Rachel Maddow Continues War On Rand Paul In A Disgusting Way

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


Maddow is as much a journalist as Beck or Orielly.

Which is to say she isn't one. She is a news commentator who gives her opinion.

Liberals always confuse commentators as journalists. I don't understand why either. Its not like you haven't been told the differance a thousand times, I guess it helps you to credit or discretdit the commentator in question.

If by free press you mean praise everything democrat and # on everything republican then you have had that for the past 9 years. Its called every news station except for Fox.

Rand Paul wants the people to be able to make their own decisions, for better or worse. I don't want to sacrifice to save money to open up a buisness and then have the government tell me how to run it.

That is what the real issue is. He wants less government in our personal lives. Maddow is being a douche and saying less government is a bad thing. She says we need more government because we cant govern ourselves.

I imagine if Rand Paul got his way there would be very little places of buisness who would deny because of race. But keep listening to Maddow, after all she is a great representation of the new free press.

She is playing to her audience.

I can't STAND her. She's so self righteous.
I asked some of her fans why they liked her. They said it was because she was so smart and well prepared, that she studied really hard on the issues she discussed.

Ok, well...in that case....I'd like to see her go head to head with Alex Jones.

I appreciate Dr. Paul's push for limiting big government, on the other hand we, as America, have already decided that government control covers race and discrimination.

There's some hypocricy in that as a white guy I can get killed for trying to go into certain clubs, while if there was an all-white club it would make news all around the world, but hey - it's the place of our government to keep segregation and discrimination illegal.

I watched both programs live. Mr. Paul required little help from the interviewer in sticking his foot in his mouth. Granted, he could have dodged like most politicians do, but his true colors poured out in the red and blue of the confederate flag.

It will take more than namesake to impress me.

If he can't handle her, he shouldn't be in politics. Nuff said.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


He shouldn't be in politics because he is not politician enough to side step a vomit spewing commentator?

I don't know about you but I'm kind of tired of the career politican. In about 8 years he will be ready to run for President.

Thats got you liberals pretty scared doesn't it, thats why you are having a field day trying to discredit him. Maybe you should start looking at that whold WH trying to get that guy to drop out of the race with Spector by bribing him.

Thats a felony you know and its so much juicier then a guy who isn't that great without cue cards. Thats been done to death.

Rachel Maddow is the left version of Glenn Beck.

Both of them fail hard.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The above video paints it pretty efficiently.

I'm not even a Rand Paul supporter
I don't agree with him foreign policy wise
But he is better than his competition though

At the end of the day
This is pretty lame what the attack is all about

The core issue in this debate is individualism versus collectivism, individuals rights versus the collective good.

What is worse favoring individuals rights over the collective good or vice versa?

We have the drug war in this country that disproportionately arrests, prosecutes, and imprisons minorities and blacks because the elite like Maddow feel that the collective good of a nation free from drugs outweighs the rights of the individual to put what they want into their own body.

What is worse, a racist store owner refusing to serve someone because of their race or the government imprisoning people for what they put into their own body, disproportionately black because of the racism of those employed in the criminal justice system?

It comes down to individualism versus collectivism, individual rights versus the collective good. Which side are you on?

She asked a few strawmen questions without anyone there to knock them down, time to knock them down:

Does the government have the right to require BP to use safety technology when they drill offshore?

Of course, that oil and the coast in which it is extracted is the property of all the individuals of the United States. It is our natural resource inheritance. BP should get a very slim payment while the lionshare of the profits from the sales of the oil should go directly back to the public in the form of checks like they do in Alaska.

Can liquor stores sell to kids? Can the government inspect meat? Should it say you can't put lead in those pacifiers you are making?

Selling liquor to children who have not reached the age of consent, when one has full rights of choice over their body and property, is a violation of those childrens parents' rights.
Selling unsafe meat while presenting it as safe is fraud.
Putting lead in pacifiers that are sold to the public without the public's knowledge is fraud.


Libertarianism is not that radical and not that hard to understand if one actually makes the effort. It is simply the belief in individualism over collectivism. - your body, your property, your choice

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip



Are you serious?

Maybe, just maybe this is a small step in taking baby steps in ending racism. Not all business owners are racist or stupid. Why on earth would a business owner turn away a sell/profit? If that "owner" is so caught up in selling to who he see's fit, he probably won't be in business long.

This is about people being people and fair trade. Keep the government outta of it and let PEOPLE learn to live and love each other. A good customer is a good customer regardless of race, religion, etc...

The legends that are Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St Clair put it best.

That Maddow-Paul set-to on MSNBC was tragic-comic. As CounterPunch co-editor Jeffrey St Clair remarked, “Maddow and Paul agree on probably 90 per cent of the BIG issues confronting us, from ending the drug and Afghan war, to ending bail outs & aid to Israel.

But because of their own peculiar prejudices, his doctrinaire libertarian, hers PC progressive, neither of them can talk about anything other than a non-issue such as the Civil Rights Act of 19 -- SIXTY-FOUR. It's like a Dadaist play.”

If Rand Paul hadn’t been so preoccupied with winding up for what he plainly thought was his knock-out punch, concerning Maddow’s posture on the right to bear arms in every restaurant in America from Joe’s Diner to Le Cirque, he could have turned the tables easily enough, just by saying that this ritual flourishing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t have too much to do with what has happened to blacks since that glorious day, from an appalling school system, to blighted housing, constricted employment possibilities, shriveled share of the national income and most recently the great transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans.

www.counterpunch.com...

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
If given the freedom to discriminate, people will discriminate, and YOU might the next one who is the victim. Still sound good?

Yes, it does. Freedom includes the right to be an ass, and lose your ass because of it. What happens if the shoe is on the other foot and you have a customer who is an openly homophobic, shirtless, unbathed, anti-semitic racist? Do you want the federal government requiring you to serve someone completely undesirable and possibly detrimental to your business or do you want the freedom to choose with whom you will barter? Capitalism works fine without federal mandates on behavior and choice.

Look folks, I don't know if either Paul is a racist, but I do know their policies would allow racism to re-institutionalize itself in America.
Paul and his ilk are the Constitutional equivilants of Fundamentalists to the Bible. This kind of Fundamentalist ( if it doesn't say it specifically, it doesn't exist) doesn't even allow the possibility that another interptetation might be valid!
It's EXACTLY like the "The Bible says it, I believe it" philosophy. Fundies believe we would all live perfectly if we followed "Gods Laws". Well, only if
you happen to be a Fundamentalist!
The analogy to the Pauls as Constitutional Fundies IS a valid one.
Most of America's citizens would lose their Constitutional protections if this interpretation were implemented.
Stop combing over The Constitution for every literal word, then stopping. The document is specific on certain things: on others it enumerates priniciples in relativly general terms that must be applied by interpretation to those issues.
The Pauls, like many on ATS are ideolouges, if they actually ran the government, nothing would get done simply because they could never compromise.

He's defending BP now!! A TRANS NATIONAL CORPORATION!!!!!!!!!!

What about small businesses that are going to be destroyed? what about our environment? What about our coasts?

RAND IS A DISASTER.

Originally posted by David9176
He's defending BP now!! A TRANS NATIONAL CORPORATION!!!!!!!!!!

What about small businesses that are going to be destroyed? what about our environment? What about our coasts?

RAND IS A DISASTER.

By the time elections roll around and the devastation that BP has allowed and lied about, is all over the news; it won't be pretty for those that have been supporters and apologist for big oil. Dr. Paul included., sunk before he has even left port.





[edit on 21-5-2010 by whaaa]

This issue is more about MSNBC than it is about Paul Jr.

You've got to watch this video of Maddow's gilrlfriend/mentor to know what I mean.

reply to post by whaaa

By the time elections roll around and the devastation that BP has allowed and lied about, is all over the news; it won't be pretty for those that have been apologist for big oil.

And he's the only one really doing it, even the main talking heads on Fox news have backed off some....yet he goes and states some crazy ass S like this?

I simply can't believe it. IT'S NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN COMPANY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The same people wringing their hands about Rand Paul, are the same people that make his argument when talking about things like woman only gyms. Of course when woman's groups want their own gyms, it makes perfect sense that a business has the right to discriminate.

Ew. The woman is so obnoxious. Reminds me of Glenn Beck with her heavy breathed-histrionics.

But this guy is really a mealy mouth. I don't see him going very far in politics. He comes across as inexperienced and shallow. Very shallow, almost hollow.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
The way she used racists like w. buckley as examples was so cheap.
She is proving herself to be worse than Bill O'reilly!!

Ah well, "accidents happen".

In my opinion she's not trying hard enough because it gets worse. Much worse.

R and Paul Was The Featured Speaker At Theocratic Constitution Party 2009 Rally

i think she has penis envy of rand.
They get jealous when they see a real man with convictions who stand up for freedom.

Ever watch how the men get dragged around by the women in this country?

You go to speak to the man and the woman interrupts and tries to dominate the conversation like her stuff hangs in that relationship?

Im not bashing gay women however its something i have noticed that when a gay woman runs into a real man they love to attack them because they think they are dominant and it goes against there wierd view of the world.

Its almost like they are putting stuff in the water.
Ladies no matter how short you cut your hair,and accessories you buy you will never be the Alpha baby.