Rand Paul is belting out an Old School Filibuster!!

[J P Sousa]

So you don't deny that he padded his resume?

Making excuses and pointing toward others is the first sign of someone who won't take accountability for his actions. Does this sound like a person like this should be a senator?

If anything, Rand Paul should be held to a slightly tougher standard than your average freshly-graduated college boy who interned at a Boy Scout camp and called it "youth counseling" on his resume.

Looks to me like you're making excuses for him.

Um, Euph, I think you may be a little.........."picky".

The organization that works with the American Medical Association to approve specialty boards of this nature, as the Courier-Journal notes, is called the American Board of Medical Specialties. And it does not recognize Paul's group.   

Seriously, the AMA ? a left wing group ? Only 20% of doctors belong to the AMA. 
.

[Eupher]

Um, Euph, I think you may be a little.........."picky".

Your opinion is noted.

Seriously, the AMA ? a left wing group ? Only 20% of doctors belong to the AMA. 
.

Did the man make an unsubstantiated claim regarding his certification (or lack thereof) or didn't he? That's a straight up question -- either yes or no.

Excusing this kind of behavior makes you both look...."unpicky."

Again, where I come from, this kind of shit results in getting the boot. No excuses. You publish a CV or resume, it had better be accurate especially concerning certifications. This guy forms his own "group" for Christ's sake and certifies himself. AYFKM?

You can look the other way all day long, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Rebel]

This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

[Freeper]

This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

Okay from now on I will blindly follow whoever the conservative hero of the day is.

This has nothing to do with purity it has nothing to do will his dad it has to do with he has not earned my trust because of his own actions.

[Rebel]

Okay from now on I will blindly follow whoever the conservative hero of the day is.

This has nothing to do with purity it has nothing to do will his dad it has to do with he has not earned my trust because of his own actions.

Where did I infer anything about blind following?

[Splashdown]

This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

Add this to the fact that if he becomes a national figure, the media will be ready to rip him to shreds.

[Freeper]

Where did I infer anything about blind following?

You are complaining that some of us haven't jumped on the Randwagon.

[Eupher]

You are complaining that some of us haven't jumped on the Randwagon.

Nice. 

h5

I see the schmuck not in the same manner as I see his father.

Rand might be worse because he's smarter about his bullshit than his father is.

[txradioguy]

Nice. 

h5

I see the schmuck not in the same manner as I see his father.

Rand might be worse because he's smarter about his bullshit than his father is.

Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.

Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.

[txradioguy]

This is why the Damn Republicans continually get their asses kicked in elections on the popular front. Too much infighting and demands for purity. You think we're going to win another election by fracturing our movement? Yeah, let's all jump on Rand because of this and that.....meanwhile the Damn leftist goons are strengthening up their front. ****ing insanity. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

[Dori]

So you don't deny that he padded his resume?

Making excuses and pointing toward others is the first sign of someone who won't take accountability for his actions. Does this sound like a person like this should be a senator?

If anything, Rand Paul should be held to a slightly tougher standard than your average freshly-graduated college boy who interned at a Boy Scout camp and called it "youth counseling" on his resume.

Looks to me like you're making excuses for him.

I don't know what you mean by "padding his resume", when he wrote it, or making excuses for him.  I'm not challenging your opinion of Rand Paul.  Like I've said twice, I don't really know anything about Rand as I have not followed him, but I did like what he did in the filibuster (for many reasons) and I take it you didn't and that you don't like Rand Paul.  Your also of the opinion that I'm defending him, yet you seem to want to post information to use against him.

What I did wonder about was your reference.  Opinion pieces referencing an article that is no longer available does make me ask questions about who wrote it and why.  I am always suspect of today's news regarding Republicans.  The "Daily Beast" (refering to the "Journal" article) was attempting to rebroadcast Rand Paul as a dishonest person.  It didn't give Rand's side of the story.  I also don't know who the person writing the article is and what his purpose was for bringing it up.  

Like I said before, the CBS article did quote Rand.  I don't know if Rand lied on his resume or not, as I have never seen it. (but I will look for it, along with other things). Was he a member of the board your talking about?  Yes he was and it ran out after ten years, and apparently (according to the article) thousands of other doctors who received certifications have not been re-certified either. Not sure what it's importance is.  My other question being, if this was an issue now, wouldn't the state have pulled his license over it?  Maybe they did, I don't know yet.

I'm also not sure what you meant by your other point, regarding what the differences are between Boy Scout interns and youth counselors.  When I went to Girl Scout camp we called our interns counselor.  

[Johnny Yuma]

Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.

Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.

Very true ... it's a start ....

It's how the (R) in our N. IL county went from "Elitest , self serving(R)ino to a very conservative (R) party ... one small step at a time ....

[Eupher]

I don't know what you mean by "padding his resume", when he wrote it, or making excuses for him.  I'm not challenging your opinion of Rand Paul.  Like I've said twice, I don't really know anything about Rand as I have not followed him, but I did like what he did in the filibuster (for many reasons) and I take it you didn't and that you don't like Rand Paul.  Your also of the opinion that I'm defending him, yet you seem to want to post information to use against him.

What I did wonder about was your reference.  Opinion pieces referencing an article that is no longer available does make me ask questions about who wrote it and why.  I am always suspect of today's news regarding Republicans.  The "Daily Beast" (refering to the "Journal" article) was attempting to rebroadcast Rand Paul as a dishonest person.  It didn't give Rand's side of the story.  I also don't know who the person writing the article is and what his purpose was for bringing it up.  

Like I said before, the CBS article did quote Rand.  I don't know if Rand lied on his resume or not, as I have never seen it. (but I will look for it, along with other things). Was he a member of the board your talking about?  Yes he was and it ran out after ten years, and apparently (according to the article) thousands of other doctors who received certifications have not been re-certified either. Not sure what it's importance is.  My other question being, if this was an issue now, wouldn't the state have pulled his license over it?  Maybe they did, I don't know yet.

I'm also not sure what you meant by your other point, regarding what the differences are between Boy Scout interns and youth counselors.  When I went to Girl Scout camp we called our interns counselor.  

   Never mind. Just chalk up the whole damned thing to a "spirit of the moment" reflex.

[Ptarmigan]

Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.

Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.

Gotta start somewhere and be bold.

[Eupher]

Whether he's the heir to the Ronulan Empire or not...you do have to admit he's done something that no one else in the GOP has done...and that's openly challenge this administration and didn't pull a Boehner and just roll over.

Yeah I know it's only one time...might be the only time...but it's a start.

Sure, I'll give him points for being semi-creative. There hadn't been an old-fashioned, bladder-bustin' filibuster since way, way back in.....


wait for it......



2010.

Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? 

Personally, I think that Rand is positioning himself for a run in 2016 -- and I can see the media eating him for lunch. Why? Well, I'll admit he's not nearly the kind of shitstick that Biden is - plagiarizer par excellence - but he's second tier schmuck with a granite bladder.

But ****it -- makes me no never-mind. When the sorry bastard throws his hat in the ring and the liberal media clamor to remove his head right at the neckline, allow me to be the first to do one of these:

 

[Freeper]

Sure, I'll give him points for being semi-creative. There hadn't been an old-fashioned, bladder-bustin' filibuster since way, way back in.....


wait for it......



2010.

Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? 

Personally, I think that Rand is positioning himself for a run in 2016 -- and I can see the media eating him for lunch. Why? Well, I'll admit he's not nearly the kind of shitstick that Biden is - plagiarizer par excellence - but he's second tier schmuck with a granite bladder.

But ****it -- makes me no never-mind. When the sorry bastard throws his hat in the ring and the liberal media clamor to remove his head right at the neckline, allow me to be the first to do one of these:

 

To be fair the media is going to work overtime to ruin anyone on the repuke side.

I do agree with your points though.

[Rebel]

Sure, I'll give him points for being semi-creative. There hadn't been an old-fashioned, bladder-bustin' filibuster since way, way back in.....


wait for it......



2010.

Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? 

The SecDef doesn't have anything to do with drones?

BTW, it was the CIA director.

[Eupher]

The SecDef doesn't have anything to do with drones?

BTW, it was the CIA director.

 

I sit corrected. I had Hagel on the brain with his visit to A-stan and his Taliban Welcoming Committee.

Say whatchawanna. Rand Paul is not my idea of a rousing "let's win this one for the Gipper." You guys wanna have a love fest with him in the center, hey, have at it.

I am impressed, however, with his granite bladder. Holy Pissoir, Batman, I can't go 4 hours without makin' a trip to the loo.

[J P Sousa]

Your opinion is noted.

Did the man make an unsubstantiated claim regarding his certification (or lack thereof) or didn't he? That's a straight up question -- either yes or no.

Excusing this kind of behavior makes you both look...."unpicky."

Again, where I come from, this kind of shit results in getting the boot. No excuses. You publish a CV or resume, it had better be accurate especially concerning certifications. This guy forms his own "group" for Christ's sake and certifies himself. AYFKM?

You can look the other way all day long, but that doesn't change the facts.

I was merely pointing out that a LEFT WING doctor organization changed the rules in the middle of the game (according to the CBS report) while exempting "some doctors".

Paul reportedly had certification from the American Board of Ophthalmology  - a recognized group - before letting it lapse in favor of certification from the board he heads.  

 "I thought this was hypocritical and unjust for the older ophthalmologists to exempt themselves from the recertification exam," he writes. "... Is it fair that the ophthalmologist down the street can claim board certification, without renewing it, but that a younger ophthalmologist, who passed the same boards, is disallowed?"  

It seems to me Paul is being consistant in his personal views e.g., "hypocritical actions of authority".

Is Paul the answer for our nation ?
I have no idea, but he does seem to have back bone. Back bone is something lacking in Washington these days.

I have written off most politicians (which is why I usually vote third party) but I am open to someone who can put principle ahead of politics.
.

[EagleKeeper]

1) I'm glad Rand Paul did the filibuster thing, if for no other reason it was a finger in the eye of Obama.

2) I'm glad he voted against Brennan.

3) Me and my dad are polar opposites when it comes to politics, having said that Rand is set to be the successor to the kingdom of Dr. Nutz so that gives me pause. I don't trust Rand any farther then I can throw him, he has a tonne of work to do for my vote.

4) 2016 is a ways off so he has time.

 

[Lacarnut]

Repubs are like jumping jacks. One week/month, it is Rubio, then Cruz and now Paul. They did the same thing in the last election. I do not think Paul is a serious candidate for 016. I hope not just I do not want Jebb to run either. I do give Paul props for the filibuster. Hope he keeps poking Obummer and the Democrats. About time someone did it. 

[EagleKeeper]

Repubs are like jumping jacks. One week/month, it is Rubio, then Cruz and now Paul. They did the same thing in the last election. I do not think Paul is a serious candidate for 016. I hope not just I do not want Jebb to run either. I do give Paul props for the filibuster. Hope he keeps poking Obummer and the Democrats. About time someone did it. 

The funny thing is, and this is just me of course.

The repubs don't choose who goes into orbit around them. It's the folkes that choose who to go into orbit around.

Of course there are alot of other things that can be discussed. But in the end the voter makes the choice, not the candidate.

[txradioguy]

Is this what we're about? Somebody - a junior senator - sticks the president's choice for SecDef right up the prezzie's ass while railing on about drones that have nothing to do with the SecDef himself? 

Unless I'm mistaken and since SecDef Hagel was already winging his way to Afghanistan when the filibuster happened...Sen. Paul gave his long winded protest during the vote on John Brennan the nominee for CIA...which does make when he did and when he did it relevant.

So the argument that he did this at the wrong place and time is a non-starter.

[Eupher]

Unless I'm mistaken and since SecDef Hagel was already winging his way to Afghanistan when the filibuster happened...Sen. Paul gave his long winded protest during the vote on John Brennan the nominee for CIA...which does make when he did and when he did it relevant.

So the argument that he did this at the wrong place and time is a non-starter.

Yeah, it's already been pointed out on another thread that I got Brennan and Hagel momentarily confused. Must've been the heady rush of still being whirlwinded by Rand's bladder-busting performance.

[Eupher]

I was merely pointing out that a LEFT WING doctor organization changed the rules in the middle of the game (according to the CBS report) while exempting "some doctors".

I hear ya on the AMA being as left wing as they come. IIRC, the AMA slopped at the Obamacare trough.

It seems to me Paul is being consistant in his personal views e.g., "hypocritical actions of authority".

I just don't see it that way. Paul should've publicly denounced the AMA and, instead of merely allowing his certification to lapse (thereby being less than proactive about a credential on which he is likely to earn money), he should've taken measures other than form his own little group. You don't see the potential and appearance of impropriety here?

I submit that potential senators - as he was at the time all this came out - must adhere to a higher standard. I see shucking and jiving with this guy.

YMMV.

[/quote]