Rachel Madcow criticizes private property rights with more collectivist drivel

[Cynanthrope]

YouTube - MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rand Paul's so-called Libertarian ideology trounced. Again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z9GeEais7w)

Here we go again... :mad:

[Golding]

Gotta love the Catch-22 of TV newz interviews. They ask a "yes or no" question so when the candidate answers yes or no, it's unequivocally used against them in whatever way they like since the reasoning is manufactured by the talking head using the clip. If they elaborate their thinking, they're somehow "not giving a definitive answer".

Rand Paul gave his definitive answer repeatedly on the show. Maddow is just trying to cast the racism label on Rand Paul, because everyone knows how hard it is to wash that label off once it sticks. The sad thing is that these disinformation peddlers are relying on people not listening to what is being said, or not thinking about what they are hearing. Though I would like to think people are better than that, this is a regular TV audience -- worse yet, a cable newz TV audience.

[AuH20]

Wow. She did a follow up show???? Instead of merely saying she respectfully disagrees with him, she's making him out to be a social pariah?!!? :eek:

[Sentient Void]

lol - I think we should really take this as a good opportunity to educate those who are wondering about libertarian philosophy.

Obviously the MSM is getting VERY threatened by libertarian philosophy - as it's getting INCREASINGLY popular. They are trying to attack and smear it by spreading misinformation and having one-sided arguments without having tenured libertarians able to rebut such claims as Maddow made above, and why the libertarian path is the best one for all involved.

People are obviously wondering about it. That's why Maddow is trying to discredit and marginalize it and fight it as best she can - because even plenty of liberals are wondering about it and are interested in hearing more.

Again, I say we take this situation and turn it to our favor - use it as a spring board to educate those around us about how a libertarian society respectful of private property tackles such problems in society, how it was done, how it could be done - and how the government usually makes the problems worse with unintended consequences.

[angelatc]

Wow. She did a follow up show???? Instead of merely saying she respectfully disagrees with him, she's making him out to be a social pariah?!!? :eek:

Yes. His brand of Republicanism is very threatening to the left, especially the progressives. They're going to do to Rand exactly what they did to Palin. It is not going to stop, and it's going to be ugly.

Reagans been dead for how many years now? They can still bite through nails when they hear his name.

[Vessol]

I don't get Rachel Maddow sometimes, she had a good rant against Obama's prolonged detention shit and talked about personal rights, but why is she against business rights? A business being allowed to employ or cater to whom it wants to.

[Cynanthrope]

No doubt about it but the M$M and the statists see an opportunity to prolong and spin a property rights issue into a racial issue.

Oh boy. It's going to be a long and tough summer, folks.


I don't get Rachel Maddow sometimes, she had a good rant against Obama's prolonged detention shit and talked about personal rights, but why is she against business rights? A business being allowed to employ or cater to whom it wants to.

She's a typical collectivist who seeks "social justice" no matter how authoritarian it is.

[jake]

I can't even watch this :mad:

[AuH20]

I can't even watch this :mad:

Yes. I'm surprised how hard she hit him on this. It reeks of DNC puppetry.

[CGeoffrion]

*facepalm*

[AdamT]

I will not watch Maddow anymore. Not that I really did before (don't have TV) but even YTs I'm done with.

[yokna7]

We call her "Supercuts" at my house, she is terribly unfunny. She brings nothing creative to her craft. A hack, and that ridiculous expression she has when her guest is talking, ya know the overdone, interested look. Shut up Maddow.

The obligatory James Clyburn follow-up interview. Give me a break

[HOLLYWOOD]

Why doesn't Rachel MadCow contact her veteran pro on Civil Rights and Violations...

Senior Democrat US Senator Robert C. Byrd

[yokna7]

Why doesn't Rachel MadCow contact her veteran pro on Civil Rights and Violations...

Senior Democrat US Senator Robert C. Byrd

Aw snap.

HOLLYWOOD 1
Maddow 0

[Mini-Me]

Gotta love the Catch-22 of TV newz interviews. They ask a "yes or no" question so when the candidate answers yes or no, it's unequivocally used against them in whatever way they like since the reasoning is manufactured by the talking head using the clip. If they elaborate their thinking, they're somehow "not giving a definitive answer".

Rand Paul gave his definitive answer repeatedly on the show. Maddow is just trying to cast the racism label on Rand Paul, because everyone knows how hard it is to wash that label off once it sticks. The sad thing is that these disinformation peddlers are relying on people not listening to what is being said, or not thinking about what they are hearing. Though I would like to think people are better than that, this is a regular TV audience -- worse yet, a cable newz TV audience.

Exactly. The entire interview was a trap; she was trying to ensnare prey like a cunning and pitiless serpent. A few people were saying things last night like, "She was being fair," or, "she's just trying to give him a chance to clear up something that will come up all year," but those sentiments are extremely naive. Maddow said the issue will come up all year, precisely because people like Maddow are so interested in making it an issue all year. We all need to understand that she was deliberately setting him up for this the whole time, and any perceived fairness was a charade for viewers as much as it was intended to lull Rand into complacency.

We have enemies, and they are not interested in being persuaded or learning how libertarians and Constitutionalists think; they already know how we think, and they don't care. They are not interested in mutual understanding; they are interested in cruelly turning our own words against us, twisting them, and smearing us with their willfully dishonest spin. Our enemies are deceptive and merciless, and we cannot ever let our guard down or forget it.

It's still painful knowing that Rand did not handle the ambush as well as he could have (or as well as Ron has in the past), and I hope he learns from it, but we should make no mistake about it: It was a deliberate, premeditated, and ruthless attempt at character assassination...and there was no easy way to defend against it.

[AuH20]

Exactly. The entire interview was a trap; she was trying to ensnare prey like a cunning and pitiless serpent. A few people were saying things last night like, "She was being fair," or, "she's just trying to give him a chance to clear up something that will come up all year," but those sentiments are extremely naive. Maddow said the issue will come up all year, precisely because people like Maddow are so interested in making it an issue all year. We all need to understand that she was deliberately setting him up for this the whole time, and any perceived fairness was a charade for viewers as much as it was intended to lull Rand into complacency.

We have enemies, and they are not interested in being persuaded or learning how libertarians and Constitutionalists think; they already know how we think. They are not interested in mutual understanding; they are interested in turning our own words against us to smear and destroy us without mercy.

It's still painful knowing that Rand did not handle the ambush as well as he could have (or as well as Ron has in the past), and I hope he learns from it, but we should make no mistake about it: It was a deliberate and planned attempt at character assassination.

Amen brother! Pass the collection plate. The Pauls are no longer considered jokes by the left, hence the coordinated attacks.

[Ninja Homer]

Rachel Maddow, do you still hate America? Just a simple YES or No please.

[kahless]

Rachel Maddow, do you still hate America? Just a simple YES or No please.

Instead of embracing Libertarism so she can enjoy her lifestyle without consequence some gays like Maddow want to punish the masses for whatever persecution she may have felt or imagined.

[Sentient Void]

Rachel Maddow, why do you hate freedom so much?

[SWATH]

Wow, she is woefully ignorant on so many levels. She has no idea what Rand was arguing. Does supporting free speech even though some people say racist things make you a supporter of racism?

[Paulfan05]

Go to americablog.com
they just posted this video, put in some more pro Rand comments!

[AdamT]

Wow, she is woefully ignorant on so many levels. She has no idea what Rand was arguing. Does supporting free speech even though some people say racist things make you a supporter of racism?

I think she understands it perfectly. She's just playing her MSM propaganda role in misleading the statist sheep who still give her credence. Poor souls.

[SWATH]

I think she understands it perfectly. She's just playing her MSM propaganda role in misleading the statist sheep who still give her credence. Poor souls.

Yeah actually I think you are right. Strangely that somehow make me feel better that she is merely being deceptive rather than ignorant.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly. The entire interview was a trap; she was trying to ensnare prey like a cunning and pitiless serpent. A few people were saying things last night like, "She was being fair," or, "she's just trying to give him a chance to clear up something that will come up all year," but those sentiments are extremely naive. Maddow said the issue will come up all year, precisely because people like Maddow are so interested in making it an issue all year. We all need to understand that she was deliberately setting him up for this the whole time, and any perceived fairness was a charade for viewers as much as it was intended to lull Rand into complacency.

We have enemies, and they are not interested in being persuaded or learning how libertarians and Constitutionalists think; they already know how we think, and they don't care. They are not interested in mutual understanding; they are interested in cruelly turning our own words against us, twisting them, and smearing us with their willfully dishonest spin. Our enemies are deceptive and merciless, and we cannot ever let our guard down or forget it.

It's still painful knowing that Rand did not handle the ambush as well as he could have (or as well as Ron has in the past), and I hope he learns from it, but we should make no mistake about it: It was a deliberate, premeditated, and ruthless attempt at character assassination...and there was no easy way to defend against it.

Well done.

+1776

I hope everybody understands that the enemies Mini Me speaks of are coming from both sides, right and left.

Wait until the neo con right gets started on him.

The campaign needs to understand: trust no one, keep your eyes and ears open at all times.

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/9/12/633883319858162195-RACHELMADCOW.jpg

[NYgs23]

Fact is, he waffled and rambled and squirmed and wriggled and squiggled throughout the whole interview. And it was embarrassing. Frankly, it seemed like he was in another world listening to some interviewer in his head asking completely different questions half the time.

I think there are creative ways to word even the most controversial of libertarian positions in ways that don't make you look like a whackjob to a honest assessor. Here, you had the worst of both worlds. Everyone, Maddow included, knows exactly what his view is anyway so he comes across no better from that angle. But he also made a fool of himself with his deliberate obtuseness. Sorry, its my honest assessment.

Is this gonna be another, "Beck tricked Medina into giving that really, really stupid response?"

[Anti Federalist]

Is this gonna be another, "Beck tricked Medina into giving that really, really stupid response?"

Yes, because it is.

The fault on Rand lies only with the idea that he was somehow going to go on her show and be showered in softball questions and accolades and not set up for failure before it even started.

He is a threat to the established order.

He should have been prepared for that.

[Teaser Rate]

Fact is, he waffled and rambled and squirmed and wriggled and squiggled throughout the whole interview. And it was embarrassing. Frankly, it seemed like he was in another world listening to some interviewer in his head asking completely different questions half the time.

I think there are creative ways to word even the most controversial of libertarian positions in ways that don't make you look like a whackjob to a honest assessor. Here, you had the worst of both worlds. Everyone, Maddow included, knows exactly what his view is anyway so he comes across no better from that angle. But he also made a fool of himself with his deliberate obtuseness. Sorry, its my honest assessment.

Is this gonna be another, "Beck tricked Medina into giving that really, really stupid response?"

+1

[HOLLYWOOD]

I'm more concerned about what Senators DeMint and Sessions said. The Left media, cameras and all, were waiting for these guys to leave the Capital. The Good Ole Boys don't like their everyday routines upset by a newcomer rookie.

The GOP could throw Rand under the bus... we all know too well what cowards these politicians and their inner circle party BS are...

Frankly I'd hire Andrew BreitBart and give him a big bankroll to take on these leftist lunatics and racists like congressman James Clyburn immediately.

[Mini-Me]

Well done.

+1776

I hope everybody understands that the enemies Mini Me speaks of are coming from both sides, right and left.

Wait until the neo con right gets started on him.

The campaign needs to understand: trust no one, keep your eyes and ears open at all times.

Indeed...I'm even more leery of what the neocons have up their sleeves now that the conservative pundits are kissing Rand's ass. Maybe they're just "respecting power" and trying to keep from becoming irrelevant, but I feel like there's something funnier going on that I can't put my finger on. (And no, I don't think that Rand has secretly been working with the neocons all along for endless war ;)...even if I don't like his political posturing or the damage it does to one of the most important tenets of the liberty message.)

[jkr]

im sure shed say she owns her body...

[JaylieWoW]

Yes. I'm surprised how hard she hit him on this. It reeks of DNC puppetry.

Reeks... nay nay... this is DNC puppetry at its finest. I've seen lots of comments on this whole thing but have yet to see anyone point out that if this is the best they can do I'm feeling far better about fielding more liberty candidates in the future.

I mean really, hammering someone on a stance about legislation that while maybe necessary at the time is nearly 100% unnecessary today. I'd say let them keep trying to play their racism cards. Good thing is that pretty soon they'll run out of cards to play because quite frankly, not a single person I know (black or white) agrees with it and further, everyone is getting pretty sick and damn tired of hearing story after story about it.

[silentshout]

Obviously the MSM is getting VERY threatened by libertarian philosophy - as it's getting INCREASINGLY popular. They are trying to attack and smear it by spreading misinformation and having one-sided arguments without having tenured libertarians able to rebut such claims as Maddow made above, and why the libertarian path is the best one for all involved.

People are obviously wondering about it. That's why Maddow is trying to discredit and marginalize it and fight it as best she can - because even plenty of liberals are wondering about it and are interested in hearing more.


Yep! Great post, exactly what I wanted to say but you said it better than I would have. :D

[Anti Federalist]

Indeed...I'm even more leery of what the neocons have up their sleeves now that the conservative pundits are kissing Rand's ass. Maybe they're just "respecting power" and trying to keep from becoming irrelevant, but I feel like there's something funnier going on that I can't put my finger on. (And no, I don't think that Rand has secretly been working with the neocons all along for endless war ;)...even if I don't like his political posturing or the damage it does to one of the most important tenets of the liberty message.)

Nor do I, I think they'll crucify him when the time is right.

Keeping relevant may play a role, since that means ratings.

Take a look at this:



Here's how the other cable news personalities are doing, year over year, in April:

April 09- April 2010 in the 25-54 demo:

Fox News' Bill O’Reilly– down 3%

Fox News' Glenn Beck - down 6%

MSNCB's Rachel Maddow – down 8%

Fox News' Greta Van Sustren – down 13%

Fox News' Sean Hannity – down 17%

MSNBC's Chris Matthews – down 23%

MSNBC's Headline News – down 26%

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann – down 28%

CNN's Wolf Blitzer – down 37%

CNN's Campbell Brown – down 39%

CNN's Anderson Cooper – down 41%

CNN's Larry King – down 46%

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-glenn-beck-ratings-down-by-30-this-year-2010-4#ixzz0oXYVsvzd

[7_digitz]

Fact is, he waffled and rambled and squirmed and wriggled and squiggled throughout the whole interview. And it was embarrassing. Frankly, it seemed like he was in another world listening to some interviewer in his head asking completely different questions half the time.

I think there are creative ways to word even the most controversial of libertarian positions in ways that don't make you look like a whackjob to a honest assessor. Here, you had the worst of both worlds. Everyone, Maddow included, knows exactly what his view is anyway so he comes across no better from that angle. But he also made a fool of himself with his deliberate obtuseness. Sorry, its my honest assessment.

Is this gonna be another, "Beck tricked Medina into giving that really, really stupid response?"

i think people are giving maddows too much credit. the reality is dr. rand paul had a really bad moment and he allowed himself, to a degree, to be opened up. if larry king or several other so-called news host would've interviewed him and the same questions came up and dr. paul responded the same way, he probably would've been hit in the same manner.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Exactly. The entire interview was a trap; she was trying to ensnare prey like a cunning and pitiless serpent. A few people were saying things last night like, "She was being fair," or, "she's just trying to give him a chance to clear up something that will come up all year," but those sentiments are extremely naive. Maddow said the issue will come up all year, precisely because people like Maddow are so interested in making it an issue all year. We all need to understand that she was deliberately setting him up for this the whole time, and any perceived fairness was a charade for viewers as much as it was intended to lull Rand into complacency.

We have enemies, and they are not interested in being persuaded or learning how libertarians and Constitutionalists think; they already know how we think, and they don't care. They are not interested in mutual understanding; they are interested in cruelly turning our own words against us, twisting them, and smearing us with their willfully dishonest spin. Our enemies are deceptive and merciless, and we cannot ever let our guard down or forget it.

It's still painful knowing that Rand did not handle the ambush as well as he could have (or as well as Ron has in the past), and I hope he learns from it, but we should make no mistake about it: It was a deliberate, premeditated, and ruthless attempt at character assassination...and there was no easy way to defend against it.

How much is a monopoly on coercion worth?

The corporatist machine is about retaining power. It is the same exact motivation expressed under Lincoln. We are now government and we intend to remain so.

It is no secret certain interests acquired large chunks of the American media a century ago. It is no secret the industrial revolution was increasing the wealth of average people and one social class set out to preserve its power. It is no secret war is the thing that rallies common people to support government. It is no secret indoctrination is achieved through education.

The enemy is policy. Policies that advance the above goals. Policies using debt for money. Policies in public education. Policies in preemptive foreign policy. Policies regulating commerce.

If you want to limit competition, achieve unity through war, and indoctrinate the populace what kind of policies do you pursue?

The media machine is going to use labels in these areas of policy to create just enough division to prevent people to become self aware to destroy our ideas. That is the strategy to preserve power. We are trying to destroy these policies and create a populace of individuals who are self aware. It can only happen if people are delivering a consistent principled liberty message.

We already damn well know anytime you go on media you are stepping inside the Policy Matrix. When you look at this follow-up piece with Maddow do you see any mention of flip-flopping? No because the policy machine needs to destroy the idea of private property rights. That is what we are up against.

[Imperial]

Is Maddow aware that asking a series of rhetorical questions like that is a logical fallacy? It is asking a loaded question to ellicit a black and white answer from the audience.

Nice job making anti-Civil Rights Act = violence. An unfounded assertion. I am okay with the Civil Rights Act, but Maddow's rant makes one almost want to reconsider it is so atrocious and logically juvenile.

[Mini-Me]

Nor do I, I think they'll crucify him when the time is right.

Keeping relevant may play a role, since that means ratings.

Take a look at this:



Here's how the other cable news personalities are doing, year over year, in April:

April 09- April 2010 in the 25-54 demo:

Fox News' Bill O’Reilly– down 3%

Fox News' Glenn Beck - down 6%

MSNCB's Rachel Maddow – down 8%

Fox News' Greta Van Sustren – down 13%

Fox News' Sean Hannity – down 17%

MSNBC's Chris Matthews – down 23%

MSNBC's Headline News – down 26%

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann – down 28%

CNN's Wolf Blitzer – down 37%

CNN's Campbell Brown – down 39%

CNN's Anderson Cooper – down 41%

CNN's Larry King – down 46%

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-glenn-beck-ratings-down-by-30-this-year-2010-4#ixzz0oXYVsvzd

It's quite encouraging that ALL of them are down from last year...it means less people are caring about what any of them have to say.


How much is a monopoly on coercion worth?

The corporatist machine is about retaining power. It is the same exact motivation expressed under Lincoln. We are now government and we intend to remain so.

It is no secret certain interests acquired large chunks of the American media a century ago. It is no secret the industrial revolution was increasing the wealth of average people and one social class set out to preserve its power. It is no secret war is the thing that rallies common people to support government. It is no secret indoctrination is achieved through education.

The enemy is policy. Policies that advance the above goals. Policies using debt for money. Policies in public education. Policies in preemptive foreign policy. Policies regulating commerce.

If you want to limit competition, achieve unity through war, and indoctrinate the populace what kind of policies do you pursue?

The media machine is going to use labels in these areas of policy to create just enough division to prevent people to become self aware to destroy our ideas. That is the strategy to preserve power. We are trying to destroy these policies and create a populace of individuals who are self aware. It can only happen if people are delivering a consistent principled liberty message.

We already damn well know anytime you go on media you are stepping inside the Policy Matrix. When you look at this follow-up piece with Maddow do you see any mention of flip-flopping? No because the policy machine needs to destroy the idea of private property rights. That is what we are up against.

Nice post. The good news is, they already destroyed the idea of private property rights years ago in the minds of most Americans; if they are feeling the need to do so again, it kind of indicates they've lost some ground. :)

[The Patriot]

YouTube - Michael Savage Attacks Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, Charlie Rose, and Battles Helicopters - (6/19/09) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R495sR4VYSI)

[The Patriot]

I oppose the CRA of 1964, unapologetically, and have told people so, but I guess that is why I will never be elected, I will be assassinated personally if it comes up. Freedom and natural rights are not "mainstream" these days. The funny thing is, not long ago, this was a mainstream conservative position. If Conservatives support this bill, they are denying their own history for political convenience(which I suppose is understandable, but it is dishonest). The modern icons and prominent institutions of the conservative movement including Reagan, Goldwater, Bork, Rehnquist, Buckley, and the National Review opposed this legislation.

[fj45lvr]

Rachel Maddow, why do you hate freedom so much?

It's not "freedom" unless it fits her criteria.

[jbuttell]

I don't get Rachel Maddow sometimes, she had a good rant against Obama's prolonged detention shit and talked about personal rights, but why is she against business rights? A business being allowed to employ or cater to whom it wants to.

Maybe because she's a fraud? I believe I saw the rant you speak of - one she made quite some time ago, but she's since been very buddy buddy with Obama.

Her interview with Rand was absolutely condescending. I have absolutely zero respect for her after this interview. There's a woman not interested in the truth, but in getting her way.

[moostraks]

Nor do I, I think they'll crucify him when the time is right.

Keeping relevant may play a role, since that means ratings.

Take a look at this:



Here's how the other cable news personalities are doing, year over year, in April:

April 09- April 2010 in the 25-54 demo:

Fox News' Bill O’Reilly– down 3%

Fox News' Glenn Beck - down 6%

MSNCB's Rachel Maddow – down 8%

Fox News' Greta Van Sustren – down 13%

Fox News' Sean Hannity – down 17%

MSNBC's Chris Matthews – down 23%

MSNBC's Headline News – down 26%

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann – down 28%

CNN's Wolf Blitzer – down 37%

CNN's Campbell Brown – down 39%

CNN's Anderson Cooper – down 41%

CNN's Larry King – down 46%

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-glenn-beck-ratings-down-by-30-this-year-2010-4#ixzz0oXYVsvzd

I would be curious to see what things look like in a year. I think people are fatigued. Liberals have the power seat so they feel more comfortable 'their' people are left on autopilot while pseudo-conservatives feel the need to hear the anger espoused by the so called opposition so they might be listening more frequently.

As they start to ramp up for 2012 we might be able to use the figures to see where public interests lie but unless we can get liberty respecting outlets mainstreamed or find someway to play the opposition to our favor I believe we might be screwed again...:(

[726f6e7061756c]

@5:53 Rachel said the Civil Rights Act ended Woolworth's segregated lunch counters, But according to Greensboro sit-ins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins#cite_note-schlosser-2)

"In many towns, the sit-ins were successful in achieving the desegregation of lunch counters and other public places. Nashville's students attained citywide desegregation in May, 1960, and Greensboro’s Woolworth’s store desegregated its lunch counter several months after its sit-in, on July 26, 1960, serving blacks and whites alike."

Which was 4 years before the Civil Rights Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) .

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Why are you guys worried what Rachel Madcow is saying? She is a fucking socialist!! Nobody watching her show would ever even consider voting for Rand anyways. The fact that she is slamming Libertarians is a good thing, because now they are starting to see the movement as a threat rather than a laughable nuisance.

[Theocrat]

Yes. I'm surprised how hard she hit him on this. It reeks of DNC puppetry.

It's sad to say, but I think she hit him so hard that she actually ended up hurting him.

[ninepointfive]

It's sad to say, but I think she hit him so hard that she actually ended up hurting him.

From my perspective, I think her clips allow Rand to speak well of his positions. They may just think, "Hey wait a minute! Rand has a point!"

Of course most of the audience believes her, but I think any press is good. Especially when he makes his positions clear. Even on those attack pieces.

[BenIsForRon]

//

[BenIsForRon]

All of you are missing Maddow's point. Her point is that when Rand becomes a senator, his opinions on discrimination on private property will affect how he legislates future discrimination laws. So how he thinks the woolworth situation should have been handled will be indicative of how will handle other possible forthcoming discrimination laws. Totally reasonable, in my opinion.

[Theocrat]

All of you are missing Maddow's point. Her point is that when Rand becomes a senator, his opinions on discrimination on private property will affect how he legislates future discrimination laws. So how he thinks the woolworth situation should have been handled will be indicative of how will handle other possible forthcoming discrimination laws. Totally reasonable, in my opinion.

Rand just needs to answer her questions more directly so others can see what his feet are standing on when he explains his position.

[HOLLYWOOD]

It's sad to say, but I think she hit him so hard that she actually ended up hurting him.

Agree, like many others... his euphoria let him fall right into a well planned trap. What going to be interesting is not how much money is spent by his Democratic opponent, but how much the DNC and DNSC spend in Kentucky now. Also, how much the RNC/RNSC back Rand. There's so much money involved to control the public thought and it's the National Parties that can spend tons of money FOR THEIR Candidate that can't raise cash. McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act Loophole.


On a side note: Rand is not the best speaker and I think he needs public speaking coaching ASAP. To me, his delivery is kinda horrendous.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

So how he thinks the woolworth situation should have been handled will be indicative of how will handle other possible forthcoming discrimination laws. Totally reasonable, in my opinion.

But the Woolworth's situation is a perfect example of how The Free Market handled the situation. It didn't take the CRA to do it, but a group of courageous citizens who made the change possible.

[BenIsForRon]

But the Woolworth's situation is a perfect example of how The Free Market handled the situation. It didn't take the CRA to do it, but a group of courageous citizens who made the change possible.

Dude, I'm not disagreeing with that. The problem is he isn't willing to discuss how he would fall on legislation with such issues.

Believe it or not, saying you do not support government intervention into private discrimination cases is a big deal, and Rand is not willing to definitively say that.

[Theocrat]

But the Woolworth's situation is a perfect example of how The Free Market handled the situation. It didn't take the CRA to do it, but a group of courageous citizens who made the change possible.

It's people like Rachel Maddow who are always the first people to run to the civil authorities when they can't resolve an issue by themselves. It reminds me of a little brother who is always telling on his big brother just because he can't have his way.

Solving problems on a local/personal level can be a challenge at times. But through those challenges, it matures you and helps you to grow in wisdom and patience. Leftists like Maddow would rather have the "quick and easy" solution of government intrusion into every social problem that comes on the scene. Yet, I'm sure if our federal government came and told Maddow that lesbians like herself were outlaws of the State, she would immediately seek a local solution to that issue.

Yes, the market will work, if we allow it, but today, the words "free market" have become a buzzword of tyranny to those who love the State. Maddow cannot even fathom that option as a solution to "civil rights," for her worldview inherently rejects any private enterprise as being an exclusive and righteous entity apart from government intervention.

[fj45lvr]

would it have been a stretch for rand to say he wouldn't have voted for it because the private property aspect it includes has no constitutional basis (where does the FED think they have the power to dictate who business owners serve?). I would like those people that agree that the FEDS have this power to explain where it is derived?

those business owners that deprive people based on skin color are low-life idiots that should have the freedom to do what they want because they are private not public idiots.

[JamesButabi]

A real serious problem I have with this segment is the same thing Rand pointed out in the first one. She is trying to tie him / libertarians in with violent racists. The imagery she showed is absolutely disgusting and in no way should be connected with people who share a philosophy of non aggression.

[PaleoForPaul]

I've decided to watch politics the way I watched professional wrestling as a kid, knowing it's fake and absurd going into the whole thing.

This freakshow Maddow is accusing Rand of NOT GOING INTO DETAIL when he's discussing Title 10 of the civil rights act....a piece of legislation that was passed when Rand was one years old.

How many other politicians even know the civil rights act that well? Poor Rand was trying to make a philosophical point about the role of government, and the communist clowns in the one minute media come up with the soundbyte that "RAND IS RACIST" to fire out to the dumb drones who know nothing other than propaganda.

Oh, and what did the civil rights act lead to? Affirmative action programs that are racist, and frivolous law suits. Yet watch everyone bend over to defend the act because they "HATE RACISM!".

Does anyone stop to consider that what changed is the beliefs of people in regards to racism. That had nothing to do with the government forcing it down people's throats. In fact, government force simply leads to resentment, and probably set the civil rights movement back if anything.

None of that will be argued however, because it's simply not allowed. We have 20-30 hours of prime time political opinion shows on television every night, and not one of them has any kind of intelligent debate.

Our country had degenerated into a unique blend of the movie Idiocracy and Orwell's 1984.

[jazzloversinc]

Maddow is not a friend..she is the enemy. I hope most of you know that now.

[catdd]

I'm tellin you, this will be a fight between big gov socialists and limited gov conservatives. The reason the Republicans became rinos is because they were afraid of the kind of race baiting and slander we are seeing aimed at Rand.

[TortoiseDream]

YouTube - MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rand Paul's so-called Libertarian ideology trounced. Again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z9GeEais7w)

Here we go again... :mad:

This was painful to watch - BOTH Rachel and Rand.

[Anti Federalist]

I would be curious to see what things look like in a year. I think people are fatigued. Liberals have the power seat so they feel more comfortable 'their' people are left on autopilot while pseudo-conservatives feel the need to hear the anger espoused by the so called opposition so they might be listening more frequently.

As they start to ramp up for 2012 we might be able to use the figures to see where public interests lie but unless we can get liberty respecting outlets mainstreamed or find someway to play the opposition to our favor I believe we might be screwed again...:(

Possibly.

My hope is that the people are finally understanding that the MSM organs are all state controlled puppets and rejecting them on both sides for alternatives.

[HOLLYWOOD]

But the Woolworth's situation is a perfect example of how The Free Market handled the situation. It didn't take the CRA to do it, but a group of courageous citizens who made the change possible.


YouTube - MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: Rand Paul's so-called Libertarian ideology trounced. Again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z9GeEais7w)

Here we go again... :mad:


So was MadCow's staff reading RPF or the Courier-Journal of Louisville, KY? Back on April 25 was this RPF thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=241755

which linked to this Socialist/Progressive/Liberal Hack Newpaper: Courier-Journal

http://www.courier-journal.com/graphics/mastlogo.gif

This C-J editorial Article: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100425/OPINION01/4250319/Editorial+|+In+Republican+Senate+race++a+dismal+ch oice (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100425/OPINION01/4250319/Editorial+%7C+In+Republican+Senate+race++a+dismal+ choice)

Which leads to this Editorial Comment statement that is copied by Maddow's statements and questions in the interview with Rand Paul and her show/text/facts/etc... Maddow even references the old Liberal Republicans that even endorse Democrats today in this editorial (Maddow and her MSNBC staff have been preparing for a MONTH!):
************************************************** ************************************************** ********************************************

"The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group."

He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn't think it should be legislated.His perspectives — like Mr. Grayson's — are repellent to those who believe in a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. Indeed, Dr. Paul wouldn't even permit exceptions in the case of rape or incest. He says the mother and the unborn zygote have equal rights.

[Even so, Mr. Grayson has been endorsed by Kentucky Right to Life.]

On foreign policy, perhaps Dr. Paul's strongest suit, he opposes any wars of choice (which would include the current Iraq war), and he believes that Congress should approve a declaration of war before troops are ever sent to fight.
In contrast, Mr. Grayson generally supports the administration's policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, noting that he lacks the confidential information that the President and his advisers have.
Dr. Paul describes himself not as a Libertarian, but rather a “constitutional conservative.” As such, he favors stripping away a lot of the actions of the federal government in the last eight decades. And he includes both Democrats and Republicans in his criticism of excessive spending and expansion of government. He would favor dismantling several federal departments including Commerce, Education and perhaps Agriculture.


Top Senate candidates from Kentucky oppose Obama's cap-and-trade proposal (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100509/NEWS0106/5090312/Top-Senate-candidates-from-Kentucky-oppose-Obama-s-cap-and-trade-proposal)


Let us hasten to add that this most definitely is not this newspaper's perspective on how our nation's government, and our society, should be structured. The 20th Century changes that expanded government's reach to ensure safer, fairer and healthier lives for all Americans were fruits of a kind of democracy we embrace. And those changes were brought about by both parties, the Republicans under Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and the Democrats under Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Something changed in America after the Watergate debacle. Dissatisfaction with the changes that brought about the Civil Rights Something changed in America after the Watergate debacle. Dissatisfaction with the changes that brought about the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s, the women's movement, the environmental movement and finally the push for gay rights — coupled with expensive government programs — has fueled since the time of Ronald Reagan an anger and fear.Yet Dr. Paul, for all his support of smaller government and his interest in the tax-reduction ideas of the tea partiers, is neither an angry nor resentful person. He's thoughtful and witty in an elfin sort of way. Yet his candidacy has been embraced by such extremists as former Gov. Sarah Palin, Dr. Frank Simon and the tea party movement.

How different these two men are from the Republican statesmen who once represented Kentucky in Congress — John Sherman Cooper, Thruston B. Morton and Marlow W. Cook. While often adhering to traditional Republican perspective on economic conservatism, they reflected an open-minded, independent moderation — heirs of Henry Clay in fact.The party of Mitch McConnell has betrayed that legacy and the good people who shaped it. Not surprisingly, Sen. Cook — now in retirement in Florida — frequently supports Democrats.
This newspaper cannot recommend either of this year's principal candidates to Republican voters. But we hope that members of the GOP with some degree of perspective will ponder the direction in which their party is moving — and vow to do something to put it back on a constructive course.