MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct"

[DavidS]

I've noticed a few recent news articles are reporting Rand had the following exchange with Rachel Maddow.

"Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form..."

If you go to the video however, Rand obviously never said the word "yes."

UPDATE: MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct", makes no apologies | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

That's not misleading or anything...

MSNBC is not biased. No way man.

Neither is FoxNews!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe I'm missing the point here....but even if he HAD meant, "Yes. Private businesses have the right to refuse service to black people. I'm not in favor of discrimination of any kind..."

So what?

And if a private bus company wants to sit black people in the back of the bus, so what! Let them!


Right? We should have the RIGHT to discriminate against black people, gays, Jews, lesbians, white people, hispanics, Christians, dogs, cats, professional wrestlers and Pee-Wee Herman!

THAT's what America's about! The melting pot of the world and we should have the RIGHT, the God-given RIGHT to discriminate against anyone we want to!

On your own property, yes.

 

[DavidS]

Maybe I'm missing the point here....but even if he HAD meant, "Yes. Private businesses have the right to refuse service to black people. I'm not in favor of discrimination of any kind..."

So what?

And if a private bus company wants to sit black people in the back of the bus, so what! Let them!


Right? We should have the RIGHT to discriminate against black people, gays, Jews, lesbians, white people, hispanics, Christians, dogs, cats, professional wrestlers and Pee-Wee Herman!

THAT's what America's about! The melting pot of the world and we should have the RIGHT, the God-given RIGHT to discriminate against anyone we want to!

On your own property, yes.

So what you're telling is that you disagree with the text of the American Civil Rights Act?

From what I've seen of your posts on here, you're a proud member of the Tea Party. Way to conquer your stereotype bro.

This is the 21st Century. No American has the right to discriminate against another American because of their skin color, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference. No American should even be THINKING about it.

Where do you live again? Don't tell me the South. Please don't tell me the South.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And if a private bus company wants to sit black people in the back of the bus, so what! Let them!


Right? We should have the RIGHT to discriminate against black people, gays, Jews, lesbians, white people, hispanics, Christians, dogs, cats, professional wrestlers and Pee-Wee Herman!

THAT's what America's about! The melting pot of the world and we should have the RIGHT, the God-given RIGHT to discriminate against anyone we want to!

On your own property, yes.

So what you're telling is that you disagree with the text of the American Civil Rights Act?

From what I've seen of your posts on here, you're a proud member of the Tea Party. Way to conquer your stereotype bro.

This is the 21st Century. No American has the right to discriminate against another American because of their skin color, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference. No American should even be THINKING about it.

Where do you live again? Don't tell me the South. Please don't tell me the South.

Yes, I do, because I believe in property rights.

Not a member of the Tea Party.

Racist people should be allowed to associate with whomever they want on their own property, just as anybody should be allowed to associate with whomever they like on their own property.

Northeast Ohio.

 

[jillian]

The problem with so many so-called libertarians is they forget that their 'rights' end at the other person's nose.

To me they sound like a bunch of kids rebelling against authority. there is no rhyme or reason and the authority can make total sense, but they stamp their feet anyway.

well... until it comes to telling me i can't do something because they don't approve.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem with so many so-called libertarians is they forget that their 'rights' end at the other person's nose.

I would say it's you forgetting that. You're right not to be discriminated against ends when you try to enter somebody else's property.

 

[GWV5903]

I've noticed a few recent news articles are reporting Rand had the following exchange with Rachel Maddow.

"Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form..."

If you go to the video however, Rand obviously never said the word "yes."

UPDATE: MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct", makes no apologies | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

That's not misleading or anything...

What do you expect from them, who cares, common sense tells everyone the obvious, they have to support their small and even smaller base with something, especially when it is so obvious they are dying.....

 

[xsited1]

The problem with so many so-called libertarians is they forget that their 'rights' end at the other person's nose.

To me they sound like a bunch of kids rebelling against authority. there is no rhyme or reason and the authority can make total sense, but they stamp their feet anyway.

well... until it comes to telling me i can't do something because they don't approve.

That's a nice generalization which doesn't appear to have any basis in reality. Perhaps you could give us some specific examples. I'll start. The Patriot Act. Approve or disprove and why?

 

[Sinatra]

It is quite telling that some in here are defending a liberal interpretation of what Rand Paul said - while also defending a now known fact that MSNBC has intentionally misrepresented what he said.

 

[edthecynic]

I've noticed a few recent news articles are reporting Rand had the following exchange with Rachel Maddow.

"Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form..."

If you go to the video however, Rand obviously never said the word "yes."

UPDATE: MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct", makes no apologies | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

That's not misleading or anything...

Wow, they used the word "yes" instead of the word "YEAH," the poor little crybaby VICTIM should sue!

From your link:

MS. RACHEL MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has a right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

DR. PAUL: I'm not in, I'm not in, I'm not in--yeah--I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form ...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I've noticed a few recent news articles are reporting Rand had the following exchange with Rachel Maddow.

"Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

Paul: Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form..."

If you go to the video however, Rand obviously never said the word "yes."

UPDATE: MSNBC defends fraudulent Rand Paul transcript as "technically correct", makes no apologies | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul

That's not misleading or anything...

Wow, they used the word "yes" instead of the word "YEAH," the poor little crybaby VICTIM should sue!

From your link:

MS. RACHEL MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has a right to say, "We don't serve black people"?

DR. PAUL: I'm not in, I'm not in, I'm not in--yeah--I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form ...

I'd suggest actually reading what the complaint is, rather than just guessing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And yet the transcript erroneously makes it look like Rand answered "Yes" to a question he didn't answer "Yes" to. Which has led to many mistakes being made, and MSNBC refuses to apologize for the misunderstanding.

No the transcript doesn't 'erroneously' do that. The transcript does that because a transcript cannot convey visuals or pecularities that appear when you are watching and listening to someone. That's why I said, a transcript is what it is. You are essentially demanding that the transcript publishers inject editorial comment/opinion into the transcript, which is really not the purpose of publishing a transcript.

When it's being put in there to make it look like somebody said something they didn't, then yes the record should be corrected to show the truth.

But he said what the transcripts say he said. Transcripts are like court reporters, they put in print what was spoken. They don't put in print what some outside observer thinks was what someone meant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is quite telling that some in here are defending a liberal interpretation of what Rand Paul said - while also defending a now known fact that MSNBC has intentionally misrepresented what he said.

There is no 'interpretation' in a transcript. A transcript takes what was said and writes it down. MSNBC acted exactly as one is supposed to when making a transcript and publishing it AS a transcript.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No the transcript doesn't 'erroneously' do that. The transcript does that because a transcript cannot convey visuals or pecularities that appear when you are watching and listening to someone. That's why I said, a transcript is what it is. You are essentially demanding that the transcript publishers inject editorial comment/opinion into the transcript, which is really not the purpose of publishing a transcript.

When it's being put in there to make it look like somebody said something they didn't, then yes the record should be corrected to show the truth.

But he said what the transcripts say he said. Transcripts are like court reporters, they put in print what was spoken. They don't put in print what some outside observer thinks was what someone meant.

Except it doesn't show what actually transpired. What actually happened was the two talking over each other, and Rand said "Yes" in regards to that situation. The transcript says that Maddow asked him a question and that his response was "Yes," when that is clearly not the case.

 

[JBeukema]

yeah [comma] =/= yes [period]

The transcript is inaccurate. There is no debate to be had- the next day they showed the video on the Show [that Ezra guy was guest host] and it showed that the transcript is simply not accurate.

 

[JBeukema]

I heard it. He did say yes,.

No, he did not.

He said 'yeah,' during a conversation in which they were speaking over eachother. He did not hear the question and then answer it in the affirmative.

 

[paperview]

Wow. Could this issue be any less insignificant than the dingleberry on the end of a baby gnat's ass?

Really.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wow. Could this issue be any less insignificant than the dingleberry on the end of a baby gnat's ass?

Really.

I'd say it's pretty significant when MSNBC lies in its transcript and then the rest of the media picks up on that to make it look like somebody said something they didn't.

 

[xsited1]

Wow. Could this issue be any less insignificant than the dingleberry on the end of a baby gnat's ass?

Really.

I'd say it's pretty significant when MSNBC lies in its transcript and then the rest of the media picks up on that to make it look like somebody said something they didn't.

Agreed. It is significant. Media bias is a real problem.

 

[paperview]

Wow. Could this issue be any less insignificant than the dingleberry on the end of a baby gnat's ass?

Really.

I'd say it's pretty significant when MSNBC lies in its transcript and then the rest of the media picks up on that to make it look like somebody said something they didn't.

Whether he said Yeah or Yes in a question he has answered affirmatively (and you support) is significant?

Only to people who worry about their boogers and the specks of lint on their cellar windowsill.