And it starts.... Rachel Maddow Attempts to Portray Rand Paul as a Racist

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
Rachel Maddow Attempts to Portray Rand Paul as a Racist
Infowars.com
May 20, 2010

MSNBC?s Rachel Maddow is a shill for big government. She uses Paul?s opposition to the federal government dictating to the states ? specifically, civil rights legislation handed down by the feds ? to insinuate that he is a racist.
This is the same argument constantly used by Chris Matthews and others to portray states? rights advocates as racists. It is part of the effort by the corporate media and government to label all opposition to Obama as the hateful ranting of white supremacists.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3O2rBz9gwo&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-3O2rBz9gwo&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
They fear him, so they attack, attack,attack !

New Rules for Radicals
By David Harsanyi

If you're a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag(at)whitehouse.gov.)

As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading "fishy" "disinformation" regarding Washington's proposed takeover of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.

Now, don't get overly paranoid, you rabble of freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration's track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.

The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko "mob" of "thugs" who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.

We are talking about a moral imperative here. As one senator asserted this week, passing government-run health care is the "sacred duty" of Congress. (Boy, it's a good thing we banished all that moral preening from Washington.)

When your mission is the same as the Lord's herself ... well, you can imagine the kind of scandalous characters populating the opposition camp. It is the type of individual who Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi astutely points out has the tendency to carry "swastikas and symbols like that" to local town hall meetings on health care.

You might be curious to find out what symbols Pelosi believes are "like" swastikas. Maybe she's referring to the Gadsden flag.

In any event, it's true that people who believe in health care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well-dressed to contemplate serious issues independently -- and thank you, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, for pointing that out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul.

Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and freethinking groups, such as unions.

And really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising is the rumor that protestors are actually organized. Can you imagine?

The question now becomes: How can we, thinking people, stop this horde of well-heeled, Nazi-loving, insurance industry-funded (and possibly organized) robots? What can we do to destroy our health care?

Well, as always, the president has crafted a glorious plan forward. In an e-mail to the nation, Obama begins by telling Americans, "This is the moment our movement was built for."

"That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month," the president goes on, his words stirring even in pixel form, "where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act."

Who knew? "Organizing" for America? Movements? Sounds familiar.

For you yahoos out there who gleefully will point out the hypocrisy of Democrats grousing about organized grass-roots activism -- whether well-funded or organic -- you just don't get it. It is imperative that we start thinking about the world in a counterintuitive way.

In today's world, the "radicals" are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proved they can't even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that more than 80 percent of Americans still believe works -- though certainly not perfectly.

In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and radicals who have the temerity to ask whether legislators have read the bills they sign. You've seen them. Those radicals ranting and raving about silly things, such as the Constitution.

So here is a plan. Instead of making the case for health care "reform," let's launch an offensive against citizens. Nazis. Fanatics. Mobs. Thugs. Whatever you call them.

And if you're really patriotic, you even can report them.
 

shawn555

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 11, 2000
7,185
129
63
berlin md
What's new? Beck is attacked the same way, they can't stand the TRUTH, Obama depends on the Maddows and Olbermans to DISTORT.

JMHO

You are part of the problem.

You can not tell the difference between Paul and Beck.

Beck is an entertainer nothing more, he says the shit to get ratings no other reason.

People like you are too foolish to realize that.

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: "I could give a flying crap about the political process." Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. "We're an entertainment company," Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
An Open Letter to Glenn Beck

Why Are You So Afraid of Us?

By AK PRESS COLLECTIVE

Dear readers: We here at AK Press were both shocked and (we?ll admit it) thrilled when right-wing media mogul Glenn Beck held up our new book on the Greek Insurrection of December 2008 on his FOX News program a couple of weeks ago, and compared it to The Coming Insurrection, saying that this book was the next ?playbook? that radicals in this country would be taking a page from. (We wish.) But we were also kind of confused, because Beck seemed eager to interpret the book as a yet another installment in the ?communist? conspiracy ? only, well, we?re anarchists, we?re damn proud of that fact, and we?re frankly a little hard pressed to understand why Beck went out of his way to say explicitly that this wasn?t an anarchist book. And then we watched hours and hours of Beck blabbing on YouTube, and we started to notice a more general pattern: Beck tends to avoid directly confronting ?anarchism? as a system of political actions and ideals. So we started thinking about why that might be, and the result of our deep deliberations follows in an open letter to Mr. Beck. -- Kate Khatib, AK Press

Hi Glenn.

How?s it going? Since Forbes magazine says your annual earnings are in the ballpark of $32 million, we?re guessing that it?s going pretty well. You can?t put a price on defending the little guy, right?

We are the AK Press collective. In case the word ?collective? throws you, it means people who work together toward a shared goal in a democratic manner, without bosses or leaders, and with everyone having an equal say in each decision. For us, that shared goal is publishing and distributing books. If you want, you can learn more about us here.

We?re thrilled that you featured our book We Are an Image of the Future: The Greek Revolts of 2008 on your May 3rd show. We were, however, a little confused by your description of the book, and the way that it fit into the overall argument you made.

Okay, to be honest, we weren?t sure what your argument was. We watched the clip on YouTube a dozen times, but it was beyond us. Of course, you?re the guy with television, radio, publishing, and Internet empires. We probably spend too much time thinking about rent, food, and health insurance to fully understand the big picture you?re painting.

We do, however, know a few things. We?re anarchists and we publish books about anarchism. We Are an Image from the Future is one of them. Now, we assume that you actually read the books you talk about on your show. Yet you somehow managed to claim that a book written by and about anarchists was ?written by communist revolutionaries.? ?They are not anarchists,? you claimed, ?but they will use anarchy to their favor.?

As you made clear earlier in your show, you know the difference between Communism and Anarchism. We don?t want to split hairs by bringing up the complex history of communism (with a small ?c?), which includes both democratic and nasty authoritarian versions. So we?ll stay on your page here and say, yes, when Communists take state power it?s always ugly. But, as you must know, anarchism has always opposed state Communism. State Communism is the ultimate ?big government.? You won?t find an anarchist on this planet in favor of that. Not to mention that, historically, when Communists get in the driver?s seat, anarchists are usually the first to face the firing squad. The capitalists usually get cushy managerial positions.

So we asked ourselves: What could account for this guy waving around a book written and published by anarchists, while never quoting a single word from it, and then going on to associate the book with political groups?like the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party?that no one in the book, or associated with the book, would endorse? How could he miss something so obvious?

Then it dawned on us: you?re afraid of anarchists. You?re not afraid of the fake media portrayal of anarchists as bomb-throwing maniacs: that?s your bread and butter. You?re afraid of real anarchists, the actual ideas they espouse, the real work they do.

We don?t blame you, Glenn. When we sift through your rants, we realize that there?s a lot of overlap between you and anarchists. The difference is that anarchists are more honest, aren?t part of the same elites they criticize, and they make a lot more sense. They see you, and raise you one.

Like you, we believe that people?s lives would be much better off without government intervention. Centralized power suppresses individual and community initiative and keeps people from achieving their full potential. Like you, we don?t think the solution to our current economic crisis lies in socialized industry or new layers of well-paid government bureaucrats. And, like you and many of your tea party pals, we agree that bankers and fat-cat corporate elites aren?t exactly concerned with our best interests. As you put it, it?s time to take down the folks who ?line their pockets with wealth gained from enslaving a whole group of people.? And, although you seemed a bit confused on this point, that means putting ?people before profits,? which is pretty much the central concern of the protesters in Greece right now. And we mean all people, regardless of income, race, gender, sexuality, or immigration status.

You?re right: we?re revolutionaries. But aren?t you? Remember the part of the Declaration of Independence that says that when a government starts screwing with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, ?it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it?? As anarchists, we?re dedicated to the idea of abolishing the state and capitalism altogether. We believe that without the coercive relations and competition imposed by governments and markets, people would be free to create a more just society in which resources are controlled collectively and decisions are made by the people who are affected by them. We don?t want a government (revolutionary or otherwise); we want a society based on cooperation and common sense instead of arbitrary power and exploitation.

From what sense we can make of your show, you seem happy with ?altering? rather than ?abolishing? a screwed-up system. For you, replacing the old boss with a new one (Sarah Palin?) is good enough. We understand that you?re confused?these are confusing times. But, deep down, you and the tea partiers know that you can?t trust any politician, or banker, or corporate hack, or union bureaucrat?or anyone who makes their living sucking power and profit from ordinary people. Which, unfortunately, probably includes multi-millionaires like you.

So, Glenn, we?re guessing that?s why you?re so afraid of us. We don?t fit neatly into your black-and-white formula. You simply borrow some of the best ideas from our 150-year-old anti-authoritarian tradition. We take those same ideas and not only run with them, but improve on them. We follow the logic to its ethical conclusion. And we include corporate media moguls like you in our Hall of Infamy.

But we?re reasonable folk. We understand that you find it scary to think about what will happen when ordinary people realize that they actually have the power to make their own decisions and take control of their own lives. So, here?s what we suggest:

Just admit you?re afraid of us. Admit that your passionate and convoluted rants are a nervous dance around your inability to support real freedom (anarchism) over unbridled power (Communism and capitalism). And then use your massive wealth and power for the forces of good.

Yours,

The AK Press Collective
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
You are part of the problem.

You can not tell the difference between Paul and Beck.

Beck is an entertainer nothing more, he says the shit to get ratings no other reason.

People like you are too foolish to realize that.

Shawn, get REAL, you don't watch Beck so your OPINION of him is based on what the LIBERAL media TELLS YOU, if our NEWS MEDIA were doing their JOB, Obama and his policies would be EXPOSED.

JMHO.


:shrug:
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,496
260
83
Victory Lane
TRENDING: Paul takes heat for Civil Rights comments
Posted: May 20th, 2010 12:00 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Paul is facing fire for comments on the Civil Rights Act.
(CNN) - Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway is putting the heat on GOP rival Rand Paul over Paul's recent comments regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Paul - the Tea Party favorite who easily beat Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the state's May 18 Senate primary - repeatedly dodged questions in recent media interviews about whether he thinks parts of the landmark legislation amount to a constitutional overreach.

An interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal last month highlighted Paul's controversial views during which he said: "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners-I abhor racism-I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."

Following his primary victory on Tuesday, Paul was again questioned over his views regarding the legislation on National Public Radio and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. In response to questions, Paul said he supports the 46-year old measure except for the provisions that outlaw private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race. :SIB :SIB

While stressing that he is opposed to discrimination in any form, Paul suggested the measure runs up against individuals' First Amendment and property rights.

"I think what's important in this debate is not getting into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question 'What about freedom of speech?' Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things that freedom requires," he said.
....................................................................

So what he is saying is that if DTB is a private owner and he wants to keep coloreds out of his office for another 30 years, he can put up a sign saying no N...... s

Where did he get that idea from ?

He cant go back to the 60s now.

Maybe Sarah Palin would be a better choice going forward. Or Rush :142smilie
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
illuminati, did Paul ever stop beating around the bush and answer Maddow's question specifically? I have no problem with him taking a position and sticking with it - but to hint around about his true feelings, and then dance around her question - which he did - sure presents him as just another politician. Did part two have an answer from him?
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
No,

Finally eating, What a day so far !

I was on ther road when this interview occured, so I could see any body language. That being said, I did watch the videos, and it was a fair interview. It certainly is now a hot button issue. Maddow is a very good interviewer and shows the utmost professionalism at the end by being extremely civil and cordial to Dr Paul.

Maddow wouldn't accept Paul's reasoning for his statements for private property rights versus public property. Which is what he wants to be re-examined, but the Word Doctors love to spin his statements.
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
illuminati, did Paul ever stop beating around the bush and answer Maddow's question specifically? I have no problem with him taking a position and sticking with it - but to hint around about his true feelings, and then dance around her question - which he did - sure presents him as just another politician. Did part two have an answer from him?

It's hard for 'us' Libertarians (which I'm assuming Paul the younger is) to answer questions like this because they ARE a "gotcha" emotional topic. A Libertarian's distaste for government rules in the public sector is a wholistic approach.

The belief is that the free market will make a company that says "no blacks" economically unfeasible. The outrage in 99.9% of coummunities over a company doing that, coupled with the fact that 99% of people in this country would never do that to begin with, make this such a small issue.

I am gay. Is it possible some company outside "liberal bastions" would refuse to serve me doesn't concern me. Frankly I would welcome it. I would much rather know that an owner of some small diner in Alabama hated gays by reading a sign that refused my service, rather than having him being forced by law to serve me, in which case I am giving my business to a terrible human being. If any business owner wants to 'out' themselves as that hateful, that should be their choice.

So long as all government institutions do not do this. That HAS to be where the line is drawn, and I think Rand Paul firmly drew the line there, in this highly anecdotal situation.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I actually have some appreciation for his thoughts on this issue - and can understand how it could be construed as being up to private business owners to conduct their businesses as they see fit - but we know what would happen if that was the way the country was run.

Private businesses already have to follow government regulations and guidelines, and benefit from public assets like police, fire, rescue, etc. Would it be ok if any of those entities decided it was ok to not help out that business because they didn't serve them? It's not exactly the same thing, but we just can't leave this to chance - it has to be all encompassing, or it would never work. And quite simply, I think our country is stronger for the Civil Rights Act. I know some in our country - and probably a couple posters here, think differently.

Again - if he feels it's more important for private businesses to be allowed to practice racism (different from simple free speech, IMO) and not serve someone of color, or sexual preference, etc., then so be it. Stand up for that, and be counted as such. And face the plusses and minuses that come along with that thinking.

I see now ( :rolleyes: ) that Jesse Jackson is all over this - and Sharpton can't be too far behind. More opportunistic bullshit from those two, and others. But I think he should face fair scrutiny and opinions for what he's said both now and in the past.

I also note that he's saying how dumb it was to appear on Maddow's show, and how the loony left is using this. Of course, no mention of him using the Maddow show in the past to announce his campaign to begin with, and to come on her show immediately after being elected for public and political gain.

He's an interesting character. But he is also the face of the tea party movement. And there certainly is a racial undertone to much of the values of the members of that movement. There will certainly be racial undertones to those speaking out against, it, too. I respect a lot of what the tea party base movement is about. But there's plenty to be concerned about it, too. (Just like both existing parties...)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Thanks for the viewpoint, ImF. Always respect your thoughts on issues. The thing is, especially with today's society and lifestyles of many, I hate to think what would happen if people were turned away because of color, etc. Can you imagine the prospects for violence and societal destructions in many areas? Rarely see outward violence from the gay collective and individuals, but certainly could see some clashes between gangs, illegals, white supremacists, etc. There is some of that now, but nothing like what could be if we went the extra mile to protect the right of an individual business owner to conduct business ANY way they wanted to, without respect of society at large. I don't know - just think this won't go away for awhile, if ever. And I'm kind of sad to see this be at the forefront of something different politically.
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
I see now ( ;) ) that Jesse Jackson is all over this - and Sharpton can't be too far behind. More opportunistic bullshit from those two, and others. But I think he should face fair scrutiny and opinions for what he's said both now and in the past.

Where's there is shit, there's flies.

ImFeklhr

Too bad EVERYONE doesn't take your sensible approach when patronizing a business.

Why would you be in Alabama anyways? Where you live is far too beautiful to leave and Tahoe, Shasta, Sonoma.... easy car ride. Stockton :shrug: :mj07: :mj07:
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
I discrimate in only one way in my business.

YOUR ABILITY TO PAY !

Our products are friendly to everyone and easy enough to use that even Skulnik can figure it out :SIB

:mj07:
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
The thing is, especially with today's society and lifestyles of many, I hate to think what would happen if people were turned away because of color, etc. Can you imagine the prospects for violence and societal destructions in many areas? Rarely see outward violence from the gay collective and individuals, but certainly could see some clashes between gangs, illegals, white supremacists, etc. There is some of that now, but nothing like what could be if we went the extra mile to protect the right of an individual business owner to conduct business ANY way they wanted to, without respect of society at large. I don't know - just think this won't go away for awhile, if ever. And I'm kind of sad to see this be at the forefront of something different politically.

Yup, bad things can and do happen in the world. I just don't think we need laws to address every possible what-if scenario. I don't think government can or should try to solve every problem in society. As long as systematic problems and core rights are addressed, I support more of a free-for-all world. 99% of the time society works ok, and even with the millions of laws that we have on the books 1% of the time shit hits the fan. I don't think that 1 more or fewer law changes that, which is why i typically support the removal of a lot of laws that don't measurably change anything, yet do cause a slow but steady erosion of freedom.

Like gun laws. They pass new gun laws without even properly enforcing the many they already have on the books, which probably haven't even change society that much to begin with. Are there more or less gun fatalities since gun laws passed? Will the next gun law measurably change the statistics going foward? or are most laws an emotional reaction to one even that happens. :shrug:
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
You are part of the problem.

You can not tell the difference between Paul and Beck.

Beck is an entertainer nothing more, he says the shit to get ratings no other reason.

People like you are too foolish to realize that.

What ratings??
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,471
139
63
Bowling Green Ky
It's hard for 'us' Libertarians (which I'm assuming Paul the younger is) to answer questions like this because they ARE a "gotcha" emotional topic. A Libertarian's distaste for government rules in the public sector is a wholistic approach.

The belief is that the free market will make a company that says "no blacks" economically unfeasible. The outrage in 99.9% of coummunities over a company doing that, coupled with the fact that 99% of people in this country would never do that to begin with, make this such a small issue.

I am gay. Is it possible some company outside "liberal bastions" would refuse to serve me doesn't concern me. Frankly I would welcome it. I would much rather know that an owner of some small diner in Alabama hated gays by reading a sign that refused my service, rather than having him being forced by law to serve me, in which case I am giving my business to a terrible human being. If any business owner wants to 'out' themselves as that hateful, that should be their choice.

So long as all government institutions do not do this. That HAS to be where the line is drawn, and I think Rand Paul firmly drew the line there, in this highly anecdotal situation.

-----:toast:
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
I think Maddow and Matthews are missing the mark when they insinuate that Paul's argument is racially motivated in any way. It's clear that Rand, like his father Ron, is a staunch Libertarian who believes, to a fault, that personal rights should never be infringed upon by the federal government. While that may be an argument about rights, and not about race, if the Civil Rights Act had not been passed and businesses were allowed to do as Paul suggests they should be, the effect would be widespread racism.

The argument that the market would prevent widespread racism is folly. If we allowed overt segregation back into society, it would become more socially palettable and many businesses would fare just fine. Much of the progress we've made over the past 46 years would be lost.

Trench
 

shawn555

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 11, 2000
7,185
129
63
berlin md
Shawn, get REAL, you don't watch Beck so your OPINION of him is based on what the LIBERAL media TELLS YOU, if our NEWS MEDIA were doing their JOB, Obama and his policies would be EXPOSED.

JMHO.


:shrug:

My opinion of him is from the shit he has said.

He has said it several times now, himself, not some liberal media. GLENN BECK SAID, he is nothing more than an entertainer.

Why you can not believe that is your own problem.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top