Skip to main content

View Diary: Rand Paul: "The Most Liberal Politician In America" (289 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The intellectual dishonesty of this diarist (4+ / 0-)

    is stunning.

    •  How so? (2+ / 0-)

      Explain.

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Sat Dec 07, 2013 at 10:30:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It possible that it in reference to ... (9+ / 0-)

        this comment, which is the parent to that comment:

        Repetition of a claim in reply to ...
        ... a comment which quotes the text that debunks it?

        Claim:

        a paragon of Progressivism in his staunch loyalty to none other than Rand Paul
        Falsification of "staunch loyalty:
        On a lot of issues, Rand Paul’s stances are contemptible.

        Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

        by BruceMcF on Sat Dec 07, 2013 at 11:19:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here, let me take a stab at that. (13+ / 0-)

        Of course, I'm not addressing this response to you, since you've made it clear (twice) that you're ignoring me, but I'll offer this to anyone else who may be interested in a discussion of "intellectual dishonesty."

        On the one hand, we've got Rall, who, while recognizing the validity of Paul's stance on government domestic spying and on government promotion of the MIC, flat out condemns other positions of Paul as "contemptible." Paul's racist support of "states rights" and Paul's blind loyalty to Netanyahu, among other things, "contemptible."

        Despite Rall's clear, unequivocal denunciation of some of Paul's right wing positions, you condemn him as "staunchly loyal" to Paul.

        On the other hand, let's look at Obama's self-proclaimed supporters. While they may pay lip service to their disagreements with some of his positions, the harshest criticism they can muster is "wrong" or "counter-productive" or "not progressive."

        Think about that. Our president has vastly expanded an unwinnable, morally indefensible war in Afghanistan and is currently negotiating to keep thousands of uniformed "trainers" and non-uniformed mercs there for at least ten years after the announced "departure" date. He is waging a drone war in countries with whom we're not at war, causing untold "collateral damage" to innocent civilians every week, and creating more terrorists than we can hope to eliminate. He has taken Bush's national security state and put it on steroids, and persecutes and prosecutes those who attempt to shed light on this. He's currently attempting to force through the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, which, among many documented horrors, will make it more difficult for third world countries to obtain life saving pharmaceuticals at affordable prices.

        Among Obama supporters who agree with my characterization of these policies, the best they can muster is "wrong" or "counter-productive" or "not progressive"?

        I submit it is intellectually dishonest to deride Rall as "staunchly loyal" to Paul, despite his clear condemnation of many of his positions, while at the same time refusing to call out Obama's supporters for their tepid, tip toe, lip service disapproval of some of the president's most contemptible policies.

        This diary (oh you who are ignoring me) is intellectually dishonest partisan hackery.

        In 2006 Obama explicitly and definitively ruled out a 2008 run for president and declared he would remain in the senate until his term expired in 2010. Can we please stop the "Warren won't run" bullshit?

        by WisePiper on Sun Dec 08, 2013 at 12:04:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  In the article you reference in the diary (3+ / 0-)

        Ted Rall explicitly condemns many of Paul's positions, including those which are explicitly and implicitly racist. Yet nowhere in the diary do you mention this, and you do not provide a link to the article so people can see this for themselves. This is intellectually dishonest.

        And by the way, this is coming from someone who is not a particular fan of Rall, and who thought that his recent drawings of Obama were pretty racist. But the fact remains that you are intentionally misrepresenting Rall's stance on Paul.

    •  AWD, the only "intellectual dishonesty" here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive, tytalus

      is your own unsubstantiated claim.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site