I don't think RowCoach knows what "grift" means

I think the most compelling argument for what L.Ron, and by extension the Paul Family Business/Long Con, really are... is Christian Dominionism, of the Rushdoony kind.

The hypothesis fits like a glove, in every way imaginable. Also... L.Ron knew Rushdoony personally, and Rushdoony's son-in-law was L.Ron's chief-of-staff back in the day.

What's that, a Paul did well in a poll?

Never seen that before!

Like, Rand Paul writing fundraising letters to bumpkins saying that he needs their money to stop the UN from taking their guns is not the same as Clinton hosting a fundraiser for whatever organization. The Clintons' aren't conning their marks. The Pauls' are.

And, again, that's the charitable view. The less charitable view is that Rand Paul believes the **** he writes in fundraising letters, in which case he is an insane racist moron. Just like his Daddy.

Right, grift implies a certain lack of awareness on the part of the mark. I don't think that applies to the 5k dinner crowd but makes a lot more sense for the rowcoaches of the world.

Rand honestly believes that the problem with guns is that law abiding people in the inner city dont have enough of them. Let that sink in.

Listening to Rand Paul answer a question during an election cycle about whether he would like to repeal the CRA is like listening to a young Republican from Louisiana talk about abortion rights while in college at Swarthmore. The young Republican is nominally pro-abortion rights while in college because the opposite position is no way to get laid at Swarthmore. But once he gets out of college and moves back to Louisiana . . .

I don't think people like RowCoach fully appreciate(because of that weird bubble-inside-a-bubble that is the Ronulution) how unusual it is for someone to cosign onto the Amero/NAFTA superhighway/UN is taking our guns ****:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...half_of_a.html

Like, Perry and Cruz will dogwhistle that **** to friendly crowds without media present, Rand and Ron just ****ing saying it. That letter in that link is an ENORMOUS LIABILITY. People will ask him about it. He won't have a good answer.

Row, I know you don't care because Rand was just trying to raise money....

But that's what we're telling you. Grifting is the family business.

Guys, it isn't hard to say that Chelsea is benefiting from being a Clinton while Ron Paul and Rand Paul grift the racists.

That's exactly what it is. The Clinton's aren't grifters, they're corrupt. This **** with the speaking views is them peddling influence, and Chelsea's NBC contract was them selling access. That's not a con or a scam, though. It's hucksterism, not grifting.

Where did all the Rand Fands go? I'm curious to hear how this straw poll is totally different and more meaningful than the ones his daddy won or took second in.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. It's just that what Chelsea does is irrelevant to the topic of Rand Paul. It's an obvious distraction play.

Ikes, would you admit that this who CRA mess is Rand Paul's own fault? Literally all he had to do was when the reporter asked him if he supported it say "yes" then when the reporter said "but...?" Respond "but nothing. I support the CRA. Period." None of this would be happening if Rand Paul answered that question the way all non-neo-confederates do. Instead he went on a long meandering monologue about the rights of the poor racist business owners. Whether he "clarified" his position later on doesn't matter. Its not a position that should ever need clarifying.


I could see Paul getting through the primary as a signatory to documents as absurd as this. The type of people who vote in republican primaries often believe that ****. However it definitely wont endear him to the elites that care about electability.




Yeah pretty much. Like nearly all of the actual left im not a fan of the Clintons (see Hitchens 'no one left to lie to' from before hitch jumped in bed with the neocons). But influence-peddling and pandering to/hustling the gullible and racist are two entirely different things.

Rand Paul HAS TO BE drawing dead to be POTUS.

And I mean DEAD.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...3#.U8PiJLm9LCR

Rand Paul responds to Rick Perry.

It's an old fashioned Republican Reagan-off!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...eagan-off.html

Somebody do a Zoolander-esk parody.

I'm perfectly fine with saying that Paul's response is politically naive. However, that doesn't make lying about his position, or being dumb enough to believe an obvious lie, ok.

Would you say that Paul's opinion of thr CRA differs from most of the establishment, who simply say "I support the CRA" and leave it at that?

No, it doesn't. I've asked this question again and again, what's the policy difference? The only thing Paul had done here is express an uneasiness with infringing on people's rights, which, again, Washington could use more of.

He's just standing up for the freedom for public accommodations to institute Jim Crow! Why are you lying liberals making it sound like he's against the CRA?

fyp.

"What's the policy difference between allowing segregation in public accommodations and banning it? I ask this again and again and nobody can answer!"

Of course, you don't have a quote that says that, but don't let petty facts stop the narrative!