20 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dan // Nov 7, 2009 at 10:56 am

  You’ve really sunk low. Not only to post this, period, but to also say he “accepts” a bunch of random freaks posting about him out of his of his campaign’s control. You’re either so deranged from his recent good poll numbers that you’re grasping for straws or you’re just trolling for hits and comments.

  Maybe I’ll go to “SF” and sign up and post stuff in favor of Jack Conway. It’d only take a minute or two.

• 2 jake // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:15 am

  Then maybe Rand Paul and his campaign manager out to denounce the Stormfront support when questioned about it instead of welcoming it, princess. Just like when he equated Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. And when he said breast cancer could be stopped with simple preventive medicine (not scientifically possible since it can be genetic and unavoidable in some cases).

  I really love it when the Paultards get a boner over their Rand Paul Google Alerts and start immediately commenting.

• 3 briansmith // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:29 am

  I believe you can determine the quality of a candidate by the quality of the people defending, or apologizing for him.

• 4 Dan // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:30 am

  Then maybe Rand Paul and his campaign manager out to denounce the Stormfront support when questioned about it instead of welcoming it, princess.

  How have they “welcomed” again? Nobody has asked and I doubt any credible journalist will ask. Reason being at how utterly stupid it is.

  So now they must denounce every nobody who says they like them who holds an unsavory view and has a seedy background? Isn’t this the Glenn Beck line of argument the left whines about; making stupid accusations and then demanding a response? You think 100% of all of Trey Grayson, Conway or Mongiardo’s itemized donors with the FEC are 100% perfect human beings with no controversial views whatsoever and squeaky-clean police records?

  Not to mention that Klansman Ron Edwards supports Trey Grayson according to the comments on that lame smear blog linked…

• 5 Dan // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:35 am

  I believe you can determine the quality of a candidate by the quality of the people defending, or apologizing for him.

  Oh puh-leeze.

  A better line would be: “I disliked Rand Paul before this and this line currently best suits the current anti-Rand narrative so I’ll say it.”

• 6 briansmith // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:39 am

  the current anti-Rand narrative? the whole movement is fueled by paranoia and persecution.

• 7 jake // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:44 am

  I’ve asked.

  Joe Sonka has asked.

  Dozens of others have asked.

  And David Adams pretends not to understand the question(s) or never responds. (Occasionally he’ll respond asking what the original question was)

  Nice spin, Paulturds!

• 8 Dan // Nov 7, 2009 at 11:48 am

  I’ve asked.

  Joe Sonka has asked.

  I said “credible”, remember?

  If I was a campaign manager being asked a stupid smear of my candidate from some blogger I’d ignore it myself. No need to fuel it.

• 9 jake // Nov 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm

  Yeah, some blogger. Guess that’s why David consistently calls me before he calls the press, right? Or why he seeks Joe out in a crowd. Totally not credible.

  Keep dreaming, sweet cheeks.

  I may rarely take credit for having an impact or an audience, but in this instance? I have one of the largest dork pulpits in the Commonwealth. It’s a large source of income that actually employs people. And – contrary to what you suggest – what I have to say about the U.S. Senate race always gets you Paulturds up in a tizzy. It if didn’t matter: you wouldn’t read it, you would foam at the mouth, you most certainly wouldn’t comment (makes me $$$) and you wouldn’t mindlessly defend your candidate of choice 24/7. Your actions speak louder than your words.

  Paultard meltdown in 3, 2…

• 10 Dan // Nov 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm

  Hey look, a thread on StormFront supporting praising Jack Conway rather directly back in June of this year:

  EDIT: LINK DELETED

  When will Jack Conway go on the record as being against this strong show of support? Must get a right-winger blogger to ask him and put the response on YouTube.

• 11 jake // Nov 7, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  Haha! Took a total of four minutes for his actions to speak louder than his words.

  Cute.

  They always take the bait.

  (And at this point… any support for Jack Conway is good support. If you make the wingnuts believe they should support Jack over Lt. Dan? You’re just hurting your own candidate. Because Jack’s the only Democrat who can beat Ro… Rand Paul.)

• 12 briansmith // Nov 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm

  yeah. attack a democratic opponent for expressing his opposition as a law enforcement official to reinstating the federal semi-automatic firearms ban. that will play well at Knob Creek.

• 13 briansmith // Nov 7, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  does the Rand campaign know you are speaking for them?

• 14 Rod // Nov 7, 2009 at 3:31 pm

  Jake, think this would be far more entertaining.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O4E3lGs248

• 15 jake // Nov 7, 2009 at 3:47 pm

  It would be far more entertaining.

  Now shorten it down (20 seconds in I was bored– and there’s some juicy content there) to something under a minute and don’t have such long, complicated breaks and I’ll whore it out for you.

  Make it palatable for short internets attention spans and it’ll be a hit.

• 16 curtis morrison // Nov 7, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  It’s interesting that his campaign hasn’t issued a denial- It would only take a second, and I’m sure the coned-hat crowd would understand it was the white thing to do.

  One has to wonder though, how someone can have 4,792 facebook friends, only 5 are African American. Because we all know African Americans only make up .00104% of the total Kentucky population, right?

• 17 tbrauch // Nov 7, 2009 at 6:52 pm

  I’ve had two different Paul supports on two different occassions over the last week tell me that the 13th & 19th amendments to the US Constitution were unnecessary and unconstitutional (how part of the Constitution can be unconstitutional is beyond me).

  And while I don’t assume all Paul supporters think we shouldn’t have repealed slavery or given women the right to vote, it does make me raise an eyebrow about the rest of them.

• 18 Conservative // Nov 9, 2009 at 8:07 pm

  I have one of the largest dork pulpits in the Commonwealth.

  Can’t they cure that with surgery or something?

• 19 jake // Nov 9, 2009 at 8:13 pm

  Then what would Marty Cockring do all day?

  He’s gotta have something to be obsessed with.

• 20 Terri // Nov 9, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  And while I don’t assume all Paul supporters think we shouldn’t have repealed slavery or given women the right to vote, it does make me raise an eyebrow about the rest of them.

  Oh, not publicly, at least. Or they’ll wrap it up in the warm-fuzzies of states’ rights…

Leave a Comment