Why Can’t Rachel Maddow And Rand Paul Get Along?

After Maddow invited him on her show, and painted his libertarian views as a proxy support for private sector segregation, Paul announced that he had been attacked by the “Looney Left.”

>
Typical of you. Maddow didn’t paint the the views, Rand Paul did.

“Why Can’t Rachel Maddow And Rand Paul Get Along?”

.
She’s a far left liberal zealot? She’s a Lesbian who doesn’t like men? She’s one of the most, if not THE most liberal pundita on TV?
.
Rachael loves Obamao. When was the last time she criticized anything on the left? Anyone? Links?

All this highlights is how grossly inconsistent so called “Mainstream’ Republican philosophy is. Libertarians have all the advantages of being ‘true believers” They take their philosophy and follow it directly to its conclusions. A proper Conservative indeed should oppose granting unlimited police powers to the government. A proper Conservative should oppose the unhealthy alliance between the military and the manufacturing sector. A proper Conservative should oppose all forms of government meddling, not just the ones that aid their side of the Culture wars.
.
I’ll conclude by posting one of my favorite links of all time:
.
John Ashcroft attacking Bill Clinton’s ‘clipper’ proposal:
.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

“painted his libertarian views as a proxy support for private sector segregation….”

What are you talking about? She asked him about the practical implications of a long-held constitutional argument regarding the legality of the civil rights laws, and he answered truthfully.

Thank you for differentiating between the far left and Obama.
.
Sorry, I don’t own TV and haven’t heard Maddow in a few years on the radio.

‘After Maddow invited him on her show, and painted his libertarian views…’

She didn’t ‘paint his views’ as anything. Maddow’s interview with Paul was respectful and honest (as her interviews typically are). She didn’t put words in Paul’s mouth. She didn’t accuse him of having positions he doesn’t have. She didn’t rant at him and lecture him. She just pressed him to explain his views. What was special about her interview (when compared with most of the MSM) was that she didn’t let him off the hook when he tried to evade her questions. She just left the camera running and continued to press until she had an answer.

Paul hanged himself. She just provided the rope.

“She’s a Lesbian who doesn’t like men?”
.
This has been yet another in a series of bigoted comments from Rusty. Tune in next post to see who Rusty denigrates next!
.
Oh, and Rusty, if you listened to anything but Rush and Beck, you’d know that Rachel Maddow has been going after the Obama administration for their failure to close Gitmo, lack of movement on DADT, and several other issues.
.
It’s the right that’s mired in sycophancy. The left is more than willing to criticize their own.

Libertarians are hard to define.

Almost half of the time I would say that they are more liberal than I am and the other half of the time I would say that they are far, far more conservative than I am.

As for the interview, Maddow hardly painted anything. She kept her tone and gestures calm and professional and asked him to clarify the specifics of his point.

As everybody trying to win office, Rand Paul kept on answering questions which were not being asked.

She got him to very, very reluctantly give an example of how Libertarianism is impractical in a country dedicated to equality and justice and either must be amended for such realities such as discrimination or face up to the fact that Libertarians will be a magnet for racist votes, even if Rand Paul would be disgusted by those voters.

It is a different type of “third way”: taking the extreme and, sometimes, impractical ideologies of both parties and making an even less useful philosophy than ever.

What a confused, worthless post.

After Maddow invited him on her show, and painted his libertarian views as a proxy support for private sector segregation..

Why not pick on the Louisville Courier-Journal? Not only did the newspaper decline to endorse a candidate in the Senate GOP primary, but they flat-out said that Paul “holds an unacceptable view” on civil rights.

Paul doesn’t need anyone’s help in outing his racism-enabling philosophy. He does just fine on his own.

Yet we can all still hope that one day Maddow and Paul find a way to make up.

You’re stating that there’s been some enmity between Maddow and Paul? You do that Paul had announced his candidacy on Maddow’s show, right?

Even now, I’m sure that it’s more campaign strategy to blame the ‘liberal media’ when a right-wing candidate makes questionable statements. I don’t believe Paul’s handlers are advising him differently.

I think MS is simply trying to make a joke. There are a number of issues that Liberals and Libertarians would tend to agree on and MS was highlighting the irony of this being the case. He’s also providing a service by showing the degree to which Paul has to walk back his own deeply held views in order to be an acceptable Republican.

It appears that my Aschcroft link is officially broken:

Here’s the text in full:

http://www.badattitudes.com/AshWeb.html

Rand Paul is also going to stop the mythical NAFTA Superhighway. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand_paul_beware_the_nafta_superhighway_video.php
.
At what point does the media decide that this guy is a nutcase and start treating him accordingly? Instead, we get a passive aggressive shot at Maddow for calling him out on his absurd ideology.
.
Where’s Diogenes when you need him?

After Maddow … painted his libertarian views as a proxy support for private sector segregation”
-
That is a massive distortion, at best, Michael.
-
The segment is available here: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/05/20/rand-pauls-dilemma-theory-vs-practice/
-
Where did Maddow say that Paul supported segregation?
-
A critique of Paul’s views from prominent libertarians is here: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/05/richard-epstein-says-that-rand-paul-is-brain-dead.html
-
Maddow asked Paul questions. Many people, including leading libertarians, found Paul’s answers wanting. I have heard zero people say that Paul is racist or that he supports segregation. People like U of Chicago law prof Richard Epstein have argued instead that Paul’s general aversion to the use of government power led him to ignore the context at the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
-
It was the right move, politically, for Paul to squeal “bias.” Reporters like Michael Scherer will back down from reporting about the substantive debate over Paul’s remarks, retreating to their usual mode of misinforming their readers– the “he said/she said” approach. Partisans like Rusty, having been informed that Maddow’s questions were politically incorrect, will attack Maddow for being gay in lieu of learning anything about what Rand Paul believes. It’s an easy win.

I think MS is simply trying to make a joke.
.
Uh, sure…if it is, I’m thinking it’s a FAIL, ‘tho.

And, of course, very little about Paul’s take on the BP oil spill – Accidents happen.

So much like Rummy and the war, Sh!t happens.

The old push the responsibility down the road.

Jesus this is rich! You have the nerve to criticize the left for not standing up against its own when nearly every person on the right is on their knees paying homage to Rush Limbaugh no matter what nasty, vile racist statement he makes? That’s what they call chutzpah!
.
Only Democrats consistently criticize their own. Bill Maher criticizes Obama once a week on his show and Maddow has interviewed many of Obama’s critics on her show. So tel me who on the right criticizes the abundance of awful things that come out of the mouths of right wing pundits the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Bachmann, Hannity. Rove, Gingrich, Cheneys (father and daughter), Dobbs, Savage, and a host of other wing nut pundits too numerous to name who wail against everything Obama and the left 24/7. I didn’t hear anyone on the right criticizing Congressman Steven King for essentially embracing acts of terror, or Pete Hoekstra for leaking classified information or Boehner and Cantor dodging the truth whenever they can if it can make the president look bad? I didn’t hear anyone on the right standing up to birthers and tenthers as they spew half truths and outright lies. In fact. other than Mark McKinnon who has consistently called the GOP out on their crap from the beginning and David Frum who has let the truth fly recently, few on the right have had the courage to call out the birchers and radical fringers that have taken over the right. But this is not new. Ronald Reagan declared it sacrilegious to chastise one’s own brethren and declared it to be the 11th commandment – “Thou shall not say something bad about a fellow Republican.” Too bad the current leadership didn’t stick with the Buckley tradition Reagan agreed to in the sixties to keep those folks out.

Although Maddow is unapologeticaly a liberal commentator, conservatives have been blaming “Liberal media for years with no basis in fact.
.
“Conservatives often promote the myth that the U.S. media are liberal. This myth serves several purposes: it raises public skepticism about liberal news stories, hides conservative bias when it appears, and goads the media to the right. GOP strategist William Kristol also reveals another reason: “I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” (1)

In unguarded moments, however, even far-right figures like Pat Buchanan come clean: “The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive.” He further conceded: “I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage — all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that.” (2)

So what’s the real story? The fact is that conservatives have powerful friends in the media: the corporations that own them, and the corporations that pay for their advertising. These giant firms have been increasingly successful in bending the media’s message to suit their self-interests, which include a conservative and pro-corporate agenda. Studies show that the media are eerily silent on the issues most important to workers, consumers and other citizens adversely affected by corporate behavior. Conservatives respond to these charges with (old) polls showing that most journalists are personally liberal, but these polls are outdated. New polls show the majority of journalists are centrists. And of those who are not centrists, there are more conservatives than liberals on economic issues..”
.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
.
Conservatives always have this excuse instead of saying “I f’ed up”
.
Nobody but me called him out on Boston being the ideal of racial harmony.
.
Maybe by 1980s South Africa standards, but that was another sub-point Paul didn’t just have his foot in his mouth, he had his knee in his esophagus.

Here is someone who is conservative, that provides what I think is good reason why Rand Paul is in such hot water:
.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/23/jacoby.rand.paul/index.html
.
Keep in mind that his father, Ron Paul also feels the same way. He has had the sense to not voice his opinions on the subject in the last few years [that I know of].

Rusty,
.
As I always ask of conservatives, show a link
.

.
Her eyes are rolling at least as much as they did for your man George Dubbya.
.
It’s time for you to become a Rachel Maddow fan, Rusty.
.
She is attacking Obama in this video.

I think Maddow did an excellent job in her interview, and in the shows following.
.
She did not call him a racist. I don’t think he is either. However, the claim by some that Libertarianism has nothing to do with segregationists and worse is a circular argument.
.
Libertarian philosophy is a very big umbrella to seek shade under. Though Libertarians themselves may not be racist, they, without doubt serve the needs of those that are, along with other participants in the types of things that are now considered crimes that would fall under their umbrella [Madoff].
.
There is nothing whatsoever new about them. This was the mixture that allowed the GOP to run it’s two track (forked tongued?) campaign in the ’80s up to the time of the Oklahoma City bombing.
.
I have in the past said that they never went away. They didn’t. And now, I think, with the lid taken off by the teabaggers, the entire nation gets to see what really runs behind the scenes in the GOP.
.
It is also a very instructive lesson on just what O’Reilly, Limbuagh, and others (including Palin) have absorbed as a philosophy.

How did Maddow “paint” his views?
.
And was she responsible for his earlier giving the exact same views to NPR and to the Louisville newspaper, too?

Say what you will about Rand Paul, but no one stands up to the figments of his imagination like he does.

Honestly, I don’t know why the rest of you respond to the likes of Rusty. He’s the epitome a troll. He’s really willing to ignore any and all substantive debate on the actual topic at hand, to instead bash Maddow for being a “lesbian who doesn’t like men?”

I think not. Rusty/NFB is nothing more than a rather blatant troll. Stop feeding him.

‘Libertarians are hard to define.’
.
Part of the problem is that a lot of people who claim to be libertarians really aren’t. I have republican friends who have begun calling themselves ‘libertarian’. If you ask them why they chose to be libertarian, it turns out that they really don’t support much of the the libertarian philosophy. They’re actually disaffected republicans who have become embarrassed by their party’s relentless march toward the extreme right.
.
Also, a lot of people use the term ‘libertarian’ and ‘conservative’ interchangeably — as though the terms mean the same thing. They don’t.

Actually, as a true libertarian, it’s only public sector figments that he opposes.

And, despite the efforts of the ‘Looney Left’ to get him to draw him out, he’d rather not discuss his position on ‘settled’ figments.

Maddow’s interview of Paul was the best interview I’ve seen in a long time. Far too many reporters/pundits seem to be afraid of being accused (just like Maddow is being accused now) of being the responsible party when something is said that the speaker wishes hadn’t been said, or didn’t end up making him/her look stupid.

During the ’08 campaign, Palin was asked what newspapers/magazines she read. When her answer “all of them” began the joke of the year, Palin basically boo hooed that it wasn’t her fault. She was tricked into saying it. And now Rand Paul is doing the same. The only difference is that Palin was never asked a truly hard-hitting question. If she ever is, we’d all know for sure what an idiot she is.

Come to think of it, I’d love for Maddow to get a chance to ask Palin just one question and see what spews forth.

Thank you all of the above for saying exactly what I wanted to say.
.
The traditional media has a habit of false equivalency of lumping Maddow and Olbermann in the same framework as Beck, Hannity, and other Fox propogandists.
.
If they watched, they would note that both are at times critical of Obama. Maddow has often had conservatives on to back up their stances (C Street, Health Ins. Reform, etc.) She is always polite but has her research in place. Unlike the Gregorys and others, she does not allow them to use talking points to obfuscate. Also, she doesn’t exclusively use beltway pundits as her sources. She has had Ron Paul often. After all, Rand Paul announced his candidacy on her show.
.
Now he is whining about being asked a question on which he had already opined. Many people say he is a Libertarian intellectual. I think intellectual is too exalted a term.

Remember the intellectual Libertarian Rand Paul has also said “accidents happen” in relation to the Gulf oil “spill”. Obama is unAmerican because he has been too hard on BP. He thinks the American Disabilities Act is too inclusive.
Sorry, but dumb is dumb.

And, duh, Michael, Rachel Maddow and Rand Paul have some things in common. That is why she has had him and his father on in the past to give them a hearing. Unlike Republicans, she isn’t demanding purity tests.

“Part of the problem is that a lot of people who claim to be libertarians really aren’t. I have republican friends who have begun calling themselves ‘libertarian’. If you ask them why they chose to be libertarian, it turns out that they really don’t support much of the the libertarian philosophy. They’re actually disaffected republicans who have become embarrassed by their party’s relentless march toward the extreme right.”
.
bobcn1, you hit the nail on the head. I have conservative friends that call themselves independents/libertarians/Tea Partiers too. They always vote republican. One friend in particular takes pride in calling himself an independent and says he votes for whoever is best qualified for the job (always a republican). He offered up as “proof” of his being an independent his vote in a local election in which he voted for a democrat. It was his cousin.
.
He’s claiming now that he’s a member of the Tea Party movement with libertarian leanings. When I press him on who he’ll vote for in 2010 and 2012, it’s always the republican candidate even though he has no clue about who’ll be the republican candiate in 2012.
.
I make no bones about being a partisan democrat. I’m to the left of most democrats, but I won’t throw my vote away by voting for someone that has no chance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/rand-paul-maddow-was-fair_n_587107.html
Attached video.
.
Now Rand Paul is saying Rachel was fair but the rest of the media was mean to him. What do you say to that oh homophobic NewRusty? Paul is saying a liberal lesbian was fair.

“Now Rand Paul is saying Rachel was fair”
.
I’m going to need a bag of popcorn everytime I watch this guy. Now THAT’S what I call entertainment.

sacredh I just figure his permed toupee is too tight and restricts the oxygen to his brain. I expect it to pop off his head one day and escape by slithering across the floor. ; – )

Alas, chohkmah, Rusty is self-feeding (or self-devouring, but I digress) and won’t go away. Ignoring him doesn’t work; humiliating him sometimes does. Occasionally he royally f’s up enough to take a much-needed break after we call him out, but then he keeps returning. One such hiatus was after he called Clarence Thomas’ wife a black woman.

Rachel Madcow is a rabid liberal. I used to watch her show when she would rail on Bush every night just like Keith Doberman. Strangely, they don’t go after ObaMao in the same way even though he’s following the same policies as Bush. It all just reeks of hypocrisy to me.

And then she blows this philosophical debate over the proper scope and role of government in regulating private businesses into equating Rand Paul to some kind of white supremacist leader. Sorry Rachel, how about you spend some time on real world issues pushed by your fearless leader ObaMao.

How’s this one for example? ObaMao says under his energy plan “rates would necessarily skyrocket”. What’s that going to do to minorities and the poor? You think that’s going to make their lives better?

Crazed environmentalism stands to actually kill millions of African people by limiting their technological development. Keeping them in poverty and unable to feed themselves. Now THAT is racist!

“Now Rand Paul is saying Rachel was fair but the rest of the media was mean to him.”
.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

joekleinisacommie,
.
I don’t know if you are blind and deaf or just dumb.
.
Maddow attacks Obama in the link I sent above.
.
If you came from another planet, which I believe you may considering your odd postings, and only saw those two interviews, you would think, since she was duly polite to Rand Paul and, when he was not present slammed Obama that Maddow was giving a small elbow to the ribs of a fellow libertarian and then attacked Obama.
.
Obviously she has her own opinions independent of party lines and, as any good host of show would is far more polite to the people who agree to be in her show than when they are talking about things somebody in the third person.
.
Click the link I posted above, watch and then form an opinion.
.
Don’t form an opinion based upon random guesses and then post it.

Libertarians are not hard to define. There are simply libertarians to different degrees and libertarianism is not the same as anarchism.

The Founding Fathers were libertarians. A true conservative is interested in conserving the heritage and values of America like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, liberty and free markets. So that would make a conservative in the truest sense of the word a libertarian to some degree too.

Modern day republicans and the GOP are dominated by Neo-conservatives which are a very different breed of conservative. They are for big government, big spending, they’re not concerned about deficits, they’re not too concerned about freedom of speech (especially when anyone criticizes their wars) and they’re not too concerned about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights (as evidenced by their attacks on habeas corpus – only for “terrorists” of course). Of course, most modern day Republicans are just raving idiots that wear “Support the troops” stickers on their cars thinking that sending troops off into unjustified wars to get PTSD, maimed or killed is in the troops best interest.

Modern day liberals – now they are hard to define. They run the gamut of hardcore self-described commies like Van Jones, suspected commies like ObaMao (who surrounds himself with statists, socialists, union thugs, crazy environmentalists and commies like Van Jones), the feel good useful idiot lefty crowd who think socialism is trendy and used to cry bloody murder over Bush’s wars but not think Afghanistan is “the good war” and have forgotten about all those nasty programs under Bush that continue under Obama (Guantanamo, rendition, “enhanced Interrogation”, drones, “indefinite detention”, etc etc..)

‘Modern day liberals – now they are hard to define. They run the gamut of hardcore self-described commies like Van Jones, suspected commies like ObaMao…bla bla bla bla bla bla bla…’
.
What a shame. You were doing so well with your post until you suddenly shifted into relying on the usual mindless wingnut insults. Briefly, it seemed that there might be someone there who’s worth engaging in dialog with. Then you started your childish ranting.
.
No need to waste any more time on you. The only reason I read your post at all was that the user name you chose, ‘joekleinisacommie’, was partially obscured by ellipses.

How to be a wingnut troll in Swampland:
.
1) Ignore all facts.
.
2) When given facts call those facts lies.
.
3) Call Democrats, liberals, progressives or moderates when they disagree with you names.
.
Preferred names to call:
.
a) Communist.
.
b) Socialist
.
c) Fascist
.
d) lover of big government
.
e) anti-business
.
f) want the terrorists to win.
.
g) lover of the Nanny state
.
h) godless
.
g) Choose your own variety of random, uncalled for and unreasonable names from idiot to ape, the choice is yours!
.
Following these instructions, even people with severe brain damage will be trolling away making senseless arguments for liberals to tear to shreds. BUT THAT’S NOT ALL, being a wingnut troll, you get to always claim that you’ve won the argument hands down.
.
You, too can be a wingnut troll.
.
For more information dial this number:
.
1-800-go-ducku.
.
That’s right, that’s 1-800-463-8258.
.
And if you are dumb enough to call that number, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

That’s a pretty good list. You forgot one, however.
.
4) If a republican is being criticized in the main post, try to change the subject.

What? Van Jones is not a self described communist? Obama doesn’t surround himself with radical lefty terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn, union thugs like Andy Stern and statists that want to control freedom of speech like Kagan, Sunstein and Lloyd?

Are you denying that Obama surrounds himself with radical lefty socialists and communists?

Or am I just imagining things?

Q: “Van Jones is not a self described communist?”

.
A: “Anthony “Van” Jones (born September 20, 1968) is an American environmental advocate, civil rights activist and attorney. Jones is a co-founder of three non-profit organizations. In 1996 he founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a California non-governmental organization (NGO) working for alternatives to violence. In 2005 he co-founded Color of Change, an advocacy group for African Americans.[1] In 2007 he founded Green For All, a national NGO dedicated to “building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty.”[2] His first book, The Green Collar Economy, was released on October 7, 2008, and reached number 12 on the New York Times Best Seller list.[3] In 2008, Time magazine named Jones one of its “Heroes of the Environment”.[4] Fast Company called him one of the “12 Most Creative Minds of 2008″.[5]”
.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones
.
Short answer: No
.
I, also, know The SEIU when they stuck in Boston demanding $10 per hour and 40 hours a week for janitors when I was building security for the building on strike.
.
Incidents (when I was not on the job) protesters came in one by one, bough coffee at the food court and, in unison, donned union shirts and poured the coffee on the floor for the scab janitors to clean up. Unarmed security with no arresting powers were able to escort them out without one push or shove.
.
BTW: in order to feed their families, since all of the janitorial companies were on strike at the same time, they took turns protesting their own, regular company and, for about $15 per hour scabbing for another company. Hence, no animosity between the scabs and the strikers since the scabs and the strikers were the same people. Brilliant and harmless less coffee on the floor.

“Obama doesn’t surround himself with radical lefty terrorists like Ayers..”

.
“Investigations by The New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[59][60][61] In an op-ed piece after the election, Ayers denied any close association with Obama, and castigated the Republican campaign for its use of guilt by association tactics.[40] In a new edition of his memoirs, Fugitive Days: Memoirs of an Anti-War-Activist, he added a new afterword describing their relationship as “neighbors and family friends”.[62] But in an interview with Good Morning America, Ayers said the afterword was “describing there how the blogosphere characterized the relationship.”[63]”
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers#Obama-Ayers_controversy
.
Short answer for “Or am I just imagining things?” is: Yes.
.
You should take up writing screenplays instead of posting here.
.
Your imagination is very vivid.

Or am I just imagining things?
.
Yes.
.
This has been another edition of easy answers to easy questions.

“There are simply libertarians to different degrees and libertarianism is not the same as anarchism.

The Founding Fathers were libertarians. A true conservative is interested in conserving the heritage and values of America like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, liberty and free markets. So that would make a conservative in the truest sense of the word a libertarian to some degree too.”
.
One, anarchists were, randomly attributed being to the left while libertarians are randomly attributed to being on the right.
.
Your homework assignment to gain one ounce of credibility despite your following the “how to be a wingnut” guide perfectly by using inappropriate definitions of ideology and so on, is to do what other libertarians failed to do: find one reference “Adam Smith”, “Free Markets” or “Capitalism” in even one document tied to the authors of our constitution.
.
With almost every letter every written by them and oral proclamation written down and saved with the modern internet, if it is there, send a link.
.
Also note: Adam Smith was rebuking an older philosophy called Mercantilism which was the norm at that time and, as he pointed out, caused Spain to go bankrupt twice.
.
Smith’s Anti-tariff beliefs were not instated in his homeland of Great Brittan until the 1850s – 75 years after it had been written which was, also, 75 years after the declaration of independence.
.
Unless you can find one – just one – link, I believe the orthodox historical theory that our founding fathers, who created nationalized package delivery (and, if there were real medicine, most likely would have strongly approved of single payer health care) were intentionally non-specific in their economic philosophy.

John Ashcroft: man with the distinction of having lost a gubernatorial race to Democrat who had already died.
.
It takes true talent to loose to a dead person.

“Or am I just imagining things?
.
Yes.
.
This has been another edition of easy answers to easy questions.”
.
Pure gold folks. ftw.

Maddow is typical of the idiots on TV that don’t know their a_ _ from a hole in the ground. The media is primarily controlled by the Liberals and if the Conservative, God fearing Americans don’t take this country back – God help those that are called the future generation. Some of you Liberal Intellects need to read some books – like Atlas Shrugged. You need to educate yourself and quit listening to the Liberals that don’t know what they are talking about.

Sartor, the Founders explicitly enumerated the powers of the Federal government in the Constitution and established a limited government which means they intended for the Federal government to not interfere in private economic matters. Free market capitalism is simply private property rights and the trade of goods and services. This isn’t complicated stuff. They weren’t closet socialists. Sorry.
.
FACT: There is more to the Obama-Ayers relationship than Obama would care to admit. Ayers isn’t simply “a guy that lives in the neighborhood”.
.
“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
.
FACT: Van Jones is a self admitted communist.
.
FACT: Sunstein, Kagan and Lloyd all want to regulate speech in one form or another.
.
Obama does believe in redistribution of wealth and he does want to tax the hell out of Americans and the middle class. He did say that under is energy plan “rates would necessarily skyrocket”.
.
Obama is surrounded by socialists and communists.

Do you really believe Ayn Rand was God fearing? Have you actually read her books?
.
If all of the right wingers on this site could stop taking all of their directives from Fox Propoganda, Limbaugh, and the rest of the radical right, they might find some diverse opinions.
.
Rachel Maddow had Dr. Steven Chu on her show tonight. He is the Energy Secretary and working of the BP “spill”. Her interview, as always, was insightful and well researched. She was very critical of the way the situation is being handled and asked questions and follow ups that were not softballs. Of course, she was civil and didn’t use a gotcha attitude. Like Rand Paul conceded, she was fair.
.
If any of you radical right wingers would take a look at real Progressive reports and blogs, instead of using the same old meme about the “lamestream” press, you would find that most are often highly critical of the administration. That includes Daily Kos, TPM, Firedoglake, Digby, America Blog, Atrios, Crooks and Liars, Huffington Post and others. They have a liberal point of view and most feel too often Obama takes the centerist path. Unlike the radical right, who in my opinion, are on the defensive all of the time and are very short of critical thinking, the left is willing to admit when we are disappointed in our party and its political leadership.

The problem with Maddow is that she has a vested interest in wilfully misunderstanding Rand Paul’s positions — and ensuring that you do too. Her paychecks are dependent upon building maximum contention — not paving the way to understanding your fellow man.

There is much, much more depth, coherence, and empathy to Rand Paul than Rachel Maddow would have you believe. But that’s how ethnocentric shock jocks like Maddow and Limbaugh make their entertainment-industry sized salaries. When the host has a vested interest in breeding dissent, one should never go away feeling they have been informed. It’s a con game.

“Do you really believe Ayn Rand was God fearing? Have you actually read her books?”
.
Ouch. That one left a mark.

“…the Federal government in the Constitution and established a limited government which means they intended for the Federal government to not interfere in private economic matters…”
.
False!
.
The constitution included eminent domain for the government to take over any property at any time so long as it was paid for with “just compensation”.
.
You have no evidence that this was there intent and the establishment of a government enforced monopoly on the postal service completely contradicts that.
.
“Free market capitalism is simply private property rights….”
.
If that is the case, then Obama and all of the most liberal people outside of the microscopic 100k member Communist Party of the US are CAPITALISTS.
.
” Free market capitalism is… the trade of goods and services.”
.
In that case, our founding fathers were “closet socialists” because of the interstate commerce clause and no constitutional restrictions on the states taking over whatever they felt was just to take over which does not cross state lines.
.
Of course the term “socialist” did not exist for about 70 years after the constitution was written, but anachronisms are okay if you rewrite history the way that you do.
.
“FACT: Van Jones is a self admitted communist.”
.
Then where is this admission of his that he is a communist? It was so public that you can not find any link or reference to it? Were you at his house when he admitted this to you? Was he at your house at a dinner party when, after a couple scotches he admitted this to you?
.
There is a video very edited by Glenn Beck where he called a communist group “cool” (which was weird) but if you say that you think the White Stripes are cool that doesn’t mean that your real identity is Jack White.
.
FACT: Sunstein, Kagan and Lloyd all want to regulate speech in one form or another.
.
No links: so, this means that these all must be personal friends of yours telling you things that they do not say in public.
.
I’ve gone over this with right wingers and so far there is evidence that all of them found Fox News incredibly bias, irresponsible and infuriating but not one burp implying any form of legal restrictions at all.
.
Sorry, try again.
.
Better yet, don’t try again here.
.
Try again on RedState or another right wing controlled blog where they throw out people who disagree with them.
.
No, I was never on RedState, but, one of our right wing trolls, rusty aka Newfreedomblog was and he wasn’t marching in lockstep.
.
You have as much grounds for calling our founding fathers free market extremists like modern Republicans and for calling Van Jones a communist as I do for calling you a meth head.
.
Drugs and blogging are a bad mix. Stop doing meth JKIC.

“But that’s how ethnocentric shock jocks like Maddow and Limbaugh make their entertainment-industry sized salaries.”
.
Limbaugh supported absolutely everything the RNC did and/or proposes to do.
.
Maddow, slammed on Obama in the link I have above.
.
Maddow, in an interview now on Youtube and posted here by Time has her asking one straight question over and over while Rand Paul bobs and weaves before saying that this one aspect of the civil rights bill he would have, had he been in office 46 years ago, would have debated.
.
Maddow brought up the potential consequences of that one aspect.
.
He bobbed and weaved some more, going into how – as nobody said he was – that he was not himself a racist and – as nobody said he would – would not tolerate racism.
.
She found an ideological loophole that you could drive a tractor trailer full of Klansmen through even if Rand Paul himself may despise racist groups as much as Maddow does.
.
By not saying all along that he would have made an exception to his ideology for things like civil rights, he nearly begged a top notch researcher like Maddow to find that gaping hole in his philosophy which contradict Rand Paul’s anti-racism.
.
He left the loophole wide open and refused to change his mind until he discovered that such ideological rigidity would cost him the election.
.
Rand Paul brought his own noose. Maddow put it around Rand Paul’s neck and Rand Paul jumped off the chair committing political suicide on TV.
.
Now he is trying to come back from the dead.

KISS: If you like Rand Paul, support him and vote for him. If you don’t then don’t support him and don’t vote for him. But do your own homework, and especially these days when the media is only pushing liberals on everybody. If you have principles, and morals you have what it takes to do it. — Thanks and good luck.

Sartor, denial will get you nowhere…
.
.

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation”.
.
.
E. Kagan – Private Speech, Public Purpose
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1600235
.
.
Kagan’s name was also on a brief, United States v. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
.
.
Here’s a good review of Sunstein’s views on the First Amendment right here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-czar-wants-mandatory-government-propaganda-on-political-websites-html
.
.
What do you think Van Jones is talking about here when he says “transforming the whole society”?

.
.
When he graduated from law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington, D.C., and moved to San Francisco instead.[14] He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a socialist group whose official Points of Unity “upheld revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism
.
.
QUOTE: “In that case, our founding fathers were “closet socialists” because of the interstate commerce clause and no constitutional restrictions on the states taking over whatever they felt was just to take over which does not cross state line”
.
That doesn’t make any sense. Sure the states were free to do what they wanted by at the level of the Federal government they gave no power to regulate commerce except in the case of interstate commerce. If they were socialists or communists they would have established central planning over industry but they did not. And don’t use the singular example of the post office. That’s just pathetic.
.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights is all about individual liberty not collectivism and you know that.
.
I don’t have time to track down references for you all day long. I don’t know how you find the time to troll here all day. Get a job.

Reread Kagan’s comments:
.
“I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation”.
.
Uncoerced is the key word here.
.
That is, JKIC, please, sir, don’t call your wife a beach. (I can’t type the real word here – it is forbidden) and please don’t call the man who works in your office an N….
.
That, sir, is the uncoerced discouragement of hate speech.
.
You are upset that Kagan does not want to be called beach?
.
You are upset that Kagan does not call Clarance Thomas a N…?
.
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
.
That sounds like the standard fire in a crowded movie theater argument selectively cut off by somebody trying to make it sound different than it is.
.
You do not have a quote from Van Jones himself nor from the organization saying that it is communist.
.
You, still have no more basis for calling him a “self proclaimed communist” than I do of calling you a meth head.
.
“If they were socialists or communists they would have established central planning over industry but they did not.”
.
So if communism and socialism = “central planning over industry” then Obama is not any type of a communist nor a socialist and is in line with what our founding fathers had believed in.
.
I’ve been telling you all along that nobody in office today is a communist. Now that we have a shared definition of communism, we can agree that, unless you know of some secret plan in the basement of the White House where the secret American Red Army of Obama is going to spring out, hold a coup and change everything, then you are admitting that we are nothing like communists.
.
If the constitution planned to ban all regulation, then the interstate commerce clause would not have been there and limitations on states rights to regulate business.
.
HCR is about constitutionally permitted taxation and tax incentives.
.
You don’t even know how to make a good argument.
.
I, myself, do have a day job.
.
Apparently you are sleepless from your nighttime job of dealing meth.
.
Get yourself some rest and, preferably, rehab for your drug problems and your paranoid delusions of those communists hiding in your cornflakes will go away.

There is nothing secretive about it Sartor. We’re talking about the nationalization of the auto industry, government mandated health care insurance, 90% of home mortgages being held by Fannie and Freddie, a monetary system in control of a secretive private “quasi-governmental” banking cartel, massive redistribution of wealth.

You are such an absolutist that only sees in black and white terms that it is impossible to have a meaningful debate with you.

I’ve presented evidence and if it’s not enough for you I really don’t care. It’s clear to me when a president says “under my cap and trade plan, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket” that means we have a central planner in the Whitehouse that does not have free market capitalist interests at heart.

Now it’s fine if you believe in global warming and you think central planning is superior to free market forces. Anyone who has studied economics and understands how economies operate as self balancing ecosystems understands that a central planner will always fail because there is no way a small group of individuals can manage something as complex as an economy comprised of millions of people. You can’t centrally plan the prices of goods and services, the correct allocation of resources, interest rates or wage levels. That is what the Fed has proven with the multiple destructive bubbles it is responsible for.

JKIAC,
.
“You are such an absolutist that only sees in black and white terms that it is impossible to have a meaningful debate with you.”
.
Talk about projecting!
.
Richard Nixon bailed out Lockhead Martin.
.
It paid back it’s debt and became private again.
.
Carter bailed out Chrysler.
.
It paid off it’s debts and became private again.
.
Under Tarp, GWB bailed out our banks.
.
Most of them have paid it back.
.
Obama bailed out Chrysler and GM. GM has, already, almost paid back everything.
.
A Marxist wants to have all things owned by government.
.
A capitalist who is flexible or is forced to be flexible by circumstances, will use government on a very temporary basis or for highly strategic reasons to buy parts of all of businesses.
.
Mercedes Benz for decades now has been partially owned by the German Federal Republic, the German State of Bavaria and the German auto worker’s union for particular strategic reasons.
.
We do not have any strategic motivation as the post-war German government does to permanently own even 1% of any of the auto companies or banks.
.
I could blow your numbers about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac out of the water, but, you are so frightened of anything government that it would be useless to tell you.

I love it when the Right Wing goes from “slamming” Maddow as a Lesbian to quickly getting all hot and bothered in an almost homoerotic way about the Founding Fathers. Guys, they are 200 years dead. Get over the man crush. Lots have changed since they were around, so stop invoking them! They surely are not amused at the fact that we have a black president, female sec. of state, etc… but fortunately they put in motion a system of government that can change with the times. We realized through our history that a weak federal government doesn’t protect enough of our citizens, so we adapted. Why is that so hard to swallow? We don’t live in 1776, and the Founding Fathers just aren’t that into you. Get over it.

All good advice, except it sounds like you, yourself haven’t done your homework. You haven’t figured out that the “Liberal Media” is a fiction promoted by conservatives to cover their own flawed ideology. Read. It helps.

I think your point is well taken, and that it is problematic in this day and age that news and entertainment are so linked.

I disagree, however, with your point about Maddow wilfully misunderstanding. He truly didn’t make much sense, for starters, and his position shows a pretty radical interpretation of the Federal Government’s role. I think she was just trying to get him to be clear about his view.

It also must be noted that Maddow and Limbaugh/Beck etc… are hardly the same creature. The Right Wingers lie/distort/incite on a regular basis. Maddow does actual reporting with a liberal slant. Very different things. It is the triumph and shame of Fox that we even mention Maddow and Limbaugh/Beck/O’Reilly in the same breath. They are not in any way equals in terms of honesty, integrity, and fairness.