7 votes

MSNBC releases a FAKE transcription of Rand Paul's appearance with Maddow

IMPORTANT NOTE AT THE END. PLEASE READ.

by ron_paul_is_awesome

I've noticed in a few news stories today they 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". Here it is, cued up to the exact moment (8:05).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGdP2mNPeo#t=8m5s

Here are a few media of the bigger media outlets misstating the quote, but there are a bunch more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-is-kentuc...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9088468
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37252841/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_madd...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKxxiqk1Wy...

IMPORTANT:
I'm choosing this attention grabbing title and duplicating a thread because this transcript will be used in the next attack against Rand. Please mods, put it in the front page, and if someone has access to the Rand campaign, let them know that they are writing FAKE and SLANDEROUS transcripts. In the mean time, keep it bumped.

Source



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

But don't we (libertarians)

But don't we (libertarians) believe that property owners have the right to use their property as they see fit? If this means denying any customer for any reason, isn't that ok? I don't think it would be very popular or profitable. Because the business won't bring in profits, the owner will have to change policies or go out of business. Perhaps a nice young man will open a business that welcomes everyone and eventually the community will move all their business to him and be better off for it. This man voluntarily made the choice to ruin his business the way he wanted to.

I understand this is not a popular position and most will view this position as racist, discriminatory, etc. Believing in property rights is not racist. There is nothing morally wrong with allowing property owners to use their property how they see fit. However, using the State's
Aggression to force individual property owners to use their property in any way sprang their own will its morally wrong.

Rachel knows many libertarians feel property owners havethe right to use their property however they want. out its another example if where rights have been taken from the individual she transferred to the State by aggression of course. I haven't heard the interview but I would prefer it if Rand said" Yes". It its not an easy task but we want to change the hats and mins of men and women. And telling people what they want to hear will not accomplish or trials.

It seems I'm the only one on this thread that has said anything close to defending the property owners rights. An I wrong?

ACinMA's picture

Just a heads up on your youtube link

"This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated."

Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts

ℛ[ƎVO˩]ution
"When one gets in bed with government,
one must expect the diseases it spreads."
‎"It's not like I'm a powerful person. My ideas are."

.

.

hmmmm

I wonder if he can sue them over that.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

The fake transcript still being used today

to smear Rand Paul.

See here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578931/rand-paul-ive-n...

They write:

In a subsequent interview, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow asked Paul whether he thought a private business "has the right to say we don't serve black people."

Paul responded, "Yes"

---

That is false.

bump

bump

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Yes, this deserves attention.

It does look like the MSNBC transcript was the source and everyone else just ran with their fraudulent transcript. And I don't see how this could be accidental at all. There is no way any reasonable person could interpret that grunt as a "yes", no freaking way. They definitely knew what they were doing inserting that word in there. Maybe newsbusters.org would like to take note of this; I might send them an email.

reply

Words can't describe how obnoxious Maddow was on Thursday's show towards Rand. She is very angry how well he handled the interview, frankly he made her look stupid.

I think a heard a "yeah" at 8:05 BUT

it seemed like an acknowledgement of the question being transmitted NOT an affirmative on the racist ambush by the shemale.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

Rand needs to reply that the media is owned

by the same people stealing our paycheck, of course they don't want someone like me getting into office. We don't need to justify our position, people like us made this country!!!!!

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Not yet...he still needs them.

Remember when Ron couldn't get face time even if he had been run over by an elephant....?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey referring to ISIS

well, he can trash MSNBC to start, for faking his quotes.

Fox and others will be happy to have Rand.

reedr3v's picture

Absolutely, this should be the basis

for some very good historical revisionism on Maddow's intentional misrepresentation.