Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for United States Senate from the state of Kentucky, is either dumber than a doorknob or completely in the bag for big coal. Check this out from the forthcoming issue of Details:
Paul believes mountaintop removal just needs a little rebranding. “I think they should name it something better,” he says. “The top ends up flatter, but we’re not talking about Mount Everest. We’re talking about these little knobby hills that are everywhere out here. And I’ve seen the reclaimed lands. One of them is 800 acres, with a sports complex on it, elk roaming, covered in grass.” Most people, he continues, “would say the land is of enhanced value, because now you can build on it.”
Remember, this is what mountaintop removal mining looks like. Link to Details via TPMDC.
Both… and….
It has already been long established that the guy is a moron. At least his father is a principled and consistent libertarian, who is sincere and I can respect even if I don’t always agree with him. But the son is an imbecile.
And this dickhead could be voted into office? No wonder the planet is f*cked.
Oh, and Corey, you’re digging up some great political stuff lately – love it.
Actually, this dickhead has made a comparatively safe Republican senate seat a possible gain for the Democrats.
He makes sense to me. Would you trust wind or solar power when you are in an operating room? When the country goes to war, are our factories going to be powered by wind and solar? No, because Obama and the Ecos are destroying our industrial capacity. You are most likely too young and lack the intellectual capacity to understand history and what made this county “once” great.
@Mike G: You make me laugh with your silly strawman arguments and clueless ad hominem attacks. Thanks for the humor!
I assume this is a rhetorical question, since the two are not mutually exclusive.
@Corey, Mike G. is not the only one making ad hominem attacks.
@Charlie/Corey, while I can appreciate that birds are coupled with environmentalism and environmentalism is coupled with politics, I do not think that the political commentary here is particularly relevant or enlightened. Are we running out of birds lately or what, guys? I mean, even some out-of-focus shots of House Sparrows defecating on “Rand Paul for Senate” campaign signs would be better than this.
@Duncan, the polling results do not support your claim. And by the way, the whole nation knows who Dr. Rand Paul is, so in any case, I do not think that he will disappear from the political arena in the way that Sarah Palin should. Beyond Kentucky, Attourney General Conway is not so well known. And yes, I am a big fan of Dr. Congressman Ron Paul 🙂
@sara: So you support mountaintop removal mining?
The fact is that Rand Paul is far out of his league and dares not make unscripted public appearances for fear he will do something else stupid. He is under 50% as a republican senate candidate in Kentucky, which means the seat is in play, which means he is a horrible candidate.
As for your opinion of the political content here, well, you’re the one who felt driven to comment on it…and, seeing as you are a big fan of Ron Paul, I’m not terribly impressed by your political opinions anyway.
Corey, I am not criticizing your position on the issues. This is what I mean, for example:
So you support mountaintop removal mining?
Suddenly, I really sympathise with Dr. Rand Paul after he made his objective critisim of Title II of Civil Rights Act and was subsequently branded as a racist for it . . .
The fact is that Rand Paul is far out of his league . . .
But that is not a fact at all, no matter how hard you opine it.
. . . seeing as you are a big fan of Ron Paul, I’m not terribly impressed by your political opinions anyway
OK, but that is not really an argument.
If you are going to spoil the 10K birds with even 1K controversial and derogatory musings (of which there have been more than usual in the past year, it seems), then maybe you could defend them or else be prepared to defend them with something more than “well, you support the guy I don’t, so I dismiss you.”
Sara, anyone who supports mountaintop removal mining IS either an ignorant moron or a coal industry shill. If someone is educated about the issue, and isn’t being paid by the coal industry, they are almost universally against it. Rand Paul, who won’t even talk to a reporter for fear of saying something dumb, takes money from the coal industry. Therefore, he is both an ignorant moron and a coal industry shill. How can you think otherwise when you read what he actually said about mountaintop removal mining?
Rand Paul, like Sarah Palin and Sharon Angle, is out of his league. If a politician can’t handle talking to the media they have no business being politicians. Period. If his views are so unpopular that he can’t say them out loud, then he shouldn’t be elected.
Paul’s absolute belief in the free market as the panacea for all that ails us is laughably juvenile, both in theory and in practice. That he not only supports mountaintop removal mining but also thinks that the free market means that unsafe mining companies will eventually not have workers because workers won’t work for unsafe companies, so, therefore, no federal safety regulations should be required, is ignorant to the extreme, both about reality and history.
Not only that, but Rand Paul doesn’t want an FDA, an EPA, or almost any other federal agency. His ideas are a recipe for unfettered corporate control of our resources and disaster.
I respect our readers here at 10,000 Birds and expect them to understand that libertarianism, in practice, would be a disaster for the environment and for endangered species. Rand Paul, whose intellectual and political development seems to have stalled after the first time he picked up something written by Ayn Rand, would be a disaster for the environment and for endangered species.
And, yes, if you support the Pauls I do dismiss you as someone who doesn’t seriously think through the results of what their beliefs would bring if put into practice. It would be an ugly, ugly, world if the Pauls and their ilk were in charge and I will not mince words about it.
I respect our readers here at 10,000 Birds and expect them to understand that libertarianism, in practice, would be a disaster for the environment and for endangered species . . . And, yes, if you support the Pauls I do dismiss you as someone who doesn’t seriously think through the results of what their beliefs would bring if put into practice . . .
OK, so as a Libertarian bird-lover and avian scientist, I guess I am not really welcome in your elite community of readers. Thanks.
By the way, I do not know how you can compare Dr. Rand Paul with Sarah Palin in terms of “league” and media presence (and probably IQ!). He kicked ass on Rachel Maddow (especially at the latter part), no doubt about it (even if he does not appreciate it himself), and she had nothing but a resort to demagogic platitudes.
Everyone is welcome to read and comment.
So Rand Paul’s appearance on Rachel Maddow was good for him? Which is why he won’t talk to the news media now, right? Because he “kicked ass” so much?
As a libertarian do you support the endangered species act? Or are you like Rand Paul, and opposed to the Endangered Species Act because the free market will protect species worth saving?
Did you agree with Rand Paul when he said Obama’s criticism of BP was “un-American” or do you think an American President criticizing a multinational corporation that caused the worst oil spill in American (and possibly world) history should be criticized?
Rand Paul isn’t even certified as an ophthalmologist with the American Board of Ophthalmology, but started his own organization, the National Board of Ophthalmology, which has apparently only certified Paul.
The man is a joke.
Did you see him on Rachel Maddow? Here is Part 2, especially.
Regarding his board certification, so what? He was certified by the mainstream organization until 2005, and he chose not to renew for some reasons against that organization. If the guy has his principles and still has clients, then he is bad-ass. And do you have a source for the claim that his organization has only certified him?
You have a lot of questions about what I agree with (all very Rachel Maddow style, by the why), but I will tell you only that I do not agree with the derogatory words toward a guy who is not malicious in any way.
I saw him on Rachel Maddow. After that appearance he stopped appearing on TV because his views are so extreme. He even became the third-ever person to cancel on Meet the Press, joining the esteemed company of Louis Farrakhan and Prince Bandar bin Khaled al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia.
No one else claims certification by his board (I’ve searched and can’t find anyone). The officers of his board are him, his wife, and his father-in-law (the other two, perhaps not surprisingly, are not ophthalmologists).
You fail to defend Paul’s beliefs because you know they are indefensible. The only way he will win his election this fall is if the coal industry pours a ton of money into the campaign, which, of course, they will, because he is a shill for big coal.
I know that he was a no-show on Meet the Press, and I was disappointed. But he probably did not want to talk about the civil rights herp-a-derp anymore, and he would be wise not to devote his campaign to that issue. I doubt that they wanted to talk about anything else.
Dr. Rand Paul claimed otherwise. He could be lying, but we will require proof. He did start his board several years before his mainstream board certification expired.
How could I have failed if I did not even try? I do not find all of his “beliefs” to be indefensible, but I prefer to discuss them with people who can evaluate them objectively (and without irrelevant personal insults to the candidate). You do not seem to understand that opposition to a federal agency does not mean that he approves oiling the Gulf or putting cat food in a can and calling it tuna fish.
“while I can appreciate that birds are coupled with environmentalism and environmentalism is coupled with politics, I do not think that the political commentary here is particularly relevant or enlightened. Are we running out of birds lately or what, guys?”
You can appreciate? APPRECIATE? Not ‘see that it’s completely linked’?
And are we running out of birds? Well, yes – because of dickheads who support mountain-top removal, logging, capturing birds for the pet-trade etc etc.
Hey, here’s an idea – instead of coming here trying to intellectualise the indefensible why not write something on your own blog? It’s looking a little – er, thin.
“I guess I am not really welcome in your elite community of readers. Thanks.”
Oh, and that should be ‘large community of elite readers’. And you’re welcome, just not agreed with.
Any more defense of Rand Paul?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/9/891620/-Best-of-Rand-Paul-headlines
[crickets]