Bootlickers Stumble (again) :)
You handled that perfectly. Literally brilliantly.
... is his ability to consistently make clear, concise points in 15-30 second chunks. The interviewer will not generally let you go more than 30 seconds before he will break in (and the less friendly the interviewer is, the less time he will give you). Given that Sen. Paul doesn't just regurgitate party line talking points, he really does a superior job of delivering the right amount of information in an easy-to-understand manner (he doesn't attempt to pack too much content into the soundbite, which is a problem that his father has).
A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand
Great job Rand!!
Obviously Rand has been working on his delivery, posture and body language, and his message is straight to the point and he doesn't give an inch.
I was concerned about how he presented himself six months ago, and thankfully his handlers and advice-givers have helped him immensely.
To go into a snake pit like that and come out smellin like roses....a guy like that is VERY electable.
Notice how easily and effortlessly he turns their questions around, rips them up, then reconstructs them and points them at Obama. (And even Bush)
I for one, am impressed.
she makes me ill.....all three of them do.
It always amazes me when Ron Paul and also Rand Paul are able to wade into these media jackals and calmly lay down some truth.
I'd just want to flee from them in horror. However, like a true pro Rand handled that interview remarkably
Assets get shifted around where they can best influence public opinion. She won't be interviewing Rand again, she is out of her league. ;)
He was unphased by the odds, too. 3 X 0 = 0. Good job, Rand.
I'm so proud of Rand Paul.
THANK YOU RAND! ACLU is suing Obama administration http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/06/11/aclu-phone-rec... Go Rand!!!
why couldn't he just spit it out that he thought Edward Snowden was a "hero".....but he didn't & kept skating around it, as he played politics by saying he'd "reserve his judgment".
just any sort of question thrown at him by some TV head.
good/bad type question. He maintained control the whole time. Go Rand!
But think about the consequences of a politician commenting on whether what a citizen did is good or bad.
cep, you sure you want to travel that road? More important, you sure you want to travel this road even if the politician is a good guy, the kind of guy who would be perfect for starting travel on this road, a road once traveled that publically becomes part of Big Brother reality TV where everyone is watched and commented on?
Stand with Rand.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.
'Surveillance of Americans against constitution'
audio @ http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/308304.html
"Give a man a gun, and he could rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he could rob the world."
Martin Luther King knew he ran some risks to his life, but fewer than others because he was famous and could not be disappeared. He expected his day in court and to pack the gallery.
Snowden has no such hope. He knows he has a target on this back. He can be rendered or droned at any moment.
I think that's why he made the video. He needs a high-enough profile in order to survive this.
Meanwhile, folks: we need to serve on juries.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
And there weren't drones then. But there wasn't an internet either.
I do compare King's actions with Snowden's because they were both standing up for truth and against oppression.
I will admit that I was kind of looking for this (in hopes that Rand is trying to trick the establishment) but Rand has a very good way of not sounding like he's "playing politics". He said that he is trying to work within the law but he will reserve judgment on Snowden. When Charlie Rose tried to corner him with (paraphrasing) "other famous people who practiced civil disobedience turned themselves in. In your opinion should Ed Snowden?", Rand didn't answer that question. Instead he said (paraphrasing) "I can't make that decision for him".
At the end, they took a cheap shot at Rand mentioning his hair. I assume they were not very subtly saying "we think you have a toupee". That's important by the way because presidential elections are effected by a candidate's looks. If people picture Rand as a bald guy, it could potentially negatively affect his candidacy.
Is that all you got?
Who wrote that script for you?
I'll make a deal with you, Charlie. I won't talk about your waste size and you ask smarter questions on America's dime.
its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
When you are a politician who sticks to the status quo, a hard-edged personality can be an asset, in that it makes you noticeable (think Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, and Allen West).
When you are challenging the status quo, however, a mild, genial persona (think Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Justin Amash) is needed so that you do not come across as a wild-eyed radical who scares people away. Plus, Statesman plays much better in the Oval Office over the long term than Bellicose Jerk does (as can be seen by "Dubya's" 30% approval rating over the last year of his second term).
I respectfully disagree.
What you call a "Bellicose Jerk" I call a man standing up for himself against paid whores.
... By laughing off the "hair" question, he:
1. showed that he has a sense of humor;
2. showed that he is comfortable enough with himself to employ the humor in regards to his hair; and
3. subtly belittled the question in a way that doesn't reflect badly on himself.
The pitcher may play for the opposing team, but the hitter still needs the pitcher to throw the ball so that he can hit the home run. While we might dislike the pitcher, and would love to see the hitter charge the mound and punch out the pitcher, that's not in the hitter's interest; hitting the home run is.
and then employees of the government or some corporation. As American Citizens we are all living parties to an ongoing pact we call the Constitution through our states. Therefore our first loyalties lie there and supersede any other contract or agreement.
Therefore, if an act by any party is unconstitutional, your primary contractual obligation is to seek a remedy for this unlawful act and this obligation supersedes all other agreements, pacts, covenants or contracts.
Mr. Snowden was in a position to know an unconstitutional act had been committed by our employees and his primary obligation is to report this illegal act and seek what remedy he may.
We live in a constitutional republic and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. What part of this does CBS not get?
If we retain our republic these "journalists" will be lucky to find a job scrubbing toilets in a truck stop.
Good Job Rand for staying on point and not giving them a clip to "burn" you with down the road.
if you see yourself as being burned.
We, the people will not "see" what they attempt to project.
We will "see" what we choose to see.
testing the waters to see which of them might do the best in debate.
Charlie Rose... CFR member, and employee of the N.Y.-based, media-industrial complex corporation with that creepy, all-seeing eye logo.
our charm nor our patience.
He creeps me out because I used to buy his act. I'm certainly no longer a fan.
All this stuff is nothing new, I watched a video last year on the Daily Paul about William Binney, another NSA whistle blower, a 32 year veteran of the NSA who exposed the program "Stellar Wind", and according to him it did involve domestic spying. According to the program top justice department officials threatened to resign over the program way back in 2004. So this has been going on now in secret without the American peoples knowledge for many years.
See the short video below of his New York Times 2012 interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc
Why the major TV outlets didn't make it known to all the American people back then is amazing, maybe they just took it as some type of a conspiracy theory or something.
These KGB type programs are unconstitutional and should be eliminated and defunded by Congress.
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
CIA Journalist Recruitment as a start, and then watch where it leads you.
I bet these news anchors quake and tremble in their sleep.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: