Rand Paul is a Chameleon. He will say whatever it takes to garner the attention of an audience and he frequently spews inane drivel that is disingenuous and frankly with motive.
I run this piece on The Progressive Influence at least once per week. I refuse to accept that viewing the video segment is a waste. When an elected US Senator visits a university campus (Louisville University in Kentucky) and speaks about the utility of misinformation, the senator can't say anything that should be considered credible, in my mind.
- Letter to the editor, Bowling Green Daily News, 2002-05-30
"Rand Paul in '02: I may not like it, but 'a free society' will allow 'hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin'",
- I would introduce and support legislation to send Roe v. Wade back to the states.
- We have people coming in by the millions...Am I absolutely opposed to immigration? No...We have to find a way to believe in the rule of law, believe in border control and at the same time, not villify the issue.
Video added via The PARDU: Paul at University of Louisville
- I never, ever cheated [in medical school]. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important. We spread the rumor that we knew what was on the test and it was definitely going to be all about the liver. We tried to trick all of our competing students into over-studying for the liver. "So, that's my advice," he concluded. "Misinformation works."
- Rachel Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
- Rand Paul: I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form; I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific "gotcha" on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don't in any form or fashion.
- I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights. And I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things — you know, we still have this. We're having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?
That last statement is indicative of a Chameleon who could not change her/his colors in time to completely obliterate unwanted disclosure.
Paul recently sat with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart. If he could be believed, he could be an interesting person. Well, correction, he could be an interesting person if he wasn't the son of one Ron Paul and if he possessed a modicum of cogent thought and accompanying oral wherewithal.