[Graewoulf]

The topic of my comments were the low quality of journalistic integrity in the article written by Mr. Dan Greenfield.

No other people were mentioned by name.

This article will appeal to the low information voter, but really belongs in File 13.

IOW, this is a spin-piece, smokescreen, distraction-stemwinder that the low information voter will quickly skim and see only what he/she wants to see.

The Liberal Agenda Media, LAM, will choose this article, and then ask their Liberal guest this leading question: “Last week Dan Greenfield made some interesting points in his article - - - Oh, you read it? Good! What do you think about the points that he made?”

And so it goes - - - .

______________

I await your comments on the comments that I have made on THIS thread, and THEN we can chat about the kitchen sink.

[SoConPubbie]

I await your comments on the comments that I have made on THIS thread, and THEN we can chat about the kitchen sink.

I'm sure your observations concerning the author are correct. I've never seen a post of yours that I disagreed with.

That being said, this is a thread about Rand Paul, and their are many pushing him like he's a Conservative and would be a good Presidential candidate.

He's only partially a conservative, and more like a closet libertarian, or his dad with just better messaging.

He would be a less than stellar nominee for 2016, but better than that turd Mitt Romney.