain so let's do it.

Even though McCain has voted to the right of Hayworth.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 03:14 PM (mHQ7T)

488 I guess only massive beaurocracy and centralized planning of all aspects of our lives is the ONLY way to keep the racists at bay.
You don't want Farmer Jones to come back, do you?!

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:16 PM (IsLT6)

489 Farmer Jones is a RACIST!
burn him!

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 03:19 PM (yCH89)

490 #487 - Yeah, David Duke has better hair.

Posted by: just ruminating here at May 21, 2010 03:21 PM (ITzbJ)

491 Hey, Tattoo, don't give me no crap. That game is up.
If it's kosher toboost a democrat to punish Kentucky for a personal dislike of Rand Paul, it's certainlyallowed for McCain.
Who's show is this anyway? Pauls "not helping" who? Why is it he's to help your strategy rather than vice versa? Rand Paul's harsh rhetoric is not helping. Is this blog post helping?
Helping whom? Who thinks he owns all our asses?

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:21 PM (IsLT6)

492 This whole idiotic (not to mention ironic) post is about how Paul's words are impolitic and bad strategy.
Is this post criticizing our duly elected nominee politic and good strategy? Attack your own? Call your guy a racist in the comments?
What body elected whom now to decide these things for us all?
Ron Paul should shut up? Not say these things? For the politics of it?
Hypocrites, heal theyself.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:30 PM (IsLT6)

493
It is not a
political mistake to tell the truth.


Posted by: GulfCoastTider
at May 21, 2010 03:06 PM (j2O76)

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 03:31 PM (p302b)

494 "Again, the business of America is Business. The free
enterprise system creates wealth, promotes freedom and gives everyone a
chance at the brass ring. "Free enterprise" is a term that makes
leftists like Obama sneer in contempt. He does not believe that the
means of production should be left in private hands. In fact, the
concept of private property is as foreign to him as well.If
anyone thinks that his agenda is Un-American, then you don't understand
what Obama is about and you underestimate the threat his agenda poses to
our country. He is Un-American,
and even a kook like Rand Paul is right in saying so.

Posted by: GulfCoastTider
at May 21, 2010 03:06 PM (j2O76)"

Posted by: curious at May 21, 2010 03:33 PM (p302b)

495 Entropy,
I don't drink but I'd make an exception in your case, because I'd like to have a drink with you.
keep up the good fight brother.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 03:33 PM (yCH89)

496 Is this thread not unlike the "powerless" Tea Party showing its force before the government?I think it's a fair analogy. WillAoSHQ not hear the masses and quit quibbling like the MFM?
So far, not so much.

Posted by: Nonparsing parser at May 21, 2010 03:36 PM (gbCNS)

497 Aren't you supposed to be ending your sentences with 'eh' now?

Not 'til June 18. And that's hurtful.

Who are you talking about? Name names, fuckstick or shut the fuck up.

If the cock fits your manpleaser, then suck it, douchebubble. Do I have to copy and paste the entire fucking thread for you?

The scenario is we have Ron Paul's son, whom NOBODY has ever heard of before, has NEVER held office, and who HAS stepped on his dick wearing golf cleats, TWICE in the last 36 hours.

The point gets brought up that he's a fucking embarrassment like his fuckwit father, and all of a sudden, we're 600 comments long about the true patriotic, rock-ribbed, strict constitutionalist virtues of Rand Paul, whom nobody has fucking heard of previously.*

Comments made by commenters I've never fucking heard of previously. Like you, asshole. And I was about to comment that hey, I used to listed to Dash Rip Rock at bars around LSU in my youth, but you know what? Fuck you.

This happens every time there's a thread about Ron Paul, it seems, as well. A bunch of fucking nobodies crawl out of the woodwork and start making accusations of sucking the liberal cock if you have anything to say that may not only be negative, but fail to be sufficiently worshipful of THE ONE TRUE CONSERVATIVE IN AMERICA - NOW THERE'S TWO!!!!!!!!

Use your fucking scroll wheel, jerkoff. Every comment that fits that bill, that's who I'm talking about.

Now go home and get your fucking shinebox.



*And right now you're probably saying, "Well, I've heard of Rand Paul!" Most Paultards have, you fucking cocksocket. Go find a rusty pile of sharp metal and impale yourself on it.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 21, 2010 03:39 PM (xGIqT)

498 because our coastlines were destroyed by this oil spill, and neither of them did anything to prevent it or clean up afterward.

Bullshit. I live on that coast and the amount of oil that has washed up on the beaches and marshes is tiny. It hasn't "destroyed" anything and even the fishery and marine resources that it's harmed will recover. The Gulf of Mexico recovered from the Ixtoc spill, which is still the largest accidental oil spill in world history. This spill is minute in comparison. Look here for a history of accidents in the Gulf since oil and gas exploration begain in the 1970's. I got maps, pics, facts and figures and all that shit.

Secondly, any private party responsible for a marine oil spill is directed on how to respond by the United States Coast Guard. The CG tells the private party what steps must be taken to contain the spill and has the option of taking over the response if it feels the private party is not doing enough. The regime could have and should have taken control, but failed to do so.

BP deserves fault for failing to maintain equipment and not observing safety protocols. But the Obama regime deserves all the blame for failing to manage the response. This group couldn't manage a grade school lemonade stand.




Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 03:40 PM (j2O76)

499 But, but, but, I think Rand is so cute ..., and I've heard his wife is such a bitch.

Posted by: reading Gabriel's mind at May 21, 2010 03:41 PM (ITzbJ)

500 Here it is in a nutshell comrads...Rand Paul is associated with the Tea Party. The media must find any and every angle to bash the Tea Party and all who have the slightest association of it. I, for one, won't be taking the MFM's bait!
O Hussein Soreto is UN-AMERICAN!

Posted by: Havedash at May 21, 2010 03:42 PM (nzIWk)

501 508, i'm not a paultard, and I've heard of Rand Paul. In fact, I'm pretty sure anybody who watched the news in the last, oh, say, 3 months, has heard of him. He just ran an incredibly successful and widely hailed insurgent campaign to unseat a party backed candidate.

Where have you been living, under a rock?

Also I like that you're trying to sell the fact that he's never held political office as some sort of horrible thing... really? Why? Because the career politicians we have do such a wizz-bang job?

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at May 21, 2010 03:45 PM (bWNr4)

502 problem:
there is an awful lot ofbad stuffgoing on out there, if people weren't "free" todothat bad stuffthere would beno/less bad stuff.
solution:
make law prohibating anything anyone thinks is bad, then hire enough guards to enforce that law, problem solved.

(welcome to the world-wide prison)

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 03:48 PM (yCH89)

503 513, Q.E.D.
And yes, obviously I prefer career politicians to true patriot gentleman farmers like Rand Paul.
Wake the fuck up. Politics is the Paul family business. When Rand wasn't running, he was blowing donors for The One True Conservative in America, Sr.It's strange how what you're HEARING me say is "Jeff doesn't like conservative, principled candidates," because what I'm SAYING is "Fuck Ron Paul and his son, too. They're part of the problem."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 21, 2010 03:55 PM (CpbMn)

504 SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!
I don't want anyone to shut up. I just want them to stop being hypocrites.
You wanna bash Paul on the merits, bash Paul.
Stop hiding behind complaints about how what he said hurts his (and by association,GOP) electability, complaints that, on their face, hurt his (and by association, GOP) electability.
Me thinks you don't really give a rats ass about electability, liars. Especially the guy vowing to support the democrat to teach Kentucky a lesson.
Either that, or your genetic immunity to irony has led you down the path toward imbecility.
Either way get honest with yourself. Stop fucking concern trolling your own blog. Dumbasses.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 03:57 PM (IsLT6)

505 Why don't you try the more honest (and standard) Charles Johnson approach to Rand Paul - racist guilt by association's associations?
Works for CJ.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 04:01 PM (IsLT6)

506 I'm not saying the Paul's are the answer to anything, I'm saying that some of the idea's they give voice to are the answer to some of our biggest problems and since they are the only ones voicing these idea's they temporarily have my support, if better spokesmen for these idea's come along I'd drop the Paul's like a hot potato.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:02 PM (yCH89)

507 If the cock fits your manpleaser, then suck it, douchebubble.
This was a pretty awesome comeback. Nicely done, Empire.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 04:05 PM (IkTb7)

508 If my post today reaches 600 comments, I think that I will scream!!!!

Posted by: reading Gabriel's mind at May 21, 2010 04:06 PM (ITzbJ)

509 the idea's of small, limited government, individual liberty and personal accountability are the idea's I support, any person who seems to truly advocate those same principles gets my support.
the Republicans talk about such things from time to time but never produce them in practice, the current size and scope of the central government is my proof.
the Libertarians have not yet proven to be unreliable implementors of these idea's so they are winning my support.
it's not about personalities it's about principles.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:14 PM (yCH89)

510 Entropy, re: Is that really helpful?
Whom should I be helping here, assuming whatever little I say about the guy gets one-millionth the attention that he's getting right now? The best I can do is explain what the captain meant to say and hope it helps. I can't influence shit, other than apparently to irritate his supporters by pointing out he says things that are careless, that give our opponents a stick to hit us with?
Would it be helpful to, I don't know, you for example if I just left him alone?
Ok.
I generally supported Bush, criticized him when deserved. McCain (not so much on support until he became the candidate). Palin, Mitt, et.al.
I don't get this "hey, when 'our guy' kinda fucks something up, shhhhh'".

Sorry. As mentioned, I think this particular thing is a "not big deal", but it ain't nothin either.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 21, 2010 04:15 PM (WvXvd)

511 Gee, I missed this.
>> Me thinks you don't really give a rats ass about electability, liars
Allow me to revise and extend, kiss my ass way up where it's brown.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 21, 2010 04:19 PM (WvXvd)

512 the Paul's aren't getting their support because of their brillant and polished communication skills (that's Obama's thing) the only thing the Paul's have going for them is the idea's they talk about, are they serious about them? I have no idea if they are or aren't, but I know for certain the Republican leadership isn't.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:22 PM (yCH89)

513 Dave, I think it's one thing to be overly critical of a presidential candidate who's supposed to be everybody's standard bearer, but when it comes to a guy running for congress or senate all I honestly care about is if they're going to vote in line with our interests the majority of the time. I see no reason to believe that Paul won't (and he certainly would more than some of the current Republicans in the Senate... if we can get behind Scott Brown we can get behind Paul imo) and I think that's why, despite his eccentricities, he deserves our support by and large.

Do you have to donate to him? No. But, given the alternative (another rubber stamp for the Obama administration), I see no reason to tear him down.

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at May 21, 2010 04:25 PM (bWNr4)

514 Scott Brown is an excellent case in point, T-Bomb.
Brown is a back-stabbing, marxist-enabler.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:29 PM (yCH89)

515 Allow me to revise and extend, kiss my ass way up where it's brown.

I'll take Dave in Texas for teh win!

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 04:34 PM (X/Lqh)

516 but then Scott Brown is good-looking and hasn't said anything in public that makes us cringe.... or has he, maybe he has but we dropped because he just looks so darn "right".

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:35 PM (yCH89)

517 the best insult wins!
who needslogic and reason.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:38 PM (yCH89)

518 I'll take Dave in Texas for teh win!
Dammit. Empire, don't let me down.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 04:39 PM (IkTb7)

519 Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:38 PM (yCH89)

530+ comments into a Rand Paul thread? Logic and Reason left the building awhile ago and they aren't coming back.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 04:44 PM (X/Lqh)

520 we hate libertarians, especially not good-looking ones, they aren't "us"so we will rip them apart at every opportunity no matter how sound their arguements, no matter how popular theirideas.
AoSHQ - yep, it's a "smart" military blog.

Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:47 PM (yCH89)

521 And my point is that whether the name has "British" in it is irrelevant.

Um, ok.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 04:51 PM (fo4Wl)

522 no matter how sound their arguements,
Posted by: shoey at May 21, 2010 04:47 PM (yCH89)


You want reason and logic? Go reread yesterday's posts about Rand Paul. His arguments about the CRA are not sound tactically, politically, legally or morally.

Other than that....

Don't pretend it's been nothing but name calling. There are some folks who like Paul and some who think the rest should keep quiet for the team. Ok but that's their opinion, not the rule.

Paul hasn't been attacked simply by accusation here (at least not on the front page and not for the most part in the comments either). People are laying out their case. You may not like it or agree but that's not really the point.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 04:51 PM (X/Lqh)

523 I think it's irrelevant.

Posted by: pajama momma at May 21, 2010 04:52 PM (fo4Wl)

524

Gabe, if the above "defense" of ignoring the word "that" in Paul's remarks is the best you can manage, then I think the day goes to your opponents.

Anyway, it was impolitic of Joe Wilson to call BO a liar. That got endless play. And you know what? despite all the media mau-mauing of the impropriety and how BAD Wilson was, the message got through to the American people that BO was in fact a liar.

Even if Paul was just calling BO "unAmerican" without qualifier and personally, I welcome the media replaying that over and over and over because it will seep into the culture in the same way. Joe McCarthy is long, long dead boys, and calling someone unAmerican is hardly without precedent in the modern political era.

Tell me how Wilson is different from Paul? And further tell me why Dems get to call people unAmerican, but this idiot running for Senate in buttfuck Kentucky doesn't.




Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 04:54 PM (UaxA0)

525 #524: Empire of Jeff's smackdown at #508 was so epic that I got nothin' else.
That was true Empire.
But if it's somethin' else you're looking for, why not click over to Jeff's blog and give him some traffic! There's plenty to learn over there. (But first, find a safe way to give yourself a concussion. You'll want to clear your short-term memory after reading about ... )

Posted by: FireHorse at May 21, 2010 04:55 PM (cQyWA)

526

Drew

His arguments about the CRA are not sound tactically, politically,
legally or morally.

Excuse me? You dumb ass. Did you actually believe ace when he said the 13th amendment allows abolition of the "badges" of slavery? Ace was wrong (see Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)), Paul was and is right about the commerce clause, and you couldn't discern the constitution from the extra hole in your ass that your dad left.

I really don't like Paul here at all, but to say he's legally wrong is tantamount to an admission of irredeemable ignorance. Basing the CRA on the Commerce Clause through precedent like Wickard is what got us into virtually this entire mess of overextended and bloated government in the first place.

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:04 PM (UaxA0)

527 Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:04 PM (UaxA0)

First, fuck you.

Second, Ace made the legal argument not me. In fact I disagreed with him in the comments. I was simply listing the grounds on which he had been critiqued using logic and reason. You are free to disagree with the conclusions but don't pretend that his arguments were treated seriously.

Thirdly, fuck you.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 05:07 PM (X/Lqh)

528 Nice three-part response (DrewM., #543). It has a first part, a middle part, and a last part, kind of like a ...
... a chimera, I guess -- y'know, the thing from Greek mythology.

Posted by: FireHorse at May 21, 2010 05:10 PM (cQyWA)

529 Hey s'moron,

You know, you never got around to explaining to me how passing the Stupak Amendment in November forced the Senate to craft it's own health care bill even though they had been working on it all year.

Time machine?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 05:16 PM (X/Lqh)

530

Drew, I didn't have time to respond.

Allow me to retort.

Suck my anus until you turn blue.

Now, as to substance.

I said it gave the Senate cover to pass their version. And it did, IMWO. If there was no Stupack provision in there, the other aspects you mentioned would have received far more attention and would have been stripped to get the bill done with and to teh president. Now, I may be wrong, but after the blowup about the kickback/purchase, I have a hard time believing those would have been there if it wasn't to give Nelson some cover for caving on abortion. With no abortion language in the House bill, he could have justifiably pleaded that he had no control over the final shape of the bill.

Again, speculation, but your assertion that the extra three months of attention to the bill were worthless is even worse. Not to mention completely unaddressed by you.

Do you really think the delay caused by Stupak's amendment worked to the GOP's DISADVANTAGE, especially this coming November?

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:23 PM (UaxA0)

531 Oh sweet Jesus. When a man can't state an obvious truth without his own side getting up in arms we are well and truly screwed. The Democrats say stupid shit 24/7 and no one gives a damn because they aren't a bunch of wincing nancies when it comes to stating their philosophy. They don't apologize for what they believe.

Indeed, Gabe totally overlooks the fact that the Idiot Who Would Be King said he would put his boot on the throat of a private company. That would have made an excellent topic for a post... but alas, nary a word is said in protest. Instead we worry someone came to the defense of BP. Oh, the humanity!

I like Gabe but this is just an LGF level of crazy talk.

Posted by: Dirka Dirka the First at May 21, 2010 05:25 PM (sfNbl)

532 @541

Because earlier Rand Paul was just running against Republicans. Now that he's won the primary and is running against a Democrat, the knifes have to come out.

How else can a good Republican Wet ruefully shake his head, sigh, and vote Blue once again?

Posted by: Peter Paul and Mary - 1/3 Libertarian at May 21, 2010 05:37 PM (m1Chw)

533 I still haven't seen anyone make a case (any case at all) that speaking the truth is a mistake. Obama's policies and agenda regarding business in this country are Un-American. Is that not true? And if it is true, why is saying so seen as a tactical or strategic error?

Posted by: GulfCoastTider at May 21, 2010 05:42 PM (j2O76)

534 "If it's kosher toboost a democrat to punish Kentucky for a personal
dislike of Rand Paul, it's certainlyallowed for McCain."

I'm certainly not boosting the Democrat, but I'm not giving myself a lobotomy so I can endorse Rand Paul's batshit crazy positions, either. I hope Kentucky finds a better candidate next time around.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 21, 2010 05:43 PM (mHQ7T)

535 Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:23 PM (UaxA0)

You have a keen grasp of shit you just make up. Reality? Not so much.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 05:46 PM (X/Lqh)

536

Ok, Drew, your turn to answer:

Did the delay caused by Stupak help or hurt Republican electoral chances in November?

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:50 PM (UaxA0)

537 I think I'll make me a donation.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 05:51 PM (eL+YD)

538

and for my part drew, I will even admit that Stupak's amendment did not have the effect of scrapping the entire bill like I had hoped for. Stupak's cravenness amazed even me.

Still, putting your enemies on dangerous ground is almost always a good idea, as a general tactical matter (witness, Rand Paul).


Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:55 PM (UaxA0)

539

from teh sidebar, the DC Cop angle to teh SEIU terrorism is appalling!

Make a thread on that, Drew! At least there can be no Rand Paul issues on it. . .

Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 05:58 PM (UaxA0)

540 Did the delay caused by Stupak help or hurt Republican electoral chances
in November?

I don't accept the premise that Stupak created a delay.

If the House had passed a bill w/out Stupak, the Senate would have passed their bill any way. That's the point of my time line. The Senate was going to do their thing regardless of what the House bill had in it.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 06:04 PM (X/Lqh)

541

I don't accept the premise that Stupak created a delay.

Funny.

YOu wrote yesterday that Stupak caused three months of wasted time.

Convenient of you to ignore your own writings.


Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 06:07 PM (UaxA0)

542 Rand Paul's batshit crazy positions
abortion - I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
immigration - I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws.
GITMO - I believe we try the terrorists captured on the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO. I do not believe in trying them in civilian court.
McCain-Feingold - This dangerous piece of legislation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
health care - As a doctor I have had first-hand experience with the vast problems facing health care in America. Like other areas of the economy where the federal government wields its heavy hand, health care is over-regulated and in need of serious market reforms. As Senator, I would ensure that real free market principles are applied to fix this problem.
debt - With our national debt over 12 trillion dollars, the deficit spending by Washington DC continues to mortgage fruits of our future labor to fund federal programs we dont need and cannot afford. Rand Paul would fight to balance the budget and dramatically reduce spending, before further interest on our debt requires government to reach deeper into our pockets and into our childrens piggy bank.
energy independance - If we leave our energy policy to the special interests in Washington, we will never solve our energy problems. Our energy crisis stems from too much government intervention. The solution requires allowing businesses and ideas to compete.
Term limits - Long term incumbency leads to politicians who seem to care more about what is best for their career than what is best for their country.
UN - I believe that the United States should withdraw from and stop funding altogether those U.N. programs that undermine legitimate American interests and harm the cause of freedom around the world. For example, some of the countries on the U.N. Human Rights Council, like Angola, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, have appalling human rights records. The United States participation in the UNHRC gives that organization moral clout that the UNHCR does not deserve.
Since all those opinions are my opinions, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree.
Those opinions are conservative and libertine. McCain's opinions, especially as regards terrorist's rights and Gitmo, are batshit crazy. Your opinions - since they're apparently different - are presumably batshit crazy.
Rubber, glue, et cetera et alia.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 06:08 PM (eL+YD)

543 Still, putting your enemies on dangerous ground is almost always a good
idea, as a general tactical matter

Here we agree.

Now imagine if Mr. Life Bart Stupak and the rest of his gang, had been on record for 4 months as having voted for a health care bill without any protection for life. How much pressure could have been brought against them not to do it again on final passage?

I would rather have had that time to beat him and his gang over the head in their districts before the final vote, not after it. I wanted to change votes, not punish them after they had done the damage.

So why didn't the GOP put our 'enemies on dangerous ground' for 4 months! leading up to the vote? It was a wasted opportunity.


Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 06:13 PM (X/Lqh)

544 YOu wrote yesterday that Stupak caused three months of wasted time.

You have a link for that? Bet you don't since I never said it.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 06:21 PM (X/Lqh)

545

So why didn't the GOP put our 'enemies
on dangerous ground' for 4 months! leading up to the vote?

That's exactly what putting Stupak in there did. Made it dangerous for "pro-life" democrats in both houses to say that the Senate's bill was good enough (assuming the Nelson language would be in there at all, as I recall that came late in teh game but I'm not sure) because Stupak's amendment was undeniably "better."

Look, I believe, upon reasoned reflection, that teh Stupak amendment did both of these things:

1. it made the house bill unworkable in the senate. period.

2. it made the senate debate about abortion instead of sweeping the abortion issue under the rug with some miquetoast amendment like nelson got. That's what the senate did, but it merely exacerbated the problem instead of quelling it.

Both of these things were good policy fights, but more importantly they delayed the bill. There would have been less of a delay without Stupak's amendment (and less public outrage without the subsequent public bribery and capitulation of the House "pro life democrat" wing). If the GOP didn't join in that, the bill would have gone through much more smoothly, in less time, and would have generated less outrage.

Now, I'm not claiming to have foreseen all of that, but I did foresee Stupak making the votes in both houses a lot more difficult and gumming up the wheels.





Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 06:26 PM (UaxA0)

546 I do think it's imperative we discuss who is and isn't helping. For the sake of strategery.
http://tinyurl.com/24ctona
Huh.
http://tinyurl.com/26pqtnp
Odd contrast...

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 06:28 PM (eL+YD)

547

"giving him a pass for 3 months"

I'll admit that I misread that.

OK, so we disagree whether Stupak caused a delay. I think I have the better of that argument, especially at the end, and especially as it pertains to public awareness and opposition to teh bill.


Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 06:32 PM (UaxA0)

548 1. it made the house bill unworkable in the senate. period.

The Senate was never going to pass the House bill as it was with or without the Stupak amendment. You can say or think otherwise but you are simply wrong.
2. it made the senate debate about abortion instead of sweeping the
abortion issue under the rug with some miquetoast amendment like nelson
got. That's what the senate did, but it merely exacerbated the problem
instead of quelling it

Why is that a victory? The fight over health care was over, um, health care not abortion. With all the talk about abortion the Senate bill got all the Democrats to vote yes with no meaningful abortion restrictions.

If Stupak had not been in the House bill, the Senate bill would have, um, gotten all the Democrats, with no meaningful restrictions on abortion in it.

So the difference is.....

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 06:34 PM (X/Lqh)

549 I'll admit that I misread that.

Not a problem.

Thank you. You'd be surprised how many people don't have the decency to do that.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 06:36 PM (X/Lqh)

550
If Stupak had not been in the House bill, the Senate bill would have,
um, gotten all the Democrats, with no meaningful restrictions on
abortion in it.

So the difference is.....


Probably 2 months.



Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 06:54 PM (UaxA0)

551 Posted by: s'moron at May 21, 2010 06:54 PM (UaxA0)


Here's the thing...we know your/the GOP strategy didn't work. There's evidence for that.

Seems to me, though mine is untested (and always will be) it can't possibly be any worse than what you wanted and got.

Knowing what we know now, we clearly should have done something different, right?

I don't see on what basis you claim your strategy is so superior to mine. Yours is a proven loser.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 21, 2010 07:19 PM (X/Lqh)

552 Gee, how many of you forgot Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid calling Tea Party protesters "un-american"?

If they can do it, WE can do it.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at May 21, 2010 07:24 PM (EcHeu)

553 "Yay! Rand Paul every day on AoS!
Those god dammned big mouthed Libertarians saying what they think.
Why can't he be a goodexperienced Republican like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, or Olympia Snowe?"

Or the rest of the supposed 'Conservative' stalwarts who've adopted doublespeak. Political demagoguery against private enterprises and citizens is un-American.

At least it was, initially.

Posted by: MlR at May 21, 2010 07:34 PM (v18zq)

554 Well, actually, I guess that one of the major the problems with 'conservatives' isn't it?

Given time they fall in in line and defend the past socialist/leftist/progressive abomination over the new one - rather than checking their premises to begin with.

Posted by: MlR at May 21, 2010 07:36 PM (v18zq)

555 Gee, how many of you forgot Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid calling Tea Party protesters "un-american"? If they can do it, WE can do it.
Idiot. Two wrongs don't make a right. We railed against them for using that slur. For consistencies sake, if nothing else, we should avoid it ourselves. Particularly in this instance when it wasn't even necessary to Paul's point. He was totally on track, except for those magic words guaranteed to make him a national bugaboo "un-American." Stupid, amateur mistake. With a thousand things to attack Obama on, he picked one that loses us more than it gains us.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at May 21, 2010 07:40 PM (IkTb7)

556 Two wrongs don't make a right. We railed against them for using that slur. For consistencies sake, if nothing else, we should avoid it ourselves.
They got it from us in the first place, Malor.
The Iraq war and the Questionings of the Patriotisms.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but the truth is the best defense.

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 07:51 PM (eL+YD)

557 http://tinyurl.com/c3j2ph
Here we are, months later, and hindsight is 20/20.
Oh woe is us, alas and alack, respite and nepenthe. We should have listened to the squishes.
Rush Limbaugh is living in a van down by the river, eating catfood and publishing a neo-confederatewebzine with 13 subscribers, and the country has rallied around Obama in a historically unprecedented fashion, sending his approval ratings into the tripple digits.
They tried to warn us, again and again and again. We cannot fault them. They screamed and stomped and held their breath, they denounced and disassociated. There were blog fights and mean words and burned bridges. But we ignored tehm anyway, and now look were we are.
What has our stubborn insistence on defending such divisive and vitriolic rhetoric wrought us?

Posted by: Entropy at May 21, 2010 08:00 PM (eL+YD)

558 He's right, Gabe. And I'd be willing to bet millions of Americans feel the same way. It is un-American for this POTUS to be such a fucking blow-hard.

Posted by: UnicornsSuck at May 21, 2010 10:29 PM (dAyzh)

559 Rand objected to the use of "bootheel on the throat" by Obama in Obama's criticism of business.

Rand did not object to Obama criticizing business.

Epic fail, Gabe.

Posted by: eman at May 21, 2010 10:31 PM (hVdJG)

560 after reading this post and the GOP attacks on Rand Paul for the last two days the GOP deserve to lose. The media is doing the same thing to Rand Paul has they did to Palin and the usally suspects are cheering them and helping them on.


Grow a freaking pair of balls. we are adults you know not children.

Obama is as unamerican has any president that this country has every had. He caresa nothing about the consitution. He does whatever he wants. He is a tin pot dictator and until the GOP establishment startssaying this loud and clear over and over again there will be many more Pa12 and Ny 23

you fucking idiots I am pretty conservative but I will have to think long and hard to vote for Burr come Nov. I do not want another wuzz in DC. I would rather have a strong loud commited minority in DC then a bunch of no belief browns

Posted by: unseen at May 22, 2010 01:06 AM (aVGmX)

561 I reiterate; Gabriel has the most rational irrational positions that I've ever read here.

Posted by: Gabriel's Psychiatrist at May 22, 2010 02:59 AM (ITzbJ)

562 blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada

Posted by: Now, stay with me here. The best is yet to come. at May 22, 2010 03:02 AM (ITzbJ)

563 blah, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, yada!!!!!

Posted by: It gets better. Trust me at May 22, 2010 03:06 AM (ITzbJ)

564 blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada

Posted by: We're going into competition with the Overnight Thread at May 22, 2010 03:09 AM (ITzbJ)

565 blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada, and furthermore, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada

Posted by: Ya gotta admit; this is a helluvalot more riveting than the OT .... at May 22, 2010 03:13 AM (ITzbJ)

566 Now, wasn't that worth the wait?

Posted by: ...., and besides, here you don't have to cope with Maet's chickenshit behavior at May 22, 2010 03:24 AM (ITzbJ)

567 Now, a word about Rand Paul .....

Posted by: Your OT Alternative at May 22, 2010 03:30 AM (ITzbJ)

568 I absolutely LOVE that Rand is coming to the defense of BP whose misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance was the direct cause of this disaster. BP is very clearly the bad guy here and Paul comes to their aid. Is he being paid off by the Democrats to lose this election, because he's sure working hard at it. This nutball is hilarious.
Oh and the president should never criticize a business. Never. How un-American! LMAO

Posted by: Sally Ann Cavanaugh at May 22, 2010 09:27 AM (FRErk)

Posted by: soo at May 23, 2010 02:44 AM (WFYoY)

570
Protein Table
Eat Healthier Foods
Supplements
Fitness
Vagetable Table
Fruit Table
Vitamin Table
FAQ about Foods
Recipes
Quick Tips
Costsaving Tips
Foods

Posted by: Frank at May 27, 2010 09:49 AM (OJ1WO)

571
altin cilek -altincilek -altin cilek hapi -altin cilek zayiflama -altin cilek zayiflama hapi -altincilek hapi -altin cilek hapi kullanimi -altin cilek yorumlar - altincilek yorumlar - altin cilek hapi yorumlar - altin cilek satis - altincilek satis -altin cilek hapi satis -altin cilek satin al -altincilek satin al -altin cilek hapi satin al

lw6090 - lw 6090 - lw 60 90 -lw906090 - lw6090 yorumlar - lw6090 kullanimi -lw6090 satis -lw6090 satin al -lw6090 resmi satis -lw6090 kullanici yorumlari -lw 6090 yorumlar -lw 6090 kullanimi -lw 6090 satis -lw 6090 satin al -lw 6090 resmi satis -lw 6090 kullanici yorumlari -lw 60 90 yorumlar -lw 60 90 kullanimi -lw 60 90 satis -lw 60 90 satin al -lw 60 90 resmi satis -lw 60 90 kullanici yorumlari -orjinal lw6090 -orjinal lw 60 90

maurers - maurers zayiflama - maurers zayiflama hapi - maurers yorumlar -maurers zayiflama yorumlar -maurers zayiflama hapi yorumlar -maurers kullanimi - maurers zayiflama kullanimi - maurers zayiflama hapi kullanimi - maurers resmi satis - maurers zayiflama resmi satis - maurers zayiflama hapi resmi satis - orjinal maurers

yuda - yuda pilatory - yuda sac cikarici - yuda sac -yuda sac dokulmesi - yudali - yudali sac cikarici - yuda yorumlar -yuda pilatory yorumlar -yuda sac cikarici yorumlar - yuda kullanimi - yuda pilatory kullanimi - yuda sac cikarici kullanimi - yuda satis - yuda pilatory satis - yuda sac cikarici satis

altin cilek - altincilek - altin cilek hapi - altin cilek zayiflama - altin cilek zayiflama hapi - altincilek hapi - altin cilek hapi kullanimi - altin cilek yorumlar - altincilek yorumlar -altin cilek hapi yorumlar -altin cilek satis - altincilek satis - altin cilek hapi satis - altin cilek satin al -altincilek satin al -altin cilek hapi satin al

radian - radian kremi -radian masaj kremi -radian agri kremi -radian massage krem - radian yorumlar -radian kremi yorumlar -radian masaj kremi yorumlar - radian agri kremi yorumlar -radian massage krem yorumlar -radian kullanimi - radian kremi kullanimi - radian masaj kremi kullanimi - radian agri kremi kullanimi - radian massage krem kullanimi - radian satis - radian kremi satis - radian masaj kremi satis - radian agri kremi satis - radian massage krem satis - orjinal radian - orjinal radian kremi -orjinal radian masaj kremi -orjinal radian agri kremi -orjinal radian massage krem

fx15 -fx 15 - fx15 zayiflama - fx15 zayiflama hapi - fx15 yorumlar -fx 15 yorumlar - fx15 zayiflama yorumlar - fx15 zayiflama hapi yorumlar - fx15 kullanimi - fx 15 kullanimi - fx15 zayiflama kullanimi - fx15 zayiflama hapi kullanimi - orjinal fx15 -orjinal fx 15 -orjinal fx15 zayiflama - orjinal fx15 zayiflama hapi

renuee - renuee eternelle - renuee catlak kremi -renuee eternelle catlak giderici krem - renuee catlak giderici krem -renuee yorumlar -renuee eternelle yorumlar - renuee catlak kremi yorumlar -renuee eternelle catlak giderici krem yorumlar - renuee catlak giderici krem yorumlar -renuee kullanimi - renuee eternelle kullanimi - renuee catlak kremi kullanimi - renuee eternelle catlak giderici krem kullanimi - renuee catlak giderici krem kullanimi

red pepper gel -redpepper gel -redpeper gel -red peper gel - biber jeli -kirmizi biber jeli -red pepper gel -red pepper gel yorumlar -redpepper gel yorumlar - redpeper gel yorumlar -red peper gel yorumlar - biber jeli yorumlar - kirmizi biber jeli yorumlar -red pepper gel yorumlar -red pepper gel kullanimi - redpepper gel kullanimi - redpeper gel kullanimi - red peper gel kullanimi - biber jeli kullanimi - kirmizi biber jeli kullanimi - red pepper gel kullanimi

pepper time - biber hapi - peper time - biber zamani - meksika biber hapi - orjinal pepper time -orjinal biber hapi - orjinal peper time -orjinal biber zamani - orjinal meksika biber hapi - pepper time yorumlar - biber hapi yorumlar - peper time yorumlar - biber zamani yorumlar -meksika biber hapi yorumlar -pepper time kullanimi - biber hapi kullanimi - peper time kullanimi - biber zamani kullanimi - meksika biber hapi kullanimi

Posted by: marcalow at June 12, 2010 04:28 AM (DrFF7)

572 hard to find louis vuitton wallet wallets here have beautiful louis vuitton luggage to global travel buy brands louis vuitton handbags save 65% off here as a luxury luxury handbags consumable good quality lv bags online remains one of louis vuitton bags the worldCentury London, louis vuitton handbags and affinity louis vuitton bags A special tattoo modelsHot Goods: louis vuitton buy limited Louis Vuitton louis vuitton shoes fashion shoesluxury louis vuitton bags for sale louis vuitton bags louis vuitton luxuryhave large numbers of louis vuitton shoes discount louis vuitton bag louis vuitton handbag for discount discount louis vuitton louis vuitton discountour LV area's top brands to provide lv handbags detailed Louis Vuitton

Posted by: chanel at October 26, 2010 11:20 PM (40+Wc)

573 led stage light led stage lights led stage lighting stage lighting equipment moving head lights led par light

Posted by: led stage light at June 06, 2011 11:01 AM (3YCBL)

574 Juicy Couture Bag and Juicy Couture Tracksuit Scottie Bling Daydreamer Black is stylish and contemporary in cheap Juicy Couture Bags new arrivals. The cheap shop juicy couture online are an outgrowth of a fashion trend highlighted in female friends.

Posted by: LISA at July 02, 2011 03:01 AM (ymE3k)






Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.6915 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.6109 seconds, 583 records returned.
Page size 357 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat