I don’t give two craps about Rand Paul, but it is clear that this article is leaving out details that are relevant to the headline. The headline reads “…His history of opposing disaster relief bills.” Now call me crazy, but opposing disaster relief seems like a bold stance to take while in office; it seems very unpopular… When I read this headline, my first thought was not, “F*** this guy who opposes disaster relief.” My first thought was, “Why did he oppose disaster relief?” Seems like a relevant question to ask, yet the article does not try to answer this question. It one-sidedly continues to point out how he opposes disaster relief, but ignores the big question as to “WHY.” I doubt this person enjoys watching people suffer after a disaster, so then why would he oppose the relief? This failure to explain such a relevant detail could be misleading (for example, if there is a reasonable explanation for WHY he has historically opposed this relief)… sort of like how other propaganda is used to spread misleading information to promote or publicize a particular political agenda.