Rand Paul says the Maddow interview was 'very fair'

[txlonghorn]

Nobody cares whats being said on the Rachel Maddow show!!! LMAO........a few hundred people watch that show, and ALL are committed hyperpartisan lefty k00ks.
This might be a popular topic in the nether-regions of the internet, but nowhere else............

That is such bull. He said Rachel was fair because she is!!! She is NEVER rude to guests. You don't know what you're talking about. I'd bet you have never watched her show in your life.

I've watched...but to be honest, I've never made it through an enitre show. It's kinda like walking up on a 3 day old corpse....the curiosity gets the better of you and you have to look, but then in a matter of minutes, you wish you hadn't and the nausea overwhelms you.

I'm sure she is a VERY gracious to her guests...I would be too if I didn't get very many.

 

[txlonghorn]

Republicans always blame the interviewer when they say stupid shit.

"It's all Katie Couric's fault!"

Well, MSNBC has plenty of interviewers that say stupid shit.....so....there ya go.

 

[Chris]

Republicans always blame the interviewer when they say stupid shit.

"It's all Katie Couric's fault!"

Well, MSNBC has plenty of interviewers that say stupid shit.....so....there ya go.

Not really.

Nice try, though.

 

[Political Junky]

Republicans always blame the interviewer when they say stupid shit.

"It's all Katie Couric's fault!"

Well, MSNBC has plenty of interviewers that say stupid shit.....so....there ya go.

Like what?

 

[drsmith1072]

If you actually LISTEN to the interview... it's not at all difficult to understand Paul's point:

"I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias. Because it really wasn't the interview so much that was unfair. The interview I think was very fair. But then they went on a whole day repeating something over and over again. It makes me less inclined to go on a network."

MSNBC spent an entire day distorting the truth and painting this guy as a racist, which shouldn't surprise us given the fact that GE has alot of money on the line in its partnership with the Obama regime.

I listened to the interview on maddow's program and paul was trying desperately to spin and balance his postion to be more moderate while still trying to hold to what he had previously said and in the end he didn't look good at all.

What msnbc and other networks not completely right wing biased did was talk about what paul said instead of spinning what they believe he MEANT to say (hello foxnews) and that is what rightwingers don't like. He made the comments and then backtracked, that alone shows that he knows what he said didn't sit well with the voters.

 

[drsmith1072]

Nobody cares whats being said on the Rachel Maddow show!!! LMAO........a few hundred people watch that show, and ALL are committed hyperpartisan lefty k00ks.
This might be a popular topic in the nether-regions of the internet, but nowhere else............

That is such bull. He said Rachel was fair because she is!!! She is NEVER rude to guests. You don't know what you're talking about. I'd bet you have never watched her show in your life.

I've watched...but to be honest, I've never made it through an enitre show. It's kinda like walking up on a 3 day old corpse....the curiosity gets the better of you and you have to look, but then in a matter of minutes, you wish you hadn't and the nausea overwhelms you.

I'm sure she is a VERY gracious to her guests...I would be too if I didn't get very many.

Aw, you can't comment based on content or reality so you just attack. how typical.

The sad thing is that is kind of how I feel about glenn beck. For example I was watching a bit of his program last night and he was trying to pretend that he was basically a modern day nostradamus and then played an audio clip of him allegedly making a prediction that came true and then he started claiming how he made other predictions that came true that were not supported by his audio clip even as he claimed "I showed you how I made them" (not exact quote). This wannabe cult leader who talks down to people like they are stupid and how they need to wake up and see his version of the truth is a voice of the tea party and you actually have the nerve to baselessly attack maddow?? LOL

 

[Murf76]

I don't think he's a bigot. I think he's an idealogue. But perhaps he needs to educate himself as to what happens when government doesn't intervene in such matters.

or maybe he is a racist, but i'm not ready to draw that conclusion.

btw, snooksy, dear... Rand Paul was the one who chose to announce his candidacy on rachel maddow's show. he didn't do that because she's hyperpartisan. he did that because he felt it would help him.

poor baby.

Well... he knows better now than to have any dealings with GE, doesn't' he?



This whole thing is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Libertarian position. I've been looking for a video clip of something I saw a few days ago, and as I'm perusing news, video, and web searches, I'm noticing that most of it is generated by liberal media. It's a complete distortion of the ideological position.

Bottom line, and I wish I could lay my hands on that clip... the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was corrective legislation, whereby a standard of prejudice had been allowed to exist which was NOT consistent with the equality guaranteed by the Constitution. In normal circumstances, this would be unnecessary legislation, but at the the time, we were looking at a situation in which "the norm" had become perverted.

Libertarians, as I understand them, are first and foremost... Constitutionalists. So, they respect the rights of citizens to their own property, and that includes businesses. That said, the ALSO respect the rights of citizens to be treated equally under the law, which is also a Constitutional position. In a society where everyone is adhering to Constitutional equality, it's unnecessary for government to intervene. In this particular situation, the spirit of Constitutional equality had already gone off into the ditch, therefore intervention was warranted.

That doesn't mean that entrepreneurs shouldn't be able to say if they're willing to allow smoking on their private property or that they shouldn't be able to defend themselves from individuals or groups who are threatening their livelihood. Say for example, that you've got a little restaurant and bar that's being overly patronized by say... a raucous bunch of bikers, and you've noticed that your regular clientele are no longer patronizing your restaurant. Shouldn't you be able to insist that the noisy bike club hit the road in the interest of saving your business?

The race-baiting left are trying to make hay here over a question that has been asked and answered 46 years ago. It's the usual smear campaign from the usual suspects; the politics of personal destruction that they engage in every time their Big Government apparatus is threatened.

Frankly... it's disgusting. As you've stated, the guy is NOT a racist.

 

[Murf76]

If you actually LISTEN to the interview... it's not at all difficult to understand Paul's point:

"I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias. Because it really wasn't the interview so much that was unfair. The interview I think was very fair. But then they went on a whole day repeating something over and over again. It makes me less inclined to go on a network."

MSNBC spent an entire day distorting the truth and painting this guy as a racist, which shouldn't surprise us given the fact that GE has alot of money on the line in its partnership with the Obama regime.

I listened to the interview on maddow's program and paul was trying desperately to spin and balance his postion to be more moderate while still trying to hold to what he had previously said and in the end he didn't look good at all.

What msnbc and other networks not completely right wing biased did was talk about what paul said instead of spinning what they believe he MEANT to say (hello foxnews) and that is what rightwingers don't like. He made the comments and then backtracked, that alone shows that he knows what he said didn't sit well with the voters.

Paul didn't have a gripe against Maddow's interview. If you watch the clip, his beef was with the deliberate distortion of his position which was broadcast for an entire day.

He knows now, not to deal with GE though, doesn't he? GE's got alot of cash at stake, invested heavily in the Obama administration as they are. It's not like they don't have a vested interest in keeping Libertarians from fucking up their inside track.

Take a better look at the messenger here, DrSmith. You can usually figure out who's telling the truth.. by determining what their interest is in a given conflict.

 

[drsmith1072]

If you actually LISTEN to the interview... it's not at all difficult to understand Paul's point:

"I need to be very careful about going on certain networks that seem to have a bias. Because it really wasn't the interview so much that was unfair. The interview I think was very fair. But then they went on a whole day repeating something over and over again. It makes me less inclined to go on a network."

MSNBC spent an entire day distorting the truth and painting this guy as a racist, which shouldn't surprise us given the fact that GE has alot of money on the line in its partnership with the Obama regime.

I listened to the interview on maddow's program and paul was trying desperately to spin and balance his postion to be more moderate while still trying to hold to what he had previously said and in the end he didn't look good at all.

What msnbc and other networks not completely right wing biased did was talk about what paul said instead of spinning what they believe he MEANT to say (hello foxnews) and that is what rightwingers don't like. He made the comments and then backtracked, that alone shows that he knows what he said didn't sit well with the voters.

Paul didn't have a gripe against Maddow's interview. If you watch the clip, his beef was with the deliberate distortion of his position which was broadcast for an entire day.

He knows now, not to deal with GE though, doesn't he? GE's got alot of cash at stake, invested heavily in the Obama administration as they are. It's not like they don't have a vested interest in keeping Libertarians from fucking up their inside track.

Take a better look at the messenger here, DrSmith. You can usually figure out who's telling the truth.. by determining what their interest is in a given conflict.

I don't see the distortion that you and paul are whining about. I see the discussion of what he said and how he doesn't like the fact that it's being aired. So out of depseration he *(and you) is attacking the messenger because he doesn't want them talking about what he said.

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

 

[Murf76]

I don't see the distortion that you and paul are whining about. I see the discussion of what he said and how he doesn't like the fact that it's being aired. So out of depseration he *(and you) is attacking the messenger because he doesn't want them talking about what he said.

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

 

[jillian]

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

who do you think advances a 'corporatist agenda'? newscorp? or GE?

did you even bother watching the maddow interview?

i don't hear rand paul whining about that interview. i see him running from having to defend a ideology that doesn't believe in things like the civil rights act because heaven forbid we should actually protect people from losers who want things like whites-only businesses.

 

[Murf76]

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

who do you think advances a 'corporatist agenda'? newscorp? or GE?

did you even bother watching the maddow interview?

i don't hear rand paul whining about that interview. i see him running from having to defend a ideology that doesn't believe in things like the civil rights act because heaven forbid we should actually protect people from losers who want things like whites-only businesses.

Make your case then, Jillian. What legislation has been accomplished, or is in development, that will bring multi-billion dollar profits to Newscorp?
How much business has Newscorp been doing in Iran while they were engaged in killing our soldiers by proxy?



And once again... again .... Paul's beef with the Maddow interview was not about Maddow. It was about the lying spin put on the interview by the network. The whole "whites only" meme is a deliberate attempt at race-baiting for the purpose of political division and to smear an individual politician.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not at issue and has not been at issue for 46 years. It's decided law.

 

[Rinata]

Nobody cares whats being said on the Rachel Maddow show!!! LMAO........a few hundred people watch that show, and ALL are committed hyperpartisan lefty k00ks.
This might be a popular topic in the nether-regions of the internet, but nowhere else............

That is such bull. He said Rachel was fair because she is!!! She is NEVER rude to guests. You don't know what you're talking about. I'd bet you have never watched her show in your life.

I've watched...but to be honest, I've never made it through an enitre show. It's kinda like walking up on a 3 day old corpse....the curiosity gets the better of you and you have to look, but then in a matter of minutes, you wish you hadn't and the nausea overwhelms you.

I'm sure she is a VERY gracious to her guests...I would be too if I didn't get very many.

Well, it's not clear to me why you don't like her. I think that she really does her research and knows of what she speaks. She doesn't lie and she is very gracious.

If you have seen her behavior to be different than I've described, please tell me. I'd love to know. Thanks!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nobody cares whats being said on the Rachel Maddow show!!! LMAO........a few hundred people watch that show, and ALL are committed hyperpartisan lefty k00ks.
This might be a popular topic in the nether-regions of the internet, but nowhere else............

Yeah, that's why right wing lunatics have started thousands of threads all over the internet complaining about what Rachel Maddow supposedly did to the poor love child of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul --handed him his balls back.





---


friggin' fools. Rand Paul announced his candidacy on The Rachel Maddow Show.

 

[drsmith1072]

I don't see the distortion that you and paul are whining about. I see the discussion of what he said and how he doesn't like the fact that it's being aired. So out of depseration he *(and you) is attacking the messenger because he doesn't want them talking about what he said.

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

ONCE AGAIN, I don't see how msnbc distorted or lied about anything and you making that unsubstantiated claim over and over again proves NOTHING.

As far as voting for the civil rights act he only recently changed his position on that because in the past he wasn't so certain. NOW that he has been questioned over his position several times NOW he decided that he WOULD when before he was vague as to whether he would or would not.

As for the rest of your off topic drivel thanks for the propaganda and attacking the messenger only makes you look desperate.

BTW did you happened to notice how a large part of your rant against GE would apply to almost every busieness in existence including foxnews, whose programs try to line their pockets by spreading the same kind of propaganda that you are parroting even as they try to sell you junk through their programs such as books and other lame crap?

I think it's hilarious that righties like yourself stand against a corporation merely you don't like their stance on the issues. Whatever happened to the righties who supported the free market no matter what? LOL Or does thats standard only apply to businesses that you support??

BTW was there a reason you avoided answering my question??

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

 

[Neubarth]

It is rather obvious that hereditary insanity runs in the Paul family. Like father, like son.

 

[drsmith1072]

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

who do you think advances a 'corporatist agenda'? newscorp? or GE?

did you even bother watching the maddow interview?

i don't hear rand paul whining about that interview. i see him running from having to defend a ideology that doesn't believe in things like the civil rights act because heaven forbid we should actually protect people from losers who want things like whites-only businesses.

Make your case then, Jillian. What legislation has been accomplished, or is in development, that will bring multi-billion dollar profits to Newscorp?
How much business has Newscorp been doing in Iran while they were engaged in killing our soldiers by proxy?



And once again... again .... Paul's beef with the Maddow interview was not about Maddow. It was about the lying spin put on the interview by the network. The whole "whites only" meme is a deliberate attempt at race-baiting for the purpose of political division and to smear an individual politician.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not at issue and has not been at issue for 46 years. It's decided law.

First it's kind of hard for newscorp to use their media sources to advance legislation when republicans are out of power which is why they are doing everything that they can to influence gullible lemmings on the right with spoonfed talking points to further their agenda and get republicans back into power so they can continue the growth of government that they supported and influenced back when W was in charge and the republicans had the congress.
furthermore, WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT IRAN AND GE? Drop the talking points moron and get something that actually applies to the debate and stop trying to tear down the owner of the messenger. LOL

and ONCE AGAIN you make unsubstantiated claims to attack the messenger. The only person I saw claiming that paul wanted to repeal it was his opponent in the upcoming election and since that aired their have been several corrections on several programs including hardball in which mathews stated that the claim that paul wanted to repeal it was false. So in the end all you have done is repeat the same accusation over and over again while providing nothing REAL to back your claims.

Yes the civil rights act is law but in paul's case it is hardly decided based on his REAL opinions concerning the parts of it that this debate is dealing with. If it was already decided then why would he talk about those parts and claim that they are WRONG??

 

[Murf76]

I don't see the distortion that you and paul are whining about. I see the discussion of what he said and how he doesn't like the fact that it's being aired. So out of depseration he *(and you) is attacking the messenger because he doesn't want them talking about what he said.

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

ONCE AGAIN, I don't see how msnbc distorted or lied about anything and you making that unsubstantiated claim over and over again proves NOTHING.

As far as voting for the civil rights act he only recently changed his position on that because in the past he wasn't so certain. NOW that he has been questioned over his position several times NOW he decided that he WOULD when before he was vague as to whether he would or would not.

As for the rest of your off topic drivel thanks for the propaganda and attacking the messenger only makes you look desperate.

BTW did you happened to notice how a large part of your rant against GE would apply to almost every busieness in existence including foxnews, whose programs try to line their pockets by spreading the same kind of propaganda that you are parroting even as they try to sell you junk through their programs such as books and other lame crap?

I think it's hilarious that righties like yourself stand against a corporation merely you don't like their stance on the issues. Whatever happened to the righties who supported the free market no matter what? LOL Or does thats standard only apply to businesses that you support??

BTW was there a reason you avoided answering my question??

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

who do you think advances a 'corporatist agenda'? newscorp? or GE?

did you even bother watching the maddow interview?

i don't hear rand paul whining about that interview. i see him running from having to defend a ideology that doesn't believe in things like the civil rights act because heaven forbid we should actually protect people from losers who want things like whites-only businesses.

Make your case then, Jillian. What legislation has been accomplished, or is in development, that will bring multi-billion dollar profits to Newscorp?
How much business has Newscorp been doing in Iran while they were engaged in killing our soldiers by proxy?



And once again... again .... Paul's beef with the Maddow interview was not about Maddow. It was about the lying spin put on the interview by the network. The whole "whites only" meme is a deliberate attempt at race-baiting for the purpose of political division and to smear an individual politician.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not at issue and has not been at issue for 46 years. It's decided law.

First it's kind of hard for newscorp to use their media sources to advance legislation when republicans are out of power which is why they are doing everything that they can to influence gullible lemmings on the right with spoonfed talking points to further their agenda and get republicans back into power so they can continue the growth of government that they supported and influenced back when W was in charge and the republicans had the congress.
furthermore, WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT IRAN AND GE? Drop the talking points moron and get something that actually applies to the debate and stop trying to tear down the owner of the messenger. LOL

and ONCE AGAIN you make unsubstantiated claims to attack the messenger. The only person I saw claiming that paul wanted to repeal it was his opponent in the upcoming election and since that aired their have been several corrections on several programs including hardball in which mathews stated that the claim that paul wanted to repeal it was false. So in the end all you have done is repeat the same accusation over and over again while providing nothing REAL to back your claims.

Yes the civil rights act is law but in paul's case it is hardly decided based on his REAL opinions concerning the parts of it that this debate is dealing with. If it was already decided then why would he talk about those parts and claim that they are WRONG??

I have attempted to be patient with you, you little pissant, because someone suggested that you're just a kid. But really, there's only so far you can push before even I run short on good humor.

You are an asshole. You're a brainwashed idiot lemming, who would believe any fucking lie told to you provided the teller of the lie has a 'D' behind his name.

Here are some corrections for you....

Rachel Maddow is a paid shill. There's not an honest journalistic bone in her body, and the organization that pays her is nothing but a propaganda unit for GE, an enormous corporate entity that's main goal is looking out for its own bottom line. And the difference between GE and lots of other corporations... is that there's NOTHING they won't do to make that buck, no matter how revoltingly immoral it might be.

And... Rand Paul is not a racist. The left's attempt to smear him as such says more about them and their pathetic desperation than it does about Paul. How sad that the best they can come up with is to try and lie about his position on a law that's been in place for 46 years. It's just the usual sad race-baiting from the usual demented suspects, and no matter how badly it pisses you off, we're gonna keep pointing out the divisive, pandering tactics of the loony left. And there's not a goddam thing you can do about it.



So, here's my advice to you. Since you "don't care" what Iran does or what GE does... why don't you put on a fucking uniform and go serve your country until you do. I figure even a spoiled little princess like you might be able to find some common sense and "caring" if an American corporation was supplying parts and whatnot to a country that was trying its best to blow YOUR silly ass off the map.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did this end up in the Economy section?

 

[drsmith1072]

Once again... did you actually LISTEN to the clip? Paul's beef is that MSNBC lied about his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He's never been for repealing it and he's not got a problem with its passage, having said that he'd have voted for it himself if he'd been in Congress at that time. But that didn't stop them from spending an entire day distorting his position.

And as far as "attacking the messenger" goes.... I find it interesting that people who routinely bitch about "corporatism" and "special interests" have no problem whatsoever with GE using its media outlets to distort the daily news in favor of their political partners. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake for GE.

It's the dirtiest propaganda machine we've ever seen. They've done business with Iran while it was engaged in supplying IEDs to kill our soldiers in Iraq. They've got an investment in electronic medical records, which Congress has conveniently mandated be electronic by 2014. And the profits to be made in "green energy" and carbon trading are almost unimaginable for average people. Isn't it helpful for them that they've got their CEO sitting on Obama's "Economic Recovery Board"? Isn't it handy that they've had all these various media outlets available to influence public opinion?

C'mon. Maybe you don't mind having your intelligence insulted by people who are clearly out to line their own pockets by using their influence to bring about favorable government policy, but I expect you're in the minority on that.

ONCE AGAIN, I don't see how msnbc distorted or lied about anything and you making that unsubstantiated claim over and over again proves NOTHING.

As far as voting for the civil rights act he only recently changed his position on that because in the past he wasn't so certain. NOW that he has been questioned over his position several times NOW he decided that he WOULD when before he was vague as to whether he would or would not.

As for the rest of your off topic drivel thanks for the propaganda and attacking the messenger only makes you look desperate.

BTW did you happened to notice how a large part of your rant against GE would apply to almost every busieness in existence including foxnews, whose programs try to line their pockets by spreading the same kind of propaganda that you are parroting even as they try to sell you junk through their programs such as books and other lame crap?

I think it's hilarious that righties like yourself stand against a corporation merely you don't like their stance on the issues. Whatever happened to the righties who supported the free market no matter what? LOL Or does thats standard only apply to businesses that you support??

BTW was there a reason you avoided answering my question??

So what is paul's interest in this going away?? Based on his interest in avoiding a debate on comments he made but now regret's being made public and being discussed openly because they stand to hurt his chances of being elected doesn't that, based on your own standard, show that he might not be telling the truth??

Make your case then, Jillian. What legislation has been accomplished, or is in development, that will bring multi-billion dollar profits to Newscorp?
How much business has Newscorp been doing in Iran while they were engaged in killing our soldiers by proxy?



And once again... again .... Paul's beef with the Maddow interview was not about Maddow. It was about the lying spin put on the interview by the network. The whole "whites only" meme is a deliberate attempt at race-baiting for the purpose of political division and to smear an individual politician.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not at issue and has not been at issue for 46 years. It's decided law.

First it's kind of hard for newscorp to use their media sources to advance legislation when republicans are out of power which is why they are doing everything that they can to influence gullible lemmings on the right with spoonfed talking points to further their agenda and get republicans back into power so they can continue the growth of government that they supported and influenced back when W was in charge and the republicans had the congress.
furthermore, WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT IRAN AND GE? Drop the talking points moron and get something that actually applies to the debate and stop trying to tear down the owner of the messenger. LOL

and ONCE AGAIN you make unsubstantiated claims to attack the messenger. The only person I saw claiming that paul wanted to repeal it was his opponent in the upcoming election and since that aired their have been several corrections on several programs including hardball in which mathews stated that the claim that paul wanted to repeal it was false. So in the end all you have done is repeat the same accusation over and over again while providing nothing REAL to back your claims.

Yes the civil rights act is law but in paul's case it is hardly decided based on his REAL opinions concerning the parts of it that this debate is dealing with. If it was already decided then why would he talk about those parts and claim that they are WRONG??

I have attempted to be patient with you, you little pissant, because someone suggested that you're just a kid. But really, there's only so far you can push before even I run short on good humor.

You are an asshole. You're a brainwashed idiot lemming, who would believe any fucking lie told to you provided the teller of the lie has a 'D' behind his name.

Here are some corrections for you....

Rachel Maddow is a paid shill. There's not an honest journalistic bone in her body, and the organization that pays her is nothing but a propaganda unit for GE, an enormous corporate entity that's main goal is looking out for its own bottom line. And the difference between GE and lots of other corporations... is that there's NOTHING they won't do to make that buck, no matter how revoltingly immoral it might be.

And... Rand Paul is not a racist. The left's attempt to smear him as such says more about them and their pathetic desperation than it does about Paul. How sad that the best they can come up with is to try and lie about his position on a law that's been in place for 46 years. It's just the usual sad race-baiting from the usual demented suspects, and no matter how badly it pisses you off, we're gonna keep pointing out the divisive, pandering tactics of the loony left. And there's not a goddam thing you can do about it.



So, here's my advice to you. Since you "don't care" what Iran does or what GE does... why don't you put on a fucking uniform and go serve your country until you do. I figure even a spoiled little princess like you might be able to find some common sense and "caring" if an American corporation was supplying parts and whatnot to a country that was trying its best to blow YOUR silly ass off the map.

wow thanks for the baseless and LAME personal attacks.

In the end you ignore what i actually said and post your rants as you attack the messenger with more of you usual baseless comments instead of commenting on the message even as you assign beliefs to me that i never expressed all so you can try to smear me with more of your dishoenst attack the messenger BS.

I NEVER said paul was a racist so assigning that belief to me so you can attack me for something that I NEVER said is pure dishonesty on your part. However, his position on the parts that he questions is well known at this point so based on his position the debate over the civil rights act is hardly settled and for you to deny the FACT that he has issues with those parts is just more of your dishonesty as you try to defend the indefensible.

My point is that your rant about GE/iran has NOTHING to do with this debate and for your info I already wore the uniform so does that give my claims credence that they didn't have before?? Does the fact that i was in the army make my claims more valid??

However, my main question to you is when are you going to respond to what I actually wrote?? I actually responded to what you wrote with details and all you have to offer are vague generalities and things that have NOTHING to do with the debate as you try to smear the messenger.