Rand Paul hates pants because he doesn’t need them when he’s KICKING TREY GRAYSON’S ASS, OHHHHH… (Wait, what?) Anyway, here is a picture of Doctor Senator Rand Paul from the local newspaper this morning. Is he going to just wander around like a child all the time if he becomes Senator, wearing no pants to speak of? The Paultards must go ga-ga over those legs. [Washington Post]
THE SON
May 13, 2010
Why Does Rand Paul Hate Pants?
Previous post: Help DC Live Up To Its Image
Next post: Next Post
{ 56 comments }
He also looks like he’s sleeping in that photo. Maybe he got crazily drunk on moonshine, to show Kentucky voters he was just like them, and lost his pants at some point before passing out.
He had forgotten his gold lamé pants, & rather than wear contemptible, unsupported fiat slacks, he went without.
QED
“Government ‘help’ to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its pants off.” — Ayn Rand
To be fair, that is considered “business attire” in KY.
Nah, he was just taking a break from auditioning for the new Docker’s ad.
Looks like a Hockey commentator (Go HABS!)
No shirt, no pants, no problem.
Jim Bunning often neglects his pants.
Mentors.
Dontcha love it when Official WaPo Journalism majors go all Hemingway in their stories? Viz:
Still, Grayson struggles to connect with potential backers. At the headquarters of a hardwood flooring company in London, Ky., one of the owners lamented the state of the economy, and Grayson responded: “Oh, it’s terrible.” Local circuit court clerk Roger L. Schott, who was escorting Grayson, tried to prod the candidate. “What are we going to do to change that, Trey?” Afterward, the businessman, Jim Begley, said Paul seemed to have more answers.
So in Wapodorf, Libertarian = Teabagger?
Why’s he wearin’ a ajcket in summertime… and what’s that thing hangin’ from his neck?
Is this what they mean by “Going Galt?” Is it like “going commando?”
On that pic, he looks kinda light both above the neckline and below the waistline.
[re=576609]SmutBoffin[/re]: No, you’re thinking of pants and no shirt. Shirt, jacket and no pants is GOP congressional houseboy-interns’ uniform.
The point is, you libtards want to tax the pants off of him. Or maybe a malpractice lawyer got ‘em. Or maybe he’s gettin ready for the buttseks. Or he’s showing off his legs cuz he’s got high self of steam. Have I missed anything?
Fiat pants.
Pants are theft.
I’m just impressed by the Post Politico’s editors going out on a limb with their headline: “In Kentucky’s Senate race, ties to Mitch McConnell could be helpful or harmful.” Whoah there, folks — maybe there’s a third side to that fence you hadn’t considered.
“Dressed in half a suit after running from his son’s soccer game, Dr. Rand Paul waits to be a guest on a Fox News program in Bowling Green, Ky.”
Why is Rand terrified of soccer, and what makes him think Fox can save him?
I prefer to watch shows that have been “filmed before a live studio audience.” Or at least, walls made of glass so that tourists to Louisville can peer inside and wave at their friend on the other end of the cell phone — “hey, see me? I’m on teevee!” This is the only way to know for sure everyone is wearing pants.
He took his pants off because it makes his shoes look bigger. And you know what they say — big shoes, big feet.
You are all Socialist. Obviously, Rand Paul doesn’t wear pants because the Founders didn’t wear pants. It wasn’t until the Progressives re-wrote the history books last century that anyone in this nation wore something as European (i.e. Communist.NAZI) as pants.
As with most paultards and paul himself, their special skill in life is fapping over an audit of the FED, the no pants look just makes that process of continual fapping easier to accomplish.
He’s waiting for a Census taker.
Only three or four more big donors, and Dr. Rand should have more than enough material to finish making his new pair of Geins.
I’d hit that.
Out of context! In this photo, he’s sitting in the green room, waiting for his AC/DC: The Musical audition.
[re=576637]Lionel Hutz Esq.[/re]: Pants have a well-sewn liberal bias.
It’s DOCTOR Rand Paul, libtards. Show some respect to the son of an Important Man. I heard DOCTOR Rand Paul on NPR yesterday. The good DOCTOR said unemployment is welfare, and while he made it clear he would vote against an extension to the welfare insurance that all W-2 workers pay into, he danced around whether he would vote for an extension to said welfare in response to a Kentucky voter who called in. Do want!
[re=576603]JMP[/re]: He’s just following Kit Bond’s example. I mean with the falling asleep part, not with the pantslessness part. I don’t want to think about Kit Bond without pants.
Actually, workers do not pay any part of unemployment insurance (check your paystub). It is one thing that is actually paid for by those who should be paying for it: employers.
It is a pittance, whomever is paying for it, however, and it’s disgusting to see the perpetually privileged trying to scrape the crumbs away from the have-nothings yet again.
He’s just wearing what are known as “Kentucky slacks.”
The sad thing here is, that electing him will noticeably increase the level of sanity in Kentucky’s political representation.
That’s why cameras aren’t allowed for closed session in the Senate, they dress down for the big debates. Shorts is a small offense. Many throw on togas, gymwear, Kit Bond wears a blue flowered muumuu, and Herb Kohl has been seen at roll in a speedo.
Oh they don’t wear pants, on the other side of Kentucky!
[re=576658]AnglRdr[/re]: I slouch corrected, but I don’t think for a minute that employers don’t take that into account when figuring out what to pay workers, and reduce accordingly. Also too I meant to emphasize that it’s INSURANCE, not welfare. Sorry for yelling. And that point is not an argument for ending it, lurking paultards.
Clearly Rand is pissed that Krusty dropped his edgy comic roots and started shilling for the Canyonero.
Put on some dress shoes, hippie!
As senator, he promises to get the country off the Highway to Hell, bring the budget Back in Black but will ultimately be forced to resign over Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.
Seriously…wtf is up with that??????
Not wearing any pants is part Rand Paul’s craven attempt to appeal to drunk, hillbilly ATV riders.
[re=576712]Luke Warm[/re]: Win!
[re=576634]SayItWithWookies[/re]: But if he’s wearing shoes at all that means that, big dick or no, he’s not actually a hobbit and I believe it is received wisdom around here that his dad is a hobbit so what gives?
[re=576718]NopantsMcGee[/re]: That looks like a teevee stage set. Maybe they’re only going to shoot him from the waist up. So what is the point of wearing pants? He might as well dispense with the knickers, too, and just show off his pecker to the teevee crew, for exhibitionism. That doesn’t violate the Non Aggression Principle, now does it?
[re=576652]Extemporanus[/re]: Puns = Elitist humor!
He still has a ways to go if he’s trying to hop on the Scott Brown bandwagon.
In his frat-boy culottes, elitist Rand Paul places himself above the working class. For perspective, I will refer to the Wikipedia:
Sans-culottes were the poorer members of the Third Estate. They usually wore pantaloons (full-length trousers) instead of the fashionable knee-length culotte.
The term came to refer to the ill-clad and ill-equipped volunteers of the Revolutionary army during the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars, but, above all, to the working class radicals of the Revolution.
The sans-culottes were for the most part members of the poorer classes, or leaders of the populace, but during the Reign of Terror, public functionaries and persons of good education styled themselves citoyens sans-culottes.
[re=576634]SayItWithWookies[/re]: [re=576650]taylormattd[/re]: I’d sooner kick it in the testes.
[re=576760]Ruhe[/re]: Hobbits = Petite-ist humor!
Jeez Louise, doesn’t anybody out there watch Seinfeld?!
[re=576778]Extemporanus[/re]: Well played.
Why all the hate on Shorts?
WTF? Wait, what is going on here?
[re=576849]shortsshortsshorts[/re]: Sorry, we prefer Pantspantspants now.
No where in the Constitution is there a mandate for pants!
IS IT OKAY TO WEAR BOXERS AGAIN OR DI TEH GHEYZ STEAL THAT TOO?
jesus fucking christ
Comments on this entry are closed.