Rand Paul is Not Casting Aspersions on Murderer President Who is Gay and Believes in Slavery

Rand Paul, who said the President was acting like a King during his filibuster today:

I’m not casting any aspersions on the President. I’m not saying he is a bad person at all...

Later in the hour:

The President’s response to the killing of al-Awlaki’s son, he [the President’s spokesman] said he should have chosen more responsible father.

No, Gibbs didn't say that. He said:

I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.

See, Rand, that's a bit different, isn't it? It's about the father being more responsible, not who the kid "chose" as his father.

Rand Paul last May:

“Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer,” Paul said. “It did kind of bother me though that he used the justification for in a Biblical reference. He said, ‘A Biblical goal caused him to be for gay marriage.’ And I’m like, what version of the Bible is he reading?”

Rand Paul in May of 2011:

With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. 

The President wants to cover more people with health insurance instead of, cough, enslaving ER Doctors who cannot say no to a patient (see the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, signed by Ronald Reagain in 1986), and Rand Paul calls that slavery. But he's not casting any aspersions on the President. He's not saying he's a bad person. Just a murdering tyrant who says kids should pick better parents if they don't want to be murdered by a President who just might be gay and isn't reading from the same Bible as he is.

OK, then. Please proceed, wingnut.

Rand Paul Takes the KTW Challenge!

From Chasing Glenn Beck, a conservative's site!

When I started this little blog last week, I had no idea that the King Wingnut himself would take my advice and keep talking, and talking...

The point isn't that anyone in this country is Hitler...

Good that he got the Godwin's Law thing out of the way right off the bat. Also, remember, this is from a man who would force rape victims to give birth to their rapists' babies, because small government! Or Liberty! Or something.

Preppers beware! The black helicopters drones are coming for you!

If you're going to kill people in America, you need to have rules and we need to know what those rules are. ... I don't want to find out that having seven days worth of food in your house is on the list.

We have over a month's worth of food in our house. Should we be worried?

Anyone have any links to Rand Paul bitching about constitutional rights trampled by King GW Bush, or did his concern over these matters suddenly start in 2009?

I would be here if there was a Republican president doing this.

Paul says he would have voted against the Iraq war. Unfortunately, I can't find any quotes from him standing up against the war at the time, so excuse me if I don't believe him.

Luckily, the guy has a long history of saying ignorant shit, so the odds are good that he'll be keeping me busy here.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.

Of course, Senator Franklin nails the wingnut, who apparently doesn't have a clue what it means to save more money later by spending some money now.

 SEN. RAND PAUL: Um, I appreciate the great and very, um, I think collegial discussion, And we do have different opinions, you know, some of us believe more in the ability of government to cure problems, and some of us believe more in the ability of private charity to cure these problems. I guess what I still find curious is though that if we are saving money with the 2 billion dollars we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? Where would we get to? How much money should we give you in order to save money so if we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity. Thank you. 

SEN. AL FRANKEN: I think you just did...