NYT Smears Rand Paul with Claims of Racism, Religious Fanaticism
In a recent article entitled "Rand Paul's Mixed Inheritance," the New York Times, the oldest of the Establishmentâ€™s mouthpieces, slammed Paul for such â€ślibertarianâ€ť policy positions, and took shots at The John Birch Society, the Tea Party, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Lew Rockwell for good measure. (The article was posted online January 25, and a version of the article appeared the following day on page A1 of the Sunday print edition.)
Accusing Paul of being â€śsteeped in a narrow, rightward strainâ€ť of libertarianism, the New York Times begins the race-baiting in the seventh paragraph.
Paul and those like him, the article claims, â€śhave formulated provocative theories on race, class and American history, and routinely voice beliefs that go far beyond the antiwar, anti-big-government, pro-civil-liberties messageâ€ť of the larger libertarian movement.
Mike of N.Y., amusing comment, I liked it. (not that I would agree with it. ) I would suppose some people wouldn't vote for any Presidential candidate if Randy & Hillie were running against each other, because either should turn a thinking person's stomach be he left or right-wing (not over the cliff right wing, but [URL=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/sam-s-club-republicans-vs-the-tea-party.html]]]Samâ€™s Club Republicans Vs. the Tea Party[/URL] ) But this is a good article the Canadian Cruz, [URL=http://www.newrepublic.com/node/114862/print]]]Ted Cruz Is a Wacko Bird of His Party's Own Making[/URL].
Yes, I do have mixed feelings about the Patriot Act, and it probably needs tweaking, But guess, your favorite newspaper :-7 the NYTimes has a commentary attacking the Patriot Act. You mean they're right for once?
But, anyway, it will be a sad time if the Hillie and Randy are the two major parties throw out as choices to the American voter.
John B. read the NYT article, it will give quite a good overview of Randy. If your an (ultra-) conservative you'll love the article if your an Ultra-left-winger you'll want to vote early --now-- for Hillary!
"SAM TANENHAUS and JIM RUTENBERG wrote: He [Randy] proposed cutting the federal budget by five times as much as party leaders. He nearly caused the Patriot Act to expire by aggressively seeking changes before its reauthorization. And he tussled over detention policy with Senator John McCain of Arizona, who would later label Mr. Paul and like-minded Republicans, including Senator Cruz, â€śwacko birds.â€ť The strongest thing I could find in this article that was the strongest attack on Randy was: (McCain took his truthful remarks about Paul & Cruz back. Coward!) It really gives quite a good history of Randy and some of Ronnie. ---
Jim, Jim, Jim. As you should know, no one proposes cutting the fed budget. Someone proposes slowing down the increases and the wingnuts call it slashing.
As for nearly causing the Pat Act to expire, I didn't know this, but it raises my respect for Paul. Why do you like the Pat Act?
I'm still waiting for YOU to say what it is Cruz said that deserves a "wacko" label.
And finally, it is left-thinking people who will vote for Hillary. Right thinkers won't even consider it. I apologize for having to use "left" and "thinking" in the same sentence
Oh, common fellows, just read [URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/us/politics/rand-pauls-mixed-inheritance.html?_r=0]]]Rand Paulâ€™s Mixed Inheritance[/URL]. The strongest thing I could find in this article that was the strongest attack on Randy was:
SAM TANENHAUS and JIM RUTENBERG wrote: He [Randy] proposed cutting the federal budget by five times as much as party leaders. He nearly caused the Patriot Act to expire by aggressively seeking changes before its reauthorization. And he tussled over detention policy with Senator John McCain of Arizona, who would later label Mr. Paul and like-minded Republicans, including Senator Cruz, â€śwacko birds.â€ť
(McCain took his truthful remarks about Paul & Cruz back. Coward!) It really gives quite a good history of Randy and some of Ronnie.
The John Birchers who wrote this article must not have cut out the holes properly for their eyes for the white sheets they are wearing, because this was an even handed article. Unfortunately the supporters of Paul will consider this article complimentary, but of course, right thinking people will be running, not walking to the polls to vote for Hillary if the choice of President sadly falls between Clinton and Paul.
Anyone who is remotely thought of as candidate potential(i.e. Republican only) will be met head on by the ignorants of the NY Times and the rest of the main stream media bobbleheads. Look at what is happening to Christie, and he isn't even conservative.