Rand Paul on The Mark Levin Show 12/12/12

[jct74]

starts at 1:32:20
http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=2069xhttp://podfuse-dl.andomedia.com/800185/podfuse-origin.andomedia.com/citadel_origin/pods/marklevin/Levin12122012.mp3


tube:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXGWjZwznD8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXGWjZwznD8

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Very good.

And then Levin promotes buying gold right afterwards.

[AuH20]

Levin is right. Leave the top 2 income groups alone as in retain the Bush tax cuts and LOWER the remaining three even further. That would just bedevil any power play by the President and the democrats. But obviously, RINO leadership would never propose such a measure.

[cbrons]

Very good.

And then Levin promotes buying gold right afterwards.

He's still a neo-con hack who bashes Rothbard and Ron Paul senior

[cbrons]

Levin is right. Leave the top 2 income groups alone as in retain the Bush tax cuts and LOWER the remaining three even further. That would just bedevil any power play by the President and the democrats. But obviously, RINO leadership would never propose such a measure.

Precisely, they are a bunch of losers. The Republicans must be dropped.

[Brett85]

Is there a tube of it? I can't get it to open.

[AuH20]

Levin is in love with Rand. He sounds like a adolescent girl that just picked up the latest issue of Tigerbeat.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Is there a tube of it? I can't get it to open.I had to wait for it to buffer before I fast forwarded.

[jct74]

Is there a tube of it? I can't get it to open.

it's an mp3 file, so do a right click and "save as..."

or try this: http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930

[AuH20]

Winning hearts and minds with each interview. The man is an articulate, confident WINNER!!! Underestimate him at your own peril. lol

[TheTexan]

Levin is in love with Rand. He sounds like a adolescent girl that just picked up the latest issue of Tigerbeat.

Let's see if that stays true when there is an actual election at stake

[AuH20]

Let's see if that stays true when there is an actual election at stake

He likely will. I'm not worried about Levin. He was in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. However, Hannity I don't trust for one second. He will stab Rand in the back when the time is right. I remember when he was very nasty with Ron after one of the debates last year and started hammering the newletter controversy. He is scum.

[Agorism]

That music he cuts to is ridiculous, some sort of death metal sounding thing

[XTreat]

Doesn't Rand care about the vile things that Levin has said about his father?

How can they have any respect for each other?

[S.Shorland]

I use the toilet every day but I'm not attached to it.

[itshappening]

He likely will. I'm not worried about Levin. He was in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. However, Hannity I don't trust for one second. He will stab Rand in the back when the time is right. I remember when he was very nasty with Ron after one of the debates last year and started hammering the newletter controversy. He is scum.

None of them will give Rand the time of day when the primary is happening beyond polite interviews. The orders will come from high. They will support and push Rubio, Jindal, anyone but Rand.

We have to complete the coup and make Rand's nomination inevitable by sweeping Iowa, New Hampshire and S.C. We don't need the talking heads on our side to do that, just need to run a winning campaign in those states and it'll be all over before they know it.

[CaptLouAlbano]

We have to complete the coup and make Rand's nomination inevitable by sweeping Iowa, New Hampshire and S.C. We don't need the talking heads on our side to do that, just need to run a winning campaign in those states and it'll be all over before they know it.

The good news is that we have a few years to prepare for this. Above all else, we need people in IA, NH and SC to get elected to committee seats and other local gov't posts so they can wield their influence with the voters come 2016. We need this in all states of course, but those are the three keys. And from everything I have gathered, I do not see a concerted effort among Rubio or Jindal supporters to do the same. So whomever is supportive of Rand, and wants to maximize their ability to secure votes for him come 2016, run for local office.

[Brett85]

Doesn't Rand care about the vile things that Levin has said about his father?

How can they have any respect for each other?

I've been wondering the same thing. I understand the benefits of Rand going on Levin's show, but I just couldn't go on a show where the host was so hateful towards my own father.

[July]

I've been wondering the same thing. I understand the benefits of Rand going on Levin's show, but I just couldn't go on a show where the host was so hateful towards my own father.

They can only cause you pain when you decide it hurts.

All politicans get hosed by the media these days. Even Romney got slammed after he won the nomination. Ron was bashed the most though. But I don't think it is possible to be in politics anymore and not get nastily bashed eventually.

[July]

Nice interview...liked the positivity..."If we had a president that did this... If I were leader of the Republican party I would do this..." That's how the party becomes proactive and worth fighting for.

[Odin]

Levin is right. Leave the top 2 income groups alone as in retain the Bush tax cuts and LOWER the remaining three even further. That would just bedevil any power play by the President and the democrats. But obviously, RINO leadership would never propose such a measure.

That just isn't possible without enormous spending cuts. As everyone points out it is spending that is the problem but Republicans like Levin are reluctant to cut military spending at all. We have to pay for Japan and Germany's defense budgets basically while those countries balance their own budgets.

I'm pretty convinced that Romney lost partly because he wanted to increase military spending. Obama really hit him hard on that, saying that reducing tax rates and increasing military spending just doesn't add up especially when we already have a massive budget deficit, which is of course true. So the 'fiscal responsibility' argument went out the window.

[Brett85]

I'm pretty convinced that Romney lost partly because he wanted to increase military spending. Obama really hit him hard on that, saying that reducing tax rates and increasing military spending just doesn't add up especially when we already have a massive budget deficit, which is of course true. So the 'fiscal responsibility' argument went out the window.

I thought that as well. Romney was at least ahead in the national RCP average going into the 3rd foreign policy debate, and his numbers started going steadily down after that.

[AuH20]

I've been wondering the same thing. I understand the benefits of Rand going on Levin's show, but I just couldn't go on a show where the host was so hateful towards my own father.

But look at it from Levin's perspective. Ron used that erroneous comment about Americans directly "killing" 1 million Iraqis. That's the type of careless verbage that sets up these feuds. Note that Rand doesn't spew vile like that and Levin can at least get along with his differences. Rhetoric is everything in the world and can destroy relationships in the process. Note the way Pat Buchanan can rationally preach non-interventionism without outraging everyone. To me, Ron was always too much of a bull-in-a-china closet with some of his comments.

[jj-]

That's the type of careless carefully accurate verbage that sets up these feuds.

fixed

[AuH20]

fixed

"Americans killed 1 million Iraqis." Let's examine the statement at face value with no context. To paraphrase, American military forces specifically targeted Iraqi citizens for death in large, inordinate numbers. That's the type of comment that is irresponsible, nonfactual and insulting. But Ron Paul being Ron Paul, apparently did not think about it's ramifications afterwards. When you put your name to something like this with poor explanation, one should not be suprised by the fallout.

[Brett85]

But look at it from Levin's perspective. Ron used that erroneous comment about Americans directly "killing" 1 million Iraqis. That's the type of careless verbage that sets up these feuds. Note that Rand doesn't spew vile like that and Levin can at least get along with his differences. Rhetoric is everything in the world and can destroy relationships in the process. Note the way Pat Buchanan can rationally preach non-interventionism without outraging everyone. To me, Ron was always too much of a bull-in-a-china closet with some of his comments.

So you think that Levin had more of a problem with the way that Ron expressed his foreign policy views rather than his actual foreign policy views?

[AuH20]

So you think that Levin had more of a problem with the way that Ron expressed his foreign policy views rather than his actual foreign policy views?

I think he could have disagreed with him, but the hysterical manner in which he expressed himself in the debates made no friends. There is one thing to speak the truth and the other to knowingly antagonize others, which I suspect was just an act of self-defense to his detractors.

I know tons of potential voters who liked Ron Paul, except for these type of inexcusable comments. He has a couple of real doozies on his resume which are just poorly worded. And eventually that stuff sticks. Perception becomes reality and you're the lonely kook. Great man but not the best public speaker.

[Brett85]

I think he could have disagreed with him, but the hysterical manner in which he expressed himself in the debates made no friends. There is one thing to speak the truth and the other to knowingly antagonize others, which I suspect was just an act of self-defense to his detractors.

I know tons of potential voters who liked Ron Paul, expect for these type of inexcusable comments. He has a couple of real doozies on his resume which are just poorly worded. And eventually that stuff sticks. Perception becomes reality and you're the lonely kook. Great man but not the best public speaker.

That's why I keep saying that it's really not necessary for Rand to take different foreign policy positions from Ron, but merely express himself differently. Rand is still the best Senator we have on foreign policy issues, but I just hope that he doesn't water down the foreign policy message too much in order to appeal to people like Levin.

[AuH20]

That's why I keep saying that it's really not necessary for Rand to take different foreign policy positions from Ron, but merely express himself differently. Rand is still the best Senator we have on foreign policy issues, but I just hope that he doesn't water down the foreign policy message too much in order to appeal to people like Levin.

EXACTLY. Ron's message at it's core is sellable and unassailable. However, all the dramatic window-dressing and sound byte rhetoric was poisonous to his persona. Look at George Allen with the Maccaca incident. Once unclear statements enter the whirlwind known as the press cycle, you're labeled for life, sadly.

[July]

Ron spoke that way, I imagine, because he believed that collectivism obscures moral responsibly, distancing the individual from the situation. Just like with money in the welfare state, people don't really think about where the money is coming from or going, or who is responsible for giving who what. Who owns what is diluted. So it is with moralty in war. Civilian casualties are vague occurrences that nobody in particular is morally responsible for as an individual... People become apathetic and dissociated from the situation.

But I understand. People did feel offended by that. You can't explain all this in a sound byte or in a short debate. Better suited for a long speech or a book, perhaps.

[AuH20]

Ron spoke that way, I imagine, because he believed that collectivism obscures moral responsibly, distancing the individual from the situation. Just like with money in the welfare state, people don't really think about where the money is coming from or going, or who is responsible for giving who what. Who owns what is diluted. So it is with moralty in war. Civilian casualties are vague occurrences that nobody in particular is morally responsible for as an individual... People become apathetic and dissociated from the situation.

But I understand. People did feel offended by that. You can't explain all this in a sound byte or in a short debate. Better suited for a long speech or a book, perhaps.

True. Better suited for an hour long interview or book. But I can understand why he said it. He was being attacked by multiple candidates on a stage. And he's a human being with pride and feelings.

[idiom]

I use the toilet every day but I'm not attached to it.

I bet you could quit any time you wanted to right?

[Anti Federalist]

"Americans killed 1 million Iraqis." Let's examine the statement at face value with no context. To paraphrase, American military forces specifically targeted Iraqi citizens for death in large, inordinate numbers. That's the type of comment that is irresponsible, nonfactual and insulting. But Ron Paul being Ron Paul, apparently did not think about it's ramifications afterwards. When you put your name to something like this with poor explanation, one should not be suprised by the fallout.

Ramifications?

The fact that our policies killed those people is somehow "insulting"?

The USG supported Saddam Hussein in a filthy border war against Iran.

That killed three million people.

Is pointing that out "insulting"?

[twomp]

Ramifications?

The fact that our policies killed those people is somehow "insulting"?

The USG supported Saddam Hussein in a filthy border war against Iran.

That killed three million people.

Is pointing that out "insulting"?

It is when you are someone like Levin and most of those GOP warmongers who think their shit don't stink. How can the great US Government be blamed for those killings. We are Americans and they are Muslims, of course we are right and we never kill anyone who's innocent. NEVER!

[DylanWaco]

I wonder if Levin realizes that Jack Hunter is a paid staffer of Rand's? Levin's hatred for Hunter is unbelievable and unlike anything I have ever seen involving media figures with drastically different profiles. Rest assured if the perception of Rand becomes too "non-interventionist," Levin will circle the wagons with the rest of the gang and likely blame the influence of Jack.

[anaconda]

He's still a neo-con hack who bashes Rothbard and Ron Paul senior

He would be the first person to bash on Rand if he didn't smell the winds of change. Levin is a lap dog for the establishment. I had to chuckle when he said that the Democrats were an extension of big government (or words to that effect). As if the Republicans were not! Rand didn't take the bait on that one.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I wonder if Levin realizes that Jack Hunter is a paid staffer of Rand's? Levin's hatred for Hunter is unbelievable and unlike anything I have ever seen involving media figures with drastically different profiles. Rest assured if the perception of Rand becomes too "non-interventionist," Levin will circle the wagons with the rest of the gang and likely blame the influence of Jack.Hunter is a contributor to Michael Savage, Levin's time slot rival so I am sure that had something to do with it as well. Savage and Levin literally go off on rants against each other.

[AuH20]

Ramifications?

The fact that our policies killed those people is somehow "insulting"?

The USG supported Saddam Hussein in a filthy border war against Iran.

That killed three million people.

Is pointing that out "insulting"?

You shouldn't have to embellish or alter the truth to make a point. Ron Paul did with that comment insinuating that the U.S. Military targeted and killed 1 million Iraqis. That's the type of stuff I can't stand. Use facts. Don't go into fantasy land from questionable sources. You can make salient points about U.S. malfeasance and imperial aggression with quantified data.

[AuH20]

The USG supported Saddam Hussein in a filthy border war against Iran.

That killed three million people.

Is pointing that out "insulting"?

Cold war puppetry. I don't condone any such behavior. You reap what you sow they say. With all that said, i think you need step out this bubble of histrionics you have created and start to examine the function of the U.S. military. It is very much a global enforcement unit, which I loathe to varying degrees, but it's primary function is to not indiscriminately kill. Killing is very expensive and costly. Secondly, to even embark on such approach would be nearly impossible to contain, due to global press leaks.

[Anti Federalist]

Cold war puppetry. I don't condone any such behavior. You reap what you sow they say. With all that said, i think you need step out this bubble of histrionics you have created and start to examine the function of the U.S. military. It is very much a global enforcement unit, which I loathe to varying degrees, but it's primary function is to not indiscriminately kill. Killing is very expensive and costly. Secondly, to even embark on such approach would be nearly impossible to contain, due to global press leaks.

For the record I don't think it is indiscriminate.

In fact, I make just the opposite case, that killing and blowing shit up is one task that the government excels at, that it accomplishes this task with clicking precision.

Thus, when the bodies pile up ten feet thick, I can make no other assumption than: "that is exactly what they wanted to accomplish".

[Confederate]

Is there a tube of it? I can't get it to open.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXGWjZwznD8

[AuH20]

For the record I don't think it is indiscriminate.

In fact, I make just the opposite case, that killing and blowing shit up is one that the government excels at, that it accomplishes this task with clicking precision.

Thus, when the bodies pile up ten feet thick, I can make no other assumption than: "that is exactly what they wanted to accomplish".

The Baghdad bombing operation during Operation: Iraqi Freedom was specifically tagged as "Shock and Awe." That is the primary MO of the U.S. military. To instill fear, demoralize and finally subjugate because these methods are a far more effective tool than the messy task of killing everything within a 25 mile radius.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think he could have disagreed with him, but the hysterical manner in which he expressed himself in the debates made no friends. There is one thing to speak the truth and the other to knowingly antagonize others, which I suspect was just an act of self-defense to his detractors.

I know tons of potential voters who liked Ron Paul, except for these type of inexcusable comments. He has a couple of real doozies on his resume which are just poorly worded. And eventually that stuff sticks. Perception becomes reality and you're the lonely kook. Great man but not the best public speaker.
That's the kind of talk that gets you banned from here and progressing this forum into the Daily Paul Pravda.

[cbrons]

Love how Mark Levin the neo-con goes, "Senator Rand Paul, how are you my friend?" This is the same lowlife that rips Rand's father all the time in a really slimy, cheap ways IMO.

[klamath]

You shouldn't have to embellish or alter the truth to make a point. Ron Paul did with that comment insinuating that the U.S. Military targeted and killed 1 million Iraqis. That's the type of stuff I can't stand. Use facts. Don't go into fantasy land from questionable sources. You can make salient points about U.S. malfeasance and imperial aggression with quantified data. Iknow exactly where Ron got this. He spends a huge amout of time reading articles and information. At one time during the war a very left wing group came up with that kill number by doing a study on the number of rounds the military had expended. It sounds good but unless you have been in combat or studied it closely every round does not make a kill. it is hundreds to one. Unfortunately many veterans knew this study and knew it was a rabid left anti american group which associated RP with the hardcore left anti american groups.
Ron unfortunately did this while trying to defend his US based defense strategy and came up with our combat plane that could reach any part of the world in an hour, unfortunately when he read that article he missed the part where it was experimental and had failed.

[AuH20]

Iknow exactly where Ron got this. He spends a huge amout of time reading articles and information. At one time during the war a very left wing group came up with that kill number by doing a study on the number of rounds the military had expended. It sounds good but unless you have been in combat or studied it closely every round does not make a kill. it is hundreds to one. Unfortunately many veterans knew this study and knew it was a rabid left anti american group which associated RP with the hardcore left anti american groups.Ron unfortunately did this while trying to defend his US based defense strategy and came up with our combat plane that could reach any part of the world in an hour, unfortunately when he read that article he missed the part where it was experimental and had failed.

I'm pretty certain it was Amnesty International.