Behold: Neocon Echo Chamber Weighs In On Rand Paul’s Filibuster
Clear divisions in sociopolitical paradigms can be seen on any given day in the “conservative” collective. Let’s have a look at the neocon echo chamber’s response to Rand Paul’s momentous and founder-inspired filibuster which marched on for nearly 13 hours.
Kenneth Gardner represents the typical neocon who incorrectly claims to be “conserving” America’s founding principles by self-identifying as a conservative, but obviously hasn’t read, or doesn’t understand, our founders on foreign policy also laid out in Federalist Papers 2-5. Ken had this anti-founding-principles Tweet to share with the class.
I will never forget that Rand Paul supported Chuck Hagel. This goes to a fundamental issue about national security and foreign policy.
— Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) March 7, 2013
Notice the Code Pink logical fallacy where Ken tries to equate Rand Paul with Code Pink. And this guy is an attorney, or used to be attorney. Not sure what his current status is.
BTW, if you are on the same side as the ACLU and Code Pink, you just might want to check some of your premises. I could be wrong yet again.
— Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) March 6, 2013
The following is from Kevin Eder, the kid who gave Mitt Romney lap dances for over a year.
But, we are told not to question Rand Paul. He is Conservative God-King, after all.
— Kevin Eder (@keder) March 6, 2013
There’s that persecution complex poking out, Eder. (He’s Jewish.) Apparently, Keder and his cronies think Rand owes a certain foreign government some sort of allegiance. But, it was George Washington who said, “history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.”
Good question. I bet the answer has something to do w/Jews. RT @slowhoneybee Why is #RandPaul okay with Hagel and not okay with Brennan?
— Kevin Eder (@keder) March 6, 2013
The kid who sodomized idolized Romney over and over and over during the 2012 election cycle is concerned about “hero worship” of Rand Paul. Ironical.
@nscottjtx don’t want to burst the bubble, but this is hero worship at its most pathetic. Pretty disturbing, actually. @davidlimbaugh
— Kevin Eder (@keder) March 7, 2013
We can’t recall such an impactful filibuster in our lifetimes, but the man with no name can’t muster much regarding Rand’s historic event.
I’m now convinced Rand Paul is wearing Depends.
— RB (@RBPundit) March 7, 2013
Oh wait, he can muster something. Here’s a gripping assessment.
Rand almost messed up and yielded the floor.
— RB (@RBPundit) March 7, 2013
Aw, more of that persecution complex rearing its ugly head from the editor of Commentary Magazine. (You’ll remember him from a previous piece of ours.)
Rand beginning to morph into Ron
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) March 6, 2013
John wants to make sure that his people don’t “underestimate” Rand Paul. He means this in an adversarial context.
Anybody who underestimates Rand Paul will be making an enormous blunder.
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) March 6, 2013
Because John doesn’t admire Rand, after all.
@wizzardmx I’m not an admirer of his and I can recognize how formidable he is. If you can’t it’s because you’re a boob.
— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) March 6, 2013
Michelle Malkin whines. (This is covered in more detail here.)
Lots of cheers for Rand Paul blocking Brennan. But RP explained vote 4 Hagel by saying O has “prerogative” on apptees twitchy.com/2013/02/26/sen…
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 6, 2013
First, Allen Ginzburg doesn’t have a problem with Rand’s views, but instead has a problem with people who he surmises don’t know what Rand’s views are.
@gopfirecracker @lilmissrightie My problem isn’t with his views, It’s with people pretending those aren’t his views.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) March 6, 2013
Hold up. Now Ginzburg says that he’s got a problem with 20% of Rand’s views. Which 20% would that be? How does one quantify 20% of someone’s views? If we could play this quantification game, we’d say that Rand’s views are 100% closer to our founding principles, especially with regard to foreign policy, than the views of Ginzburg and his pals.
@johnekdahl For the record, i did exactly that all day. I agree with paul on 80% and commend hm for those 80%. I call him out for other 20%.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) March 7, 2013
There’s another Code Pink reference in relation to Rand’s filibuster. Logical fallacy seems to be a popular response in the neocon echo chamber.
I’m having trouble differentiating between Glenn Greenwald, Code Pink and everyone else in my timeline. Need to step away from twitter.
— AG (@AG_Conservative) March 6, 2013
Loesch insists that his fellow neocons should encourage “them” when they do good. Them? As in people like Rand Paul who support America’s founding principles?
You couldn’t be more wrong. If we don’t encourage them when they do good then don’t complain when they do bad. @keder @davidlimbaugh
— Christoph Von Lösch (@ChrisLoesch) March 7, 2013
Rush Limbaugh’s brother David chimes in. He’s flummoxed. He didn’t even know Rand’s Twitter handle before last night. That’s right, a “conservative” sibling of Rush didn’t know the Twitter handle of arguably one of America’s most conservative senators. David, remember that conservatism in America means one is “conserving” our founding principles.
What is Senator Paul’s actual twitter handle? I’m seeing several out there.
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) March 7, 2013
Having been exposed to Rand’s words, David finds that the filibuster is “invigorating”. Imagine how invigorated David would be every day if he followed Rand and other people on Twitter who supported America’s founding principles rather than the aforementioned that he back-scratches. Perhaps David is having a neoconservative existential crisis after drinking from Rand’s filibuster firehose of liberty. Sounds romantic.
This filibuster is positively I-N-V-I-G-O-R-A-T-I-N-G !!!!!!
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) March 7, 2013
At least we were able to find a solitary glimmer of hope for liberty in the midst of all that globalist interventionism, victimology-based self-entitlement parading as “commitment” to specific foreign nations, and Jingoistic Christian end-times messianic paranoia only allowed to reveal itself publicly as “concern”. David Limbaugh’s “invigorating” was the most positive comment the neocon echo chamber could muster in response to this historical occasion. We’ll keep an eye on him.





