Rand Paul, the Teabagger/ party of Hoover candidate for the U.S. Senate in KY, has spent the last couple of days trying to furiously backpedal away from his many previous statements that he pretty much opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act (and, presumably, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act), as Paul thinks its perfectly OK when private companies discriminate against anyone they damn well feel like discriminating against. There is no need to rehash all that, you've probably seen more than enough blog posts elsewhere on it.
Now, he has come up with another corker: It is "un-American" to go after BP for its oil spill.
Has he forgotten, perhaps, that the "B" in "BP" stands for "British"?
So it is now "un-American" to attack the British, at least in Rand Paul's eyes.
Well, now we know which side he would have chosen in 1775: The Loyalist side, also known as the losing side.
Words Work Weirdly In This Wild, Warm World
1 hour ago
4 comments:
And back in 1775 the original Tea Party would have tarred and feathered his worthless ass and run him out of town on a rail.
O tempora o mores!
And we can only hope the good folks in Ky will do the same!
Well, guess we're going to have another Democrat in Congress, woohoo! That's the problem with the teabaggers in the context of the Republican Party. Because they're such a large part of the Republican Party, they can get their candidate over the line as the Republican candidate. But once their candidate faces the general electorate, the general electorate is appalled and repulsed by the teabagger candidate's beliefs, and thus the teabagger candidate ends up having to eat his own words -- hopefully with a (crude) oil salad dressing, in this case, but Rand Paul seems like he was born with a silver foot in his mouth, so that doesn't seem likely ;).
- Badtux the Impressed-by-his-stupidity Penguin
I think pretty much every repub would have taken the loyalist side.
cons don't make revolutions, liberals do.
Post a Comment