Rand Paul and the Washington "Machine"

The Fix (WashPo politics blog) ^ | April 7, 2010 | Chris Cillizza

[Christian_Capitalist]

Candidates from across the country are running against Washington these days but none so aggressively -- or effectively -- as ophthalmologist Rand Paul.

Paul's latest anti-Washington volley comes in the form of an ad portraying the nation's capitol as a multi-armed monster seeking to consume private industry. (The cartoon image resembles nothing more than Doctor Octopus -- "Doc Ock" -- from the "Spiderman" series. And, yes, we are aware of how dorky making that comparison is.)

"Big government is extending its grasp, scooping up Wall Street banks and business....our health care," says the ad's narrator.

Anger directed at the federal government at the moment is at historic levels, according to a February poll...

The strong anti-Washington strain in Paul's campaign message -- coupled with the support he has drawn from the Tea Party crowd -- make his primary race against Grayson one that could have significant echoes in the political world moving forward.

A Paul win would function as a direct repudiation of Republican leadership in Washington -- Grayson is seen as the handpicked choice of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell although McConnell hasn't formally endorsed in the contest -- and would quantify just how much power the anti-Washington/Tea Party/Libertarian wing of the party carries.

(Full blog-post at link)

[Christian_Capitalist]

"I am proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul....
Because he’s a federalist and he wants the states to have more say --
and as we respect the 10th Amendment in our Constitution,
he wants the states to have more say in a lot of these issues." ~~ Governor Sarah Palin.

Rand Paul is endorsed by:

• Sarah Palin
• Steve Forbes
• Dick Armey
• Gun Owners of America
• Concerned Women for America

[Drill Thrawl]

While I’d like the RINOs to be gone, I don’t want them replaced by a truther.

[Christian_Capitalist]

While I’d like the RINOs to be gone, I don’t want them replaced by a truther.

Well, don't worry -- anyone who thinks that the Pauls are "truthers" is just a slack-jawed drooling idiot. I'm sure that you're not an idiot.

"Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer and I are asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism -- only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves." -- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

So, let me ask you to agree with one of the following statements:

• I agree with Ron Paul, that "only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves".

  OR...

• I disagree with Ron Paul, and do "place moral responsibility for terrorism on someone other than the terrorists themselves".

Well, which is it?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

How can anybody trust libertarians when their favorite
“son” loads up legislation that he knows will pass and
gives the pork while giggling “I voted against it.”?

***

Shrimp boats Is Acomin
Their Sails are in sight.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
there will be dancing tonight.

** Ron Paul version.

Shrimp Boats is acomin
Their pork is in sight.
Shrimp Boats is acomin
They will be drugged up tonight.

[Drill Thrawl]

I am frequently amazed at the number of FReepers who conduct personal attacks when they see an opinion they don't like. This seems especially prevalent among people who like the Pauls.

And you claim to be a Christian.

[Christian_Capitalist]

The fact that you can only carp about "earmarks"....
Which constitute less than 1% of the Federal Budget, and don't increase the Budget (being allocations of money already appropriated for expenditure)...

Proves just how hollow and cynical your opposition to Ron Paul really is.

The fact is, you don't have any good ammunition against his Fiscal Conservatism -- your hatred for Paul is based on other reasons, but you scream "earmarks" as a screen for your true disagreements with him.

How very cowardly... and easy to see through.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Ron Paul isn’t the topic, it’s Rand Paul.

[Christian_Capitalist]

I am frequently amazed at the number of FReepers who conduct personal attacks when they see an opinion they don't like. This seems especially prevalent among people who like the Pauls. And you claim to be a Christian.

Hey, I didn't say that you were an idiot. I said I'm sure that you're NOT.

Gee, let's find out. Answer this question:
With which of the following statements do you agree?

• I agree with Ron Paul, that "only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves".

  OR...

• I disagree with Ron Paul, and do "place moral responsibility for terrorism on someone other than the terrorists themselves".

Well, which is it?

If you wanna accuse me of personal attacks, why don't you take a position on the question I asked you FIRST, so I know what your position is?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I was replying to the person who referenced Ron Paul!

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Neither Ron or Rand Paul are Truthers
Interviews given to Alex Jones are just that, interviews. In no way does it endorses Jones' point of view.

[Christian_Capitalist]

In response to a duplicitous "truther" reference.

But, hey, let's test your objectivity and even-handedness. Here's a Ron Paul quote for you:

"Obviously the onus of blame rests with those who perpetrate acts of terror, regardless of their motivation. The question Scheuer and I are asking is not who is morally responsible for terrorism -- only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves." -- Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto

So, let me ask you to agree with one of the following statements:

• I agree with Ron Paul, that "only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves".

  OR...

• I disagree with Ron Paul, and do "place moral responsibility for terrorism on someone other than the terrorists themselves".

Well, which is it? Will you be honest enough to answer this question, one way or the other? I guess we'll find out.

[Drill Thrawl]

A false choice by a false Christian.

So, I must agree or disagree with ONE statement by a crank in order to "prove" whether or not I'm an idiot. This is no different than asking a man "Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife

Additionally since I called Rand Paul a truther your statement "...anyone who thinks that the Pauls are "truthers" is just a slack-jawed drooling idiot.." is in fact a personal attack.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Additionally since I called Rand Paul a truther your statement "...anyone who thinks that the Pauls are "truthers" is just a slack-jawed drooling idiot.." is in fact a personal attack.

But, you had not, in fact, called either Ron or Rand Paul a "truther" in your post.

Hey, I didn't say that you were an idiot. I said I'm sure that you're NOT.

Gee, let's find out. Answer this question:
With which of the following statements do you agree?

• I agree with Ron Paul, that "only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves".

  OR...

• I disagree with Ron Paul, and do "place moral responsibility for terrorism on someone other than the terrorists themselves".

Well, which is it?

If you wanna accuse me of personal attacks, why don't you take a position on the question I asked you FIRST, so I know what your position is?

Will you be honest enough to answer that simple question?
I guess we'll find out.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Nice strawman masquerading as a false dilemma.

You provide no proof that the the Pauls are Truthers; hence your complaining about the personal attack, which was general and wasn't directed at you by the way.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Drill Thrawl just doesn't want to admit his agreement with Ron Paul's statement that "only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves".

Because in doing so, he'd have to admit that;

1.) Ron Paul is Right

2.) Ron Paul is NOT a Truther.

If Ron Paul's opponents wants to keep calling Ron Paul a "truther" when they know full well that Ron Paul is not, I wonder what that says about their commitment to Christian Honesty? Hmm.....

[Christian_Capitalist]

Sorry, Drill Thrawl -- Courtesy ping to #15.

I cordially await your answer to the question I have posed, regarding your agreement or disagreement with Ron Paul's statement that "only a fool would place moral responsibility for terrorism on anyone other than the terrorists themselves", at any time.

Cordially, and with rising amusement at your situation.

[Christian_Capitalist]

"Folks, let's beat Rand Paul and make Trey Grayson our next Republican senator."
"I'm Billy Jeff "BJ" Clinton, and I approve this candidate!"

[UCFRoadWarrior]

I think the real problem some have with Paul is not really the “Truther” argument (the Paul’s never have been Truthers)....the real reason is that the Paul’s have been against organizations like the WTO....which surrenders US soverignty to foreign entities.

I think a lot of the whining about Ron and Rand comes from the Soros-fueled Liberal Globalist crowd....gosh, if they are so against Rand Paul in KY.....are they supporting the Liberal Democrat Greyson?

Surprised that Dick Armey is supporting Paul....now he is one I would have thought would heavily support Greyson

[Christian_Capitalist]

Surprised that Dick Armey is supporting Paul....now he is one I would have thought would heavily support Greyson

I've thought Armey to be a bit "iffy" on some matters, but in this endorsement I think he's just hearkening back to his Fiscal Conservative roots. There's been a lot of support for Rand Paul from a number of strong Fiscal Conservatives, who might otherwise disagree with eachother on various non-budgetary issues.