Rand Paul

Rand Paul: How Scary is He?


Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic has a perspicacious look at how a couple of prominent modern-liberal writers or institutions have contemplated the terrors of the rise of Rand Paul.

new republic

In Jonathan Chait's case, Chait in New York magazine takes Rand Paul's disdain for the excesses of pure democracy in which a voting class can override core individual rights–an idea built into this nation's very Republican structure and reasonably uncontroversial–as derived clearly from the scary Ayn Rand. The most sinister expression of this belief, which Chait paints as a sinister ideology that Rand Paul has been trying to conceal–but not from Chait's eagle eye?

Ayn Rand: "I do not believe that a majority can vote a man's life, or property, or freedom away from him." 

Remember: Chait thinks that that idea is a nightmare, and he expects his readers to agree. Now that's scary.

Friedersdorf goes on to analyze this week's New Republic cover profile of Rand Paul by Julia Ioffe, and notes that she is both gliding over some of the areas in which Rand Paul is more willing to bend to political reality than his more radical libertarian father Ron Paul (Rand is seemingly satisfied with keeping Social Security and Medicaid around for the long haul, despite mostly believing in keeping the government to its explicit constitutional limits) and for using the word "isolationist" to describe him, misleadingly. (A guy as for free trade and immigration is no isolationist–just not as eager to give away money and wage wars overseas as most politicians of both parties.)

Most importantly, Ioffe misleads her readers–particularly the presumably Democratic-liberal leaning readers of the New Republic–by not stressing Paul's most significant characteristic: he's about the best there is in Washington on a full civil liberties package of the due process, limiting executive power, ameliorating the Drug War, limiting indefinite detentions with no trial, don't wage war unilaterally, variety.

Now, while I don't expect a more successful Rand Paul–say, one who is a front runner in the 2016 presidential race–to stay as good on his libertarian background as his father did in his campaign, if he did, his consistency would indeed be frightening to the mass of readers of Chait and Ioffe, even if Friedersdorf sees a lot to admire. A consistent libertarianism is indeed still a frightening thing to the political and media establishment of both parties.

Matt Welch on the New Republic profile of Rand Paul (a profile in which I am quoted).

NEXT: For First Time, Food Prize Goes to GMO Creator

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Libertarians can make idiot moral arguments fr their system all they want. But they can’t argue that their system is the best for the American worker. They can only spout bullshit economic theory based largely on the imagined perfection of the “market” and “innovation.”(a term that they confuse with “capital allocation”) They seem to think that you can force American workers to compete with Mexican and Chinese peasants and that this will not depress the workers wages, because cheap labor would create such large economic growth. Exactly where this growth would come from is not explained How does not having to pay my farm workers a decent wage lead to economic growth? They ignore that most of the economic growth has come from technology, not from capital or labor. And they constantly confuse “market” worth with actual worth.(This is what allows them to make bullshit claims that minimum wages create unemployment by measuring jobs by their “market” value rather than their actual value)

    1. There are a number of things I disagree with libertarians about (or at least cosmotarians), but define “actual worth”. Do things have an intrinsic value written down on a stone tablet somewhere, or what?

      1. Yer arguing with a troll dude.

        1. I am talking about the practice of assuming that just because a good costs something that is how much it is worth in actuality to the possessor. For instance, there is food. Food costs something, but if the price of food suddenly doubled, would people not pay twice as much for it? Look at this youtube video, recently referred to me by a libertarian. It is based on the same fallacy, assuming that just because a laborer is paid a certain amount, his labor is really worth that amount or slightly more, and that if the minimum wage was raised he would loose his job. It doesn’t explain how that calculation(four dollars in the video) is arrived at. Can you really run a factory well without a janitor?

          1. I once took a dump more interesting than this post.

            1. I gotta hand it to Mary’s psychosis, it’s awfully persistent.

            2. I doubt that.

              His post is mind numbingly stupid, was your crap?

            3. I once took a dump more interesting than this post.

              Did your name used to be Sandy?

          2. You really don’t understand relative valuation and basic economics, do you.

          3. Wait, are you taking that video as the totality of libertarian thought on the minimum wage rather than an obvious oversimplification intended to get people to think about potential downsides to something they may otherwise think is an unalloyed good?

          4. Well, LS, you certainly are economically ignorant.

          5. What an amusing moron you are. Your own fascist masters think if they tax foods they will reduce obesity. You are too stupid to grasp the talking points you are programmed to parrot.

            If you double the cost of food people will probably do many things that result in buying less food – have fewer kids, lose weight, grow their own vegetables, raise chickens.

    2. I believe this is American. I will withhold judgement until he makes his hatred of Mexicans more evident.

      1. I’m not sure he is, since he decries the free market, while Merkin generally asserts a belief in the free market, even while arguing against free market principles related to large businesses and immigration. But he could have progressed away from his faux belief in free markets.

    3. You know Slappy, at least you used to come up with decently clever avatars to peddle your troglodytic racist bullshit. But now you’re just getting lazy. Porch Monkey lazy.

    4. They ignore that most of the economic growth has come from technology, not from capital or labor.

      And mongoloids such as yourself fail to note that much of the job loss in unskilled manufactories in the US comes from technological advancement, not foreign labor.

      1. Pls refrain from insulting mongoloids.

      2. You are, of course, correct… …but, why argue with it when it doesn’t even grasp how technology, capital, and labour are related?

        1. well, now I’m jealous of your handle.

          Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

          1. You can still be the Keymaster — or if you swing that way, the Gatekeeper.

          2. You should be more jealous of me

    5. Before you say something sucks perhaps you should make an effort to understand it. If I hid behind the user name “Vegetarianism sucks” I should at least understand that vegetarianism involves not eating meat.

      You are’t there yet, child. My favorite line:

      “Libertarians can make idiot moral arguments fr their system all they want.”

      Idiot moral arguments in favor of freedom and against coercion? Ha ha! It is you that suck, my friend. The governments tit and Karl Marx’s cock. Enjoy.

      1. You really can’t debate communism without understanding it, and you can’t understand it without believing it to be moral.

        /logical fallacy

        1. “Understanding communism,” at least of the Marxist variety, is like understanding the economic organization of unicorn phlegm by Olympian gods. Understanding “really existing communism” is basically understanding fascism that calls itself “communism.” Understanding fascism is understanding a modern political movement based on the most ancient of political principles… I’ve read the Melian Dialogue before, and I didn’t take it as prescriptive.

          1. That is the passage that stuck with me most from The Peloponnesian War. So succinct, so timeless, so true.

          2. “The strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must”. Really should be the progressive motto.

            1. Justice really is all about the balance of power – the most just of all are systems where the individual has power, and the ability to accrue more power – i.e. a system founded in individual liberty.

        2. You really can’t debate communism without understanding it

          I understand communism fully, and that’s why I despise communists.


          1. Didn’t you get it? You have to believe it to understand it, like the bible if it was written on ten thousand napkins taped to the inside of a shanty house.

    6. I disagree with most libertarians about immigration and don’t see open borders as a truly Libertarian position. You can’t unleash a labor force willing to work at depressed wages into a country and not understand that this will absolutely drive wages down for the locals. I’ve never understood the Libertarian, well hell, not even the Democratic position on immigration.


        There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Understanding this principle will give you insight into the fallacy of protectionism. Yes, more migration will depress some wages. But that means that those wages were artificially inflated. In other words, someone’s economic opportunities had to be lessened in order to provide “the American worker” with a higher wage. The part that it may surprise you to learn is that, contrary to what you might think, the group of people negatively impacted by those inflated wages includes Americans as well as foreigners.

    7. Which American worker? The ones who have no jobs under your system? Or the ones who pay 50% of their income for your surveillance state and failed stimulus? Or the ones who are made workers for life because your regulatory agencies make it impossible for them to start a business?

  2. The easiest way for non-interventionism to be achieved is to be isolationist. If our economy is tied to China and it collapses, there goes our economy. Also, we wouldn’t have terrorism, we wouldn’t have the moral panic about “civil liberties” if there was no non-European immigration. In addition, immigration also bring foreign ideas into America, leading likely to more urge to intervene. I think we need to raise tariffs now, and take steps to end(or at least mitigate) America’s harmful addiction to foreign oil.

    1. 9/10

      1. You generous sonuvabitch!

        1. He really stuck the landing.

    2. 8.5/10

    3. i/10

      1. +?-1

        But without adding this irrelevant text – the Spam Guard doesn’t believe my comment is in English.

        So take that spamGuard.

    4. Can you help me to get vine to work on the ipad? Thanks. high five.

    5. “If our economy is tied to China and it collapses, there goes our economy.”

      thank you for that scintillating economic analysis, Suck Boy.

      I burned a barrel of oil in my backyard to celebrate your rank stupidity. You, the ozone, and the cops who run the speed trap around the corner from my house can FUCK OFF.

      What? Yes, I’ve been drinking. What’s your point?

    6. Perhaps the worst scansion and composition ever found in a meme iteration, but it begs to be said: Fucking comparative advantage, how does it work?

      1. You can’t create a comparison where two things are in their value of use essentially similar. Go work at Taco Bell and see how it works.

        1. Let me rephrase: Fucking comparative advantage, what the fuck is it?

        2. You’re going about it all wrong. We need to preserve the international solidarity of labor. Open the borders, but set a global minimum wage. Then, outlaw profits so as to bring down the cost of living, increase real wages and abolish the capitalist class.

          Look here for more details.

    7. Cool story bro. Tell it again

  3. They’re struggling to find the next bogeyman.

    1. They need a beater to drive the game toward the Hildebeast.

  4. My only real criticism of Paul is that he appears to be strongly anti-abortion and OK with using the law to enforce that. I recognize, though, that professing such is pretty much absolutely required to get nominated as a Republican candidate anywhere.

    1. True. Rand Paul is sodding himself by courting the Wahhabi GOPers. He even had to enlist in the War on Drugs.

      By the 2016 primary season he will be Santorum Lite.

      1. Santorum lite? What a horrible thought! Will he then kinda sorta look down on birth control?

          1. And Shriek is an expert on Santorum. Both kinds.

            1. They aren’t the same thing?

      2. Still needs more Christfag.

    2. Hating the womenfolk is a Rethuglican platform afterall.

    3. Are you suggesting his opposition to abortion is not genuine? I don’t see any reason to assume that. Ron Paul himself always expressed his opposition to abortion.

      1. The Pauls may say they are against abortion, but the Pauls have never met you, Libertarianism Sucks. You are a game changer with regards to euthanasia.

    4. Jesus. Other than Matthew Brown, this thread is like Trolls R’ Us.

      1. Rand is seemingly satisfied with keeping Social Security and Medicaid around for the long haul

        I score higher on the LP Purity Test than Senator Paul does.

        1. I score higher on the Pluggertarian Purity Test (PPT) than Senator Paul does.

          And Barack Obama scores higher than you. What else is new?


      2. Is everyone staying in the Citizens United article because the Links After Dark has already been overrun?

        1. Overrun? By who or what?

    5. A lot of libertarians are strongly anti-abortion.

      The only really conservative, religious position on abortion is to be for abortion except in cases of rape and (rapey) incest. If you take that stance, it suggests you’re less concerned about the life of an innocent (since that doesn’t change in the case of rape or incest) and more about punishing the sexual behavior of the woman (since her culpability does change in the case of rape or incest). Or, at a minimum, it is a factor in your judgment.

      1. except in cases of rape and (rapey) incest

        Wouldn’t the really conservative, religious position be WITHOUT exceptions? I would debate the assertion that TRULY being really conservative and religious means being hypocritical on the subject of fetus rights. Those people who are against abortion EXCEPT in the case of rape/incest are, out of the anti-abortion people, just pandering.

        1. I would argue that there is a logical argument for the rape exemption, but 90% of the rape/incest exemption folks are politicians trying to win elections.

        2. Why is incest a separate category in that formulation?

          1. I always assumed it was a euphemism for family rape; otherwise moderate pro-lifers are saying “I’m really opposed to abortion, unless it cleanses the gene pool of those at high risk for hereditary disorders,” which actually sounds worse than just being pro-choice.

        3. I think I explained my view. You don’t have to be religious to think conception (or some point before birth, for that matter) constitutes a line where humans should legally be considered persons. Believing abortion should be banned for that reason, and that reason alone, is going to lead to a hardline stance about exceptions, though it could be compatible with a stance that only opposes abortions after some point in pregnancy.

          But if your view on abortion takes into account whether a woman had sex voluntarily or not, it’s very likely you’re looking at pregnancy (which in the case of abortion, is usually going to be out of wedlock) to some extent as punishment for sexual promiscuity, which is an attitude much more correlated with religion.

    6. Many libertarians believe that the unborn have rights, too

  5. You know who else everyone thought was scary?

    1. Pope Benedict XVI?

    2. Warty

    3. Joseph McCarthy?

      1. too soon.

        1. Or too late, depending on how you look at it.

      2. The corpse or the person?

    4. Richard Scarry?

    5. Stephen King?

    6. Pelosi and/or Feinstein?

    7. The democratically elected 1932 Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei?

    8. Bela Lugosi?

    9. The Hamburglar?

  6. They wouldn’t be attacking him if they didn’t see him as a threat. It’s sort of like twisted compliment.

    1. Exactly. I think that Mao, of all people, said something perceptive to that effect…

    2. The Democratic-liberal leaning readers of the New Republic don’t actually give a crap about civil liberties or limiting executive power. Sure they will pretend to care when an white Christian Republican is in office, but they are just doing waiting for their guy to come to power with promises of FREE SHIT.

      1. Also, it makes them sound more intellectual to pretend to care about civil liberties and limiting executive power rather than free birth control etc. which is all they really care about.

    3. This. The scariest thing about Paul from the perspective a Democratic apparatchik like Chait is his potential to appeal to what had heretofore been reliably Democratic constituencies (young voters, minority businesspeople, civil libertarians, etc.). He’s the only contender in the 2016 GOP field who has the ability to expand Romney’s coalition and for that reason he must be torn down.

  7. Was it John who once wrote: “You have to watch out for libertarians. They might take over and leave everybody alone.” Scary!

    Of course “progressives” find libertarians scary. They think it’s impossible to fix anything without taking other people’s property away.

    1. I never know if that is what they genuinely believe, or if they are truly, deeply terrified of being left alone, i.e., of being left responsible for their own fates insofar as such a thing is possible in this imperfect world.

      1. That’s part of it. Part is believing that the government rooster makes the sun come up, and that less rooster means we’d shiver in the darkness.

      2. A combination of both?

        Maybe progressives really are people who have never truly been on their own, and thus are mortally afraid of living in the world where there aren’t parents, friends, or governments to fall back on (read mooch from).

        I’ve met plenty of people who appear to think that independent individuals are a myth invented by libertarians. They really think it’s impossible to get through life without leaning on other people for financial support from time to time.

        1. No, I know plenty of progressives who are quite self-supporting and even entrepreneurial (successful artists, writers, small business owners). They think government is the only thing that can help the poor and oppressed. The more fevered of them think government is the only thing that can beat back the evil corporations which want to enslave and murder us all.

  8. What Reason doesn’t want you to know about Rand is that he is totally in the Pocket of the Business Interest who don’t want you to know about the One Form of Energy That can stop the Middle East Dependence. Whale Oil is the Safe, Clean Form of Energy that the Business Interest doesn’t want Americans to know about because then the Banks and the Jews Who Run Them would lose their Profit.

    Support only Whites Inuits and Japanese who will protect our whaling traditions and restore our country to greatness!!

    1. Hey Immaculate Trouser, Hercule knows your password!

      1. Just doing my part to make sure that this thread retains an ideal admixture of trollish posts and sane ones.

    2. Jews Irish Who Run Them


      1. Hello Friend Thank You for your interest in Whale Oil. I believe the same as you only that Ireland is the True Jewish Homeland. Israel is of course the Base that Jews use to extract $$$s from Oil using the Business Interest that Rand Paul loves.

        Think about it.

        1. Roll that beautiful ambergris footage!

        2. You’re obviously a plant sent by the Red Menace. The Jews are just patsies for Big I.

          1. You know who else used the Jews as patsies?

            1. Someone glued Jews to their nipples?

              1. She had really big nipples.

                1. I don’t know if it’s appropriate to talk about Helen Thomas that way.

    3. Yes, that’s why the rabbis long ago – including Jonathan Chait’s own great great grandfather – declared whale meat to be treyf!

      I think perhaps you belong over at TNR. As has been documented in film, they will publish anything.

  9. My god, I’m watching KizoneKaprow’s YouTube channel.

    Did we decide that it was Mary?

    1. There’s no “deciding” about it.

    2. That guy goes out of his way to troll on all the Reason videos, ad-homing and providing spin on everything we say.

    3. Was Mary also White Indian? PB-Plug was Shrike right? And Tony was briefly T O N Y before becoming Tony again, right? And what happened to Chad.

      And then there’s all of Nikki’s personalities.

      Shit, I need a program around here sometimes?

      1. Mary may or may not have been White Indian, jury is out on that.

        Palin’s plug is definitely Shrike, someone else grabbed the name Shrike when registration hit.

        Tony without spaces was believed grabbed immediately at registration, and Tony with spaces was presumed to be the real Tony. Now it’s pretty much just no spaces. IIRC (I may not), Chad disappeared way before registration (merged into Tony). It’s still up in the air if Tony is a long-term troll or a sock.

        Nikki just changes her name for whatever song someone makes reference to, she’s presumed to be not a troll.

        1. Ah, thank you.

  10. Nice alt text gnatwit

  11. Doherty ought to do a post on how Nick Gillespie is skeered of Ted Cruz.

  12. This thread is full of immigrants!

  13. *steps in, looks around thread, slowly backs out of the room*

  14. You know how when you drive by a horrible car wreck, you can’t help but look? That’s kinda how I feel about the comments in this thread

    1. The differences being that there aren’t any casualties, but you sort of wish there were.

  15. Exhibit a that this troll is American:

    Libertarianism Sucks| 6.19.13 @ 7:32PM |#

    Feminism is literally impossible in a low-IQ population. You can have the chattering classes chatter all you want, the low-IQ masses will always rely on instinct, as they will be unable to understand feminism, and instinct will tell them that feminism is bullshit. Nor is the solution, as Dalmia said in an earlier column, for India to create a sexually libertine society. Hati has that and look where it is. The solution, Dalmia is right, is more enforcement. That will mean more money needing to be spent on police forces and many, many more men in jail, but it will solve a lot of the problem. It won’t be Sweden, but it might make it as safe as the bad parts of Los Angeles.

    1. It’s also evidence that they are a liberal tard. Notice how he places feminism on an intellectual pedestal? Or the subtle fascism – “low-IQ masses”? Of course this guy isn’t part of the lowly common folk, and therefore knows what’s best for them. He will probably bitch that I assumed he was a “he”

      1. No, he’s actually (probably) more conservative. If this is who we think it is, he hates feminism.

        1. Notice he says those people would instinctually reject it.

  16. Of course, in the comments at the Atlantic, a few people make the (popular) argument that Rand Paul’s view on the CRA makes him unfit for the Presidency. Even though it would have zero impact on anything should Paul hold the position for two terms, even with a Republican majority in Congress the entire time.

    Behold the Practical, Reality-Based, Serious party.

  17. Chait: “In Paul’s defense, one could imagine a scenario in which white Americans imposed segregation through entirely democratic channels, and that such a scenario might give you pause about the virtues of democracy.”

    Friedersdorf claims that we’ve traditionally held that democracy is somehow compatible with an apartheid regime (where not everyone has equal access to the franchise or political influence, i.e., not democracy).

    Sure, democracy is a broad term that has referred to the primitive Athenian system to modern constitutional republics such as ours. But if Paul is not objecting to our qualified system, what is he objecting to? The nonexistent, universally rejected exaggeration of total direct democracy?

    What Rand Paul objects to is a straw man. But what Rand Paul really means is that he thinks more things than basic civil rights ought to be out of the hands of majorities. And he thinks one of those things ought to be civil rights legislation that interferes with property sanctity.

    There is room for undemocratic elements in a democratic system, since majority tyrannies can impose specific harms on minorities. But businesses and property owners are not minority classes suspect of being harmed by majorities. This is a trade-off long ago settled by the contours of reality.

    Paul really means he is not fond of democracy because it doesn’t give him his way all the time.

    1. No, douchebag.

      But if Paul is not objecting to our qualified system, what is he objecting to?

      He’s objecting to the fact that none of your fucking ilk ever describe our system as “a qualified system” outside of the context of this very discussion.

      You talk about capital-D Democracy. As if it were an unqualified good, like capital-V Virtue or capital-J Justice. And it’s not. In the text of your own post you admit that it’s not.

      And as soon as you stop singing hymns to capital-D Democracy and start praising “our qualified system”, it puts on the table the question of what makes our qualified system a good one. And in virtually every instance, the worthwhile aspects of our qualified system are the undemocratic ones.

      If the only reason our system is functional and tolerable is because certain rights have been declared and placed outside the reach of majority rule, it is reasonable to conclude that our system could be further improved by putting even more rights outside the reach of majority rule. Or, at least, it’s reasonable to argue that and consider the question, and if somebody like you jumps up and gasps, “But what about Democracy?” we have you on record now as agreeing that Democracy is not a definitional good.

      1. I’m sorry if you’re confused, but I’ve never spoken about the virtues of direct democracy, and in fact have repeatedly made this distinction–something that you guys apparently have a ridiculously difficult time getting a handle on.

        It’s most certainly not the case that only the undemocratic parts of our system make it work. They are exceptions to the underlying democratic system meant to ensure that democracy is able to be maintained. E.g., if you have an apartheid regime that prevents a portion of the population from participation, or laws that forbid certain types of speech, you don’t have the necessary components of democracy, so you have to take the practical step of preventing simple majorities from enacting such restrictions. The underlying virtue is democracy, because any other system is a form of tyranny. Which if memory serves, you wholeheartedly endorsed–as long as the tyrants believe everything you do.

        Hence, libertarianism’s problem with democracy: like entitled children, they are pissed that it doesn’t give them everything they want.

        But think about the fact that a communist foundational document would have exactly the same legitimacy as a libertarian one. You really want forms of governance to be decided by competing ideologies fighting over who gets to have total control? The give-and-take of democracy is simply the fairest and most legitimate system we’ve found.

        1. E.g., if you have an apartheid regime that prevents a portion of the population from participation, or laws that forbid certain types of speech, you don’t have the necessary components of democracy..

          So you support Citizens United, I see.

    2. But businesses and property owners are not minority classes suspect of being harmed by majorities. This is a trade-off long ago settled by the contours of reality.

      But how is there a trade off if no harm is being done to the businessmen a property owners?

      And settled by who, acceptable to whom?

    3. What do you define as a basic right?

      Some of us might include the right to pursue an occupation of one’s choice, the right to be self-employed, or start a small business, or engage in employment with a willing employer. And that in turn might include the right to own property such as capital goods involved in the operation of a small business. Why shouldn’t any of those things be considered basic rights?

      People should have the freedom to pursue their dreams and the majority should not be allowed to veto that.

      1. People should also be allowed to participate in their social institutions, and that includes commerce. I also believe healthcare should be considered a basic right. I’ll even let that one go to the majority, because I’m not stingy.

        1. Your rights AREN’T being trampled if Walmart suddenly says it will only allow blacks to shop there.

          Your rights ARE being trampled if Chuck Schumer gets a law passed that says that Walmart is only allowed to let blacks shop there.

          Do you see the difference now?

    4. And he thinks one of those things ought to be civil rights legislation that interferes with property sanctity.

      Property “RIGHTS”, not “sanctity”, as you dishonestly mislabel it.

      But businesses and property owners are not minority classes suspect of being harmed by majorities.

      Says who? Whether by pure majority or by politically powerful minority interests, business and property owners are the pockets from which they pick. Under the guise of the “public good”, the business and property owner is demonized and regulated by “democracy”.

      This is a trade-off long ago settled by the contours of reality.

      “Contours of reality”…LOL!!!

  18. Jonathan Chait is a whore. He’s a bald, not particularly attractive, aging, whore, so he has to sell lies instead of his little tuchus. His wife is an Obama campaign operative, which he never discloses. He’s in the New York extension of the DC journalist brothel – which includes David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Princess O’Donnell, Spittles Matthews, the Clintonian chipmunk on This Week, and many others – where an alleged reporter is either married to a fat ‘crat or is a former government official themselves.

    1. You fucking baldist!

      1. Baldists are almost as bad as beardists.

        And those fucking deepdishists.

    2. As soon as I saw the name “Jonathan Chait” in the article I chuckled.

    3. You should apologize to whores.

    4. Jonathan Chait: Rand Paul is anti democracy; people like him with wrong ideas should be disenfranchised


  19. Jonathan Chait: Rand Paul is anti democracy; people with like him with wrong ideas should be disenfranchised nym.ag/1922ULw

  20. When Bill Buckley tossed the Birchers and the Ayn Rand cultists out of the Conservative movement, that was his finest moment. It saved Conservatism.

  21. The only thing scary about Rand Paul is that libertarians support him. He is not libertarian, and politics is not a good means of achieving liberty. Liberty means the end of government, not new politicians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.