0 votes

Rachel Maddow Show: Patriot Act Renewal Did NOT Pass Congress! (Must See!)

Rachel Maddow Show: Patriot Act Renewal Did NOT Pass Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaY9GtmYBRU

Patriot Act Renewal Did NOT Pass Congress! pt.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1j4OeeIprA



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I can´t stand to watch

that..blah blah..

Ron and Rand should accept this "peace offering" ....

from Rachel. What Rachel did was very gracious. Besides, MSNBC has been MUCH kinder to Ron Paul over the years than those hypocrites at Fox News.

She was gracious to Ron Paul a couple of years ago...

right up until the election started to heat up. The 2012 election season is about to kick off, so for how long will her niceties last this time, six months? The Pauls should tell Madcow to get bent, in their own humble ways.

As RP put it to her after O won

All she does is cover a side show. Republican this, democrat that, who is up, who is down. Its like the play by play in the halls of a senior high social scene. Doesn't matter one bit except to those that like gossip and snarky smiles.

As much as you may not like her:

Her observation was correct. It was a significant victory for liberty and lends itself to the statements made by Ralph Nadar predicting future Progressive/Libertarian alliances on Constitutional issues. We will take what we can get, no?

Uhgg, that was a cruel

Uhgg, that was a cruel trick...putting the "must see" title and making me watch that sick and twisted witch until the end of the segment.

She is desperate...so now she is turning into the liberal Glenn Beck. She's got a big board and she is going to map out the conservative divide for all the dummies in her audience with big words. She spends the entire show mocking Rand Paul, hardly a mention of the patriot act, doesn't mention Rand Paul's paper against the patriot act, and then begs him to come back to her.

She is smarmy and hopefully will join Olberman wherever he is.

sorry

call me ;)

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Rachel will go Keith's route.

She's lazy with verifying sources and goes straight to broadcast with it. MediaMatters has been tearing her up lately.

Rachel is a confused person.

She doesn't want to admit she is a Woman but she wants to fight for a Woman's Rights.

She somehow equates fighting for Taxpayer funding of Abortions, as fighting for a Womans Right of Choice.
I do not think I need to pay for her to use a Right.
A right to choose has nothing to do with Right to use.

And that is smaller government.
And by the way government CANNOT guarantee the Right to a full term pregnancy, much less a societies equivalent opposite Right to Abortion.

She needs to visit her local infertile couples meeting class. There is a BETTER way.

The sheding of innocent Blood is on the hands of the propigator. Simply talk to a baby in the Womb and see if it responds.

She confuses me

I have no idea what she is talking about except for republicans are bad and democrats are good. The rest is like blah blah blah, I wonder if she will be the next "journalist" to go.

So she wants Rand to "call her" so she can set him up to...

...throw him under the bus again?

Great.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

She asks a very important question

How is a small government going to police the pregnancies of millions of women?

Leges sine moribus vanae

What does the house vote on

What does the house vote on the Patriot Act extension have to do with that select clip from the old interview? It makes it seems like Rachel is just reaching for excuses to replay that clip from that interview.

Then she begs Rand to come back on her show. It reminds me of Peanuts character Lucy pleading with Charlie Brown to come kick the football once again.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

It is a standard propaganda tactic

It is the "Baby with the Bathwater" fallacy. She wants to equate all of Rand/Ron's positions with the hypocracies of the "normal" Republican. That way the Democrat herd will not listen to any of them.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I see it as the opposite.

She is pointing out the hypocracy with the establishment Republicans and pointing out that there are those, like Ron Paul that stand by their words--unlike the establishment Republicans who cry for smaller government and vote for bigger government.

spot on assessment.

her logic is so convoluted it....
well, it is what it is!

She tries to appear to be

She tries to appear to be logical... But is far from it.... and I would agree the Big Government Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouth... but what about the 67 Democrats? Why didn't she raise some hell about their two faced behavior? Or the President?

On abortion... if a person was responsible they wouldn't get pregnant... and so what she is trying to defend is irresponsible people killing their baby because their irresponsible. That is irrational. A Libertarian is one that believes in freedom as long as they harm no one else... once a woman is pregnant, they have another life to be responsible for... and thus killing it is un-Libertarian.

And then claiming that Ron Paul just decided to be against the War on Terror, like it happen yesterday, is also disingenuous.

The woman (Maddow) is scary when it comes to her logic... I'm wondering if one day she might start arguing with herself. Her and Glenn Beck would be an entertaining duo.

Maddow is one of those liberals who...

agrees with the Libertarian view of non-interventionist foreign policy - which is a big issue.

Since liberals agree with the Libertarian anti-unconstitutional war stance, they at times think they understand Libertarians.

But then as soon as we talk about economics it all falls apart.

This is why she tried to bust Rand on the issue of forcing private business to serve anyone they wish.

Yes, at the public service level there should absolutely be no discrimination because ALL citizens help fund public programs.

But consider this...If any private business doesn't wish to serve me for some reason, I'd rather they have the opportunity to be honest about it and refuse me service rather than being forced by government to serve me but secretely hate having to do so.

Presently there's no way for me to know if someone is going to spit in my soup after being forced (by law) to have to serve me.

If I see a sign saying "We don't serve white people" then the only one the business is really going to hurt is themselves.

That is basically what Rand was saying and I wish he had worded it that way.

MAYBE then it would have gotten through Maddow's thick liberal head.

But then again, she's so confused I doubt anyone will ever be able to educate her on the idea of true liberty.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Wasn't Maddow's point that so

Wasn't Maddow's point that so many businesses take government money at some level, that it isn't fair to treat them separately?

In any case, while I agree with Rand' view on this issue, there is absolutely no reason for him to bring this up. It isn't an issue relevant in the current political atmosphere.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Rand never brought it up

Rachel brought it up in this interview, and despite it having no issue in modern elections her excuse was that a reporter in a small time Kentucky newspaper had brought it up to Rand previously. In neither case did Rand bring it up.

In both cases it was an attempted "gotcha" type trap by the Maddow and the newspaper reporter to try to impugn Rand. They knew that a consistent application of the libertarian philosophy would be to defend the free choice in which they thought they could impugn Rand because so many people are emotionally based on this issue. If Rand did capitulate to validating government control over personal behavior choices, no matter how illogical the behavior, it would appear a betrayal to his libertarian base. It was an attempted catch-22 media gotcha trap. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues of the day. They brought it up both times, not Rand.

What Rachel and others always seem to neglect to discuss is that during the period of segregation, it was not the bus companies nor Woolworths that advocated segregation. They were forced into such policies by government segregation laws - Jim Crow laws. IT was government trying to control personal choice to begin with that forced these segregation policies. Bus companies and lunch counters alike drug their feet in enforcing these measures and had been repeatedly fined into "Jim Crow" law compliance by the strong arm of government.

The problem with Rachel is she has nothing against forced control over personal behavior. She just wants to use that force to control your behavior for what she thinks is best. The problem however is the power itself to control your choices by force versus persuasion. What she neglects to realize is that for abuse of power to occur, there must first be the power to abuse.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

"Rachel brought it up in this

"Rachel brought it up in this interview, and despite it having no issue in modern elections her excuse was that a reporter in a small time Kentucky newspaper had brought it up to Rand previously. In neither case did Rand bring it up.

In both cases it was an attempted "gotcha" type trap by the Maddow and the newspaper reporter to try to impugn Rand. They knew that a consistent application of the libertarian philosophy would be to defend the free choice in which they thought they could impugn Rand because so many people are emotionally based on this issue. If Rand did capitulate to validating government control over personal behavior choices, no matter how illogical the behavior, it would appear a betrayal to his libertarian base. It was an attempted catch-22 media gotcha trap. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues of the day. They brought it up both times, not Rand"

If memory serves correctly, Rand ended up doing a complete backpedal, saying he'd vote for the Civil and Voting Rights acts 100%. Why didn't he just say that in the first place?

"What Rachel and others always seem to neglect to discuss is that during the period of segregation, it was not the bus companies nor Woolworths that advocated segregation. They were forced into such policies by government segregation laws - Jim Crow laws. IT was government trying to control personal choice to begin with that forced these segregation policies. Bus companies and lunch counters alike drug their feet in enforcing these measures and had been repeatedly fined into "Jim Crow" law compliance by the strong arm of government. "

I think this not really a fair portrayal. Government segregation laws had the FULL backing of the people of the South. White Southerners liked those laws. And I am sure, that regardless of their personal beliefs, if they clientele liked segregation, they liked it. Heck, I bet there were a lot of non-racist owners who endorsed segregation because not having it meant losing customers.

Those businesses owners who "drug their feet" in what would have been principle would have been few and far between.

"The problem with Rachel is she has nothing against forced control over personal behavior. She just wants to use that force to control your behavior for what she thinks is best. The problem however is the power itself to control your choices by force versus persuasion"

I have nothing against forced control over personal behavior. After all, I am anti-murder, anti-theft, etc. I believe that we have to use the force of law to discourage these things.

What I always say, is that alterning choices by "persuasion" is always preferable. But there will always be people who choose to do bad things at the expense of others. That is why we "force people to control personal behavior" all the time. You can't kill. You can't rape. You can't fraud.

I know you are talking about force beyond those kind of measures. But the basic idea that you have to give up some freedoms to live in a free society holds true. And you have the freedom to leave this country, if the things the government forces you to do are abhorrent to you.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Thanks

Thanks for the response.

Yes Rand may have backpeddled later, but that does not explain why Rachel and the earlier reporter brought up a statute from more than 4 decades ago that was not at issue unless they had ulterior motives.

Yes, you are correct, that the Jim Crow laws were passed because they were popular with certain people, but that just corroborates my point that power can and will be abused. Power corrupts, and any belief that power once granted, no matter how well intentioned the rationale, will never be abused is simply naive and contradicts all of human history. The best way to evaluate a power is not to view it in the rosy light of how wonderful it will be if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered. The problem is accepting the belief, and setting the precedent, that anyone else properly has the right to control by force your personal choices even if your choice seems irrational to them and not in your best interest as they believe it to be.

Lastly equating aggressive violence "murder, theft, rape, fraud" as the same as personal choices does not follow. Who you choose to associate with for whatever reason is not an initiation of force against another. The crimes you mention violate the non-agression principle and are thus not mere personal choices but active initiation of violence against another and a violation of their rights. Under the libertarian philosophy the initiation of force against another is where your rights properly end. These are core principles of the libertarian philosophy. I am a little surprised that you are not already aware of these concepts being a dailypauler, but I am glad you are taking an interest in the philosophy of liberty. If you are truly interested in a better understanding I am happy to direct you to plenty of good resources.

Let it not be said that we did nothing.-Ron Paul
Stand up for what you believe in, even if you stand alone.-Sophia Magdalena Scholl

"Yes Rand may have

"Yes Rand may have backpeddled later, but that does not explain why Rachel and the earlier reporter brought up a statute from more than 4 decades ago that was not at issue unless they had ulterior motives"

I really dislike this line of thinking. Ulterior motives? She was doing an interview, with a guy from a family known for an unusual position on this issue. That is obviously why she brought up the question. It is her duty to ask the questions, not worry about whether or not Rand will be comfortable with the question...

And Rand hedged. He should have answered confidently, or retracted his view. Lesson learned, hopefully.

"Yes, you are correct, that the Jim Crow laws were passed because they were popular with certain people"

Not just "certain" people; the majority of the people.

"but that just corroborates my point that power can and will be abused. Power corrupts, and any belief that power once granted, no matter how well intentioned the rationale, will never be abused is simply naive and contradicts all of human history"

But then that means, when we give government the power to stop murderers, thieves, brotect our borders, defend our lands, it will corrupt them and they will abuse it. So what is the solution, no government. Obviously not. The issue is, you have to give them the power and make sure they didn't abuse it. And they didn't for many, many years. We've seen the "abuse" really take off in the last 30 years.

And, BTW, in the case of segregation, the "power" was given to the people. The people were given the "power" to vote, and they voted for "separate but equal".

"The problem is accepting the belief, and setting the precedent, that anyone else properly has the right to control by force your personal choices even if your choice seems irrational to them and not in your best interest as they believe it to be".

The problem is, that even the non-aggression principle violates this rule. We think that someone's personal choice to kill someone else or drive drunk is not in the best interests of society, and we throw them in jail/legislate behavior.

You are setting the precedent in that way itself.

"Lastly equating aggressive violence "murder, theft, rape, fraud" as the same as personal choices does not follow. Who you choose to associate with for whatever reason is not an initiation of force against another."

The issue for me is, when you add the qualfier "I am for personal choices and freedom...except when someone chooses and uses their freedom to initiate force against another", that that is a strange qualifier. Not only because almost anything can be described as "initiating force" ("hey, I live in a Christian society; a non-Christian just living in my neighboorhood is using force against my beliefs"; heck, you just looped in "fraud" under "force against another"), but because the qualifier destroys the absolutism of the phrase. Doesn't Ron Paul himself always say, you are for freedom, or you aren't?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

What is going on here?

I'm kind of shocked to read some comments.
Didn't we learn from the primaries in 07-08 that the Republican Party sucks?!
Didn't we find out that they are without of a moral philosophy?
Didn't we all discover that the Neocons (leftists) took over the GOP decades ago which is why a true Conservative was such a threat?
Didn't we discover that, with very few exceptions, ever time a Republican says the phrase "smaller government" they are complete duplicitous pieces of crap?

I'm not a Maddow fan and never watch - but her premise was correct. The "Authoritarian Conservatives" as she called them are the Neocons - which are the overwhelming majority of the GOP.
The Liberty Movement will always fail as long as Christian Republicans try to legislate morality and create crusades to kill brown Muslims.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

what retarded guest she has

first admits there's a split in republicans and mocks democrats for not exploiting it during election

3 seconds later say all republicans are the same and are in favor of big businesses

libertarians always opposed subsidies and bailouts? retard? weren't you implying you were somehow more up to date on the cultural split than your idiot democratic friends

waste of another 10min on a retarded show

She

Is neither stupid nor fake. Although I don't agree with her on many issues I do agree that the Republicans have some severely hypocritical issues. She was right about Rand. He should have just said "I don't think that government has the right to tell a business who to serve. Its ugly, but there it is." I wish she has admitted a little more about the democrats being equally guilty on the patriot act but overall she was correct.

She was right?

So Rand didn't give a polished enough evasive answer, therefore the interviewer who sandbagged him was right?

I guess Glenn Beck was right too when he destroyed Debra Medina...

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

I don't think

that you can compare beck's demeaning treatment of Medina to Maddow's attempt to get a straight answer out of Rand. I admit, it was a tough question for the general public to absorb the answer but he waffled, plain and simple.

I saw both last night's show and the original Rand interview

and personally, I think she cut the interview in such a way to make Rand look better. The original interview was much worse. I think she really wanted to have Ron or Rand on to comment on the Patriot Act vote, and I think they turned her down. I saw it more as a peace offering.

cant resist the urge to always go back to the old leftie hippie

side eh.. always have to look on the bright side when it comes to them no matter how many times they have proven themselves just as much of a treacherous ally as big government republicans

wonder when people will spine up and walk individually on the libertarian path without wanting to grab the young the old the guys the gals the families and even the foes along like you're afraid of some childish solitude

they're not friends.. they endorse libertarian ideologies when they want to. peace sign? what peace sign? "not too late to come back to us hippie side?"