29 votes

NPR - Audio Update: Rand Paul And More On Libertarianism

Rand Paul and others on Libertarianism and the future of the Republican Party.

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/08/06/rand-paul#disqus_thread




Comment viewing options

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

Rand should use every ounce

Rand should use every ounce of his wit to shut down these types of interviewers immediately. He should use the most clever sayings to demean and belittle these types of people.

Say things like; Do you think I'm going to turn the clock back 50 years on civil rights and reestablish Jim Crow laws? Do you really think that? Are you in second grade?

Racism crap

This is similar to a few decades ago when McCarthy had this fear of communists going on. So they would work hard at tying every Dem to communism and if they could do that then a persons views were considered illegitimate because well "he is a communist".

Fast forward to 2013, lets shut down the Repubs by trying to link them to racism because surely in this day in age if you have ties to racists then your views don't matter and the conversation is over.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Whatever. If he doesn't start

Whatever. If he doesn't start shutting these types of questions down now, every interview he does with news outlets like NPR that are hostile to libertarianism/conservatism will just go just like this one: "So Rand, why do you hate race X?"

Debbie's picture

I thought he did great. He's not going to take any bs, and he

made really good points about the issues which are important and what this is all about!!

Debbie

Disappointed.

Rand came off as a defensive jerk.

I don;t like John Harwood at

I don;t like John Harwood at all, but Rand was a bit testy, compared to how Ron would have handled it..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Diamond Dog's picture

"Testy"

That is called "aggressive" out here in the real world of real politics. But it did come across a little whiney - like Mitt Romney whiney.

I don't know how he could have handled it any better.

The Diamond Dog is a real cool cat. | Reporting on the world from an altitude of 420.

He could have brought up the

He could have brought up the fact that the democrats put the former head of the KKK, Robert Byrd, in charge of their party for over 10 years in the 90s... and no one said a damn thing..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I find it disingenuous

That NPR labels Rand a Libertarian and that Rand himself accepts the designation during the interview.

He's a moderately conservative Republican, who compared to the GOP RINOs, appears like a Libertarian.

Just like the FED waters down our currency, so does politics adulterates words and definitions to encourage public perception.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

He fired Jack Hunter-- stand by it and point out double standard

He should say he fired Jack Hunter and he will continue to fire anyone that gets in the way of the issues.

He should then lecture the media about double standards. For example, Obama gets a free pass on all the people he hired that are tax evaders. Gets a free pass by the media on that commmunist guy he hired (van something?). Also the press never investigated anything Obama did in his twenties, or anything his employees did in their twenties. What Obama says he did in his twenties should be a red flag for what he really did-- and if he were a Republican we would know.

Argh, and that Dave Boaz... why that little...

KOCHsucker STATO hack!

he HAD to get that little jab in, when the NPR substitute hack invoked Jack Hunter this, 'racist, neo-confederate' that, blah, blah, blah: good that he said that Rand nor Ron has EVER had any such inkling, that said, he snuck in 'well, Ron Paul has one or two...in his circles.'

that despicable motherfcuker!

that, is a direct hit vs. Lew Rockwell, whom that faketarian motherfcuker has been smearing, WITH 100% LIE, since the very founding of Mises Inst. as a competing libertarian, scholarly institution, vs. the Kochtopus' STATO/Reason set.

gotta love how Mises folks are never, if ever, invited on to represent libertarianism on these type of shows (rhetorical, yes, so let me feign incredulity, for the sake of discussion! LOL), when the Beltway faketarians are constantly spewing solely, unprincipled consequentialist POV.

ach: it is what it is. c'est la vie

P.S. for those who may not be familiar, Molly has been slightly more fair-ish to Paul the Elder, in the past, though still, was the typically dismissive liberal scribe vs. Ron Paul, but noticeably more 'fair-er' to Rand. Even traveled along to cover him:

http://www.dailypaul.com/233954/the-atlantic-mag

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/politics...

http://www.theatlantic.com/search/?sort=time&source=search&q...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

WE HAVE TO GET OVER THERE IN THE MAINSTREAM AND DEFEND RAND

THOSE COMMENTS ARE TERRIBLE AND THE INTERVIEW WAS SO RUDE

WE CANNOT SIT IDLY BY AT THE DAILY PAUL AND SAY HO HUM. WE MUST STICK UP FOR OUR BELIEFS AND FOR RAND

Séamusín's picture

I have been working all day

My Handle on disqus is Seamus Reilly. I have been combating these trolls all day. I am losing steam though.

Séamusín

I worked too...

its a lost cause. Its NPR. Although I listen on my way to work, I only listen because there are no commercials. I love some of the stories but their politics make me want to puke.

Hat tip to MSNBC for being a hack piece of chit. Gotta hang the 'racist' noose around Rand and have their other buddies try to push it too.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

He looks like dad here.

Doesn't he look like Ron in this thumbnail?

Debbie's picture

Yes, he does. I noticed that too.

:)

Debbie

hey, that's his GOOD side!

.D

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

The Progressers over there

The Progressers over there commenting are mostly retarded government employees. It makes no sense trying to reason with retarded people.

aughrrrrrrrrr!

this shiite annoys the fcuk out of me.

For the umteenth time, dearest R3VOL, when an MSM monkey accuses you of nonsense, your number 1 tact should be to

1. remain calm
2. DON'T get defensive! Put THEM on the defense, by speculatively suggesting the equally absurd about the host/'interviewer!'

3. Whenever you get a chance, never miss an opportunity to dismiss, ridicule, malign the SPLC as the neo-Joseph McCarthyite (some commie rumors proven true, or not, for the sake of discussion, y'all get the gist) that they are. And, blame Jamie Kuntchick@The New Republic, MSDNC, Soros' Media Matters & ThinkProgress (Center for American Progress' online arm) as the sole cohesive propaganda group-think point of origin for those rumors, er...because 99% of the time, they actually ARE! LOL

Arguendo, when the a-hole begins citing an OP-ED (which is just some asshole with an access to known MSM publisher to spew his own asshole unsubstantiated opinion, pretending to be 'news' as most NPR audience, if they solely believe what they hear, are EXPECTED to be unable to distinguish what is an opinion piece, ie. an OpEd, vs. a 'news' piece, anyway), then counter with: gee, Tom Ashbrook's substitute, "why don't you prove that you're not a rapist, a pedophile and your daughter's killer?"

NPR Hack: 'Well, no one is accusing me of that, Senator Paul!'

Paul: 'Well, I just read that in the comment section, so it must be true.'

NPR Hack: 'Well, that's just an online comment section, Sen. Paul!'

Paul: 'Well, what you're reading was just an online comment, too. What's the difference?'

When you're a politician, no matter what, your inherent reality is that you need enough public approval and votes: every MSM show you go on, you're on enemy turf, to get votes from a portion of their audience, in the aggregate, in the political sense, no matter how principled you are, or want to be.

Most idiots who listen to idiot hosts ARE idiots themselves.

That, kinda should be MSM common sense 101.

So, for the love of God, don't get on an idiot's show, and get disappointed at the notion that a bowel-movement commie NPR douche is trying to sandbag you!

And, like it or not, after two weeks since Hunter's resignation, don't expect a hostile NPR asshole 'substitute teacher'/guest host to NOT bring it up, when MSM solely thrives on drama, ie. "King of Bacon" not Benghazi Coverup, Hastings, actual meat of NSA spying, illegal wars, WTC7, bailouts, stolen Americans' wealth by the banksters, etc.

DO NOT expect intelligent Q&A, nor expect to have 20min of intellectual conversation about principles!

They WILL pull moronic headlines written by other morons to state that 'hey, if someone else wrote it' I can say it as if it's true, regardless whether it is, in fact, true or not.

Sure, Rand's only human, but observing his father, dealing with these neoCon Commie Trotskyite assholes stopping at nothing to smear his father and his good name, he really should have a 'ready-made tact' to counter all these "racist" smears, just as how he preps his speeches; we all know, unlike his father, Rand tells exactly the word-for-word same jokes, intros and openers. Doc the Elder, may say the same things, but you KNOW they're off-the-cuff, free-flow open-mic. Rand, always prepares and says the same exact things, specically. You think "Gimme Gimme Gimme" and "King of Bacon" wasn't pre-prepared? Have you ever watched TV...in the last 100yrs??

So WHY NOT pre-prepare HOW you're gonna handle these idiots without coming off 'defensive'??

These morons really are not that hard to deal with: they're ALL insecure sociopathic nerds, PERIOD.

Their 'buttons' ARE the easiest to push. Believe me, if you brought a camera crew, and a team of writers to investigate the same MSM hosts, 24/7, their lives will be worse freakshows than some politician's! Everyone will come off bad, eventually if you have a camera and team of scribes trained on your every move, eventually.

But most MSM talking heads/propagandist scribes, really are the most insecure bunch: in fact, you couldn't lie for a living 24/7 unless you were the most insecure asshole in the world. Eventually you keep lying to just prevent others from discovering your previous lie; kinda like borrowing cash on your credit card to pay for that credit card's own min. monthly bill.

Gerald Celente's off repeated adage has always been true: "Politics is ShowBiz for ugly People!" Well, we all know that hollywood-gossip shows like Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight, are hosted by actors too ugly for Hollywood, but nevertheless want to feel a sense of power by critiquing those whom they can't be, but by attending same parties to cover them and gossip about them. Then, if politicians are too ugly for Hollyweird, then how much more fuglier do those who cover ugly politicians, must be?

Fuglier than Fugliest, no?? LOL

These assholes are LOSERS, with a ginormous capital "L"!

So why is it that good, smart, WITTY, fast-talking paleoconservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalists, Minarchists, AnCaps, Voluntaryists, Agorists have such hard time "P0wnZing" these easy marks?

I just don't get it!

Seriously, by now, in the year 2013, 5yrs+ since the RP R3VOLution officially kicked, off, there is no excuse getting railroaded by these MSM amateurs. And, you better believe MOST MSM talking heads, while conniving, are not that bright. They're script readers, who rarely have any original thought of their own. They're robots operating on a predictable algorithm, if you will.

One thing about predictability? You can ALWAYS interrupt their programming.

Time to Git! Freedom lovers. Make a pledge to NEVER be railroaded by MSM hacks, ever again.

I just hate seeing good people get sandbagged by the worst rank amateurs!

====================================
====================================

So, Dearest, Senator Rand Paul,

Not that I expect you to, but if you or anyone from your staff are reading or lurking over DailyPaul:

Come on Rand! We love ya; you're doing better than any single public figure, from any political faction. But brother, you CAN do much better!

More importantly, you NEED to, do better.

Following in your father's footsteps and constantly trying to forge your own path, out-stride your father's long shadows, under the brightest spotlight possible, with all factions watching your every move, your enemies constantly trying to trip you up, along with, the supposedly 'your own' internal hardcore R3VOL constantly scrutinizing you, to hold and compare you with how closely do you measure up in the "Ron Paul-ness Meter" constantly, is not an easy feat that I'd wish on anyone.

That said, if you think this is 'rough,' just imagine what BOTH RINOs & LINOs will throw at ya, WHEN you win the GOP primary for the POTUS-ship for RP2016.

All the ups and downs of the RP2008 and RP2012 aside, if you are serious about RP2016, you know eventually much of the R3VOL will support you. Sure, many of us still give you a lot more leeway because of who you are, ie. the Paul surname. That said, you haven't terribly disappointed us with your actual actions; most of us know your 'balancing act.' Of course, most of us preferred we never lived in a world where you'd have to play, and some of us has to play mental gymnastics to 'rationalize' your some very Un-Ron Paul-like statements and votes, that said, you are in the end your own man. And, you ARE better than 99% of those in govt, which, in the grand scheme of things considering the inherently evil and corrupting nature of govt, that isn't saying much, but nevertheless, in the current political reality, your reality IS a big deal.

So good luck. Just a friendly advice when dealing with MSM.

PS. All that aside though, hope you and your staff have a gameplan to deal with eVoting machines: you'll NEVER know whether they stole your votes or not, unless you deal with that NUMBER ONE THREAT standing in your way.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I don't agree with you

Public Opinion is what MSM employs to entertain the public.

We do not have SELECTED presidents like Clinton, Bush, Obama because of public opinion. MSM wants you to think public opinion is what shapes an election, but did you ever ask yourself, "HOW THE HELL DID BUSH GET A SECOND TERM???? Did you ask, "How did Obama get a second term, and how did Romney get so close to Obama?"

There are TWO MAJOR PARTIES.. 36 registered third parties that are controlled by the MAJOR PARTIES (and why the Libertarian Party continually gets REPUBLICANs for nominees)

Indys HAVE NO REPRESENTATION.. they are the biggest FOOLS in the political MACHINE.. it is a MACHINE.

This is why Ron Paul's INVITATION to join the GOP WAS BRILLIANT!!! It was the most courageous and brilliant action if any politician in decades!!!! It went right over the heads of those in the Liberty Movement (which I believe is controlled by cointer-intel TO PROTECT THE GOP.

The GOP is NOT happy that Ron Paul invited WEE THE PEOPLE into the GOP.. it was an old boys club, invitation ONLY. Ron Paul ruined that, and now they have all these WACKO BIRDS on committees, chairing committees, writing letters, calling shots, AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT, and it's one reason they don't like Rand.

It does not matter what the public thinks because the public HAS NO POWER IN OPINION. You have to be elected to a seat, in an office, going to conventioons where you serve on committees and THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE YOU A CANDIDATE.

That's why we have such LOUSY candidates who are so completely OUT OF TOUCH with public opinion.

yeah? No scheisse: tell me something I don't know. LOL!

did you actually read the text?

doubt it.

did you read the part about how I said idiot hosts have idiot audience, before writing this?

Public Opinion is what MSM employs to entertain the public.

No. Duh??

did you read the part about eVoting machines, before you wrote this?

It does not matter what the public thinks because the public HAS NO POWER IN OPINION. You have to be elected to a seat, in an office, going to conventioons where you serve on committees and THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE YOU A CANDIDATE.

It's like do I need to personally cite every single thread I wrote in DP, for you to see where I'm coming from?

egads. preachin' to the choir.

the actual point of the reply was, Rand being surprised at the notion/prospect of being smeared by an MSM hack: if Rand's gonna go on these shows anyway, knowing its audience demographic, nature of MSM hosts, etc. why not have a slightly more aggressive counter game plan?

He preps all his speeches anyway. So why NOT prep his counter/rebuttal to the most common range of smears, like blah blah blah "racist!" and definitionally-imbecilic bowel movement L vs. R liberal maligning libertarianism, something they know nothing about other than what MSDNC has been telling them to 'think' it is, anyway?

Expect these assholes to smear him with the same 'by proxy' 'racist' card, as they did to his father. But Rand, being the more aggressive rhetoricist type (at least compared to his father, who is FIERY, but still genteel), SHOULD, IMO, have a 'ready-made' counter response.

That, was the point, if he doesn't want to see Jack Hunter type 'controversy' to linger like the Jamie Kuntchick's 'newsletter'-smear.

The point wasn't about why is he running, whether he's running, what it means, what the nature of American politics is, the establishment, etc. etc. etc.

More to the point, you're talking about something that Rand has no control over, in the finality: the public perception and overall American political reality; those are all aggregate RESPONSES, not Rand's individually enacted actions.

I'm specifically talking about what Rand can, and perhaps SHOULD do, in countering these MSM numbnuts, WHEN he is specifically being interviewed by one of these scumbags.

Nuance Granger. Nuance.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Nuance? Be Real BE direct

"When you're a politician, no matter what, your inherent reality is that you need enough public approval and votes:"

NO YOU DON'T!!!!! Read my above post to explain this to you.

I'm not singing blah blah blah cumbayah la la la, so I don't know what choir you are refering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlCC1XojRzM

LOL oh I'm sorry, I didn't know I was talking solely, directly

to you, for your sole benefit.

yes, I will BE "Real" and "BE direct" because you replied without reading nor comprehending the point of the post.

Yes, got it: if you don't like the fact that certain things are nuanced, or explained that way, must mean you ain't "real!"

So says the man with a sarcastic troll as his avatar.

LOL

Granger, find your drama elsewhere. I don't write here, nor does it give my life any meaning, to bicker over what you can or cannot comprehend.

I have no need to criticize you, when it's self-evident.

I'd say expend your energy converting neoCons.

P.S. I love how you quoted that and cut off everything that followed in that paragraph AFTER the colons:

When you're a politician, no matter what, your inherent reality is that you need enough public approval and votes:

vs. the original:

When you're a politician, no matter what, your inherent reality is that you need enough public approval and votes: every MSM show you go on, you're on enemy turf, to get votes from a portion of their audience, in the aggregate, in the political sense, no matter how principled you are, or want to be.

LOL ya sneaky bastard! LOLOL!!

Since you think being "nuanced" isn't being "real"-enough, allow me to be nuanced!

LOL

It does not matter what the public thinks because the public HAS NO POWER IN OPINION. You have to be elected to a seat, in an office, going to conventioons where you serve on committees and THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE YOU A CANDIDATE.

Well...why Granger, I guess I must have slept through the entire RP2007-2008 and RP2011-2012 campaign process "singing blah blah blah cumbayah la la la!" Like OMFG! I had like um like nooooo clue! OMG! OMG!

Allow me to be equally condescending: no motherfcuking shiit Sherlock!

LOL!!!

That said, actually, it DOES matter what the public thinks, because at general election politics level, perception is EVERYTHING. Well...that and AP newswire vote-aggregation relay service fraud and eVoting fraud.

LOL

The 'Liberal' anti-Rand NPR audience who just listened to Rand, are NOT likely to involve themselves in internal GOP primary politics.

Rand's sole purpose of coming on the show was to dip into the waters of the General Election voters, ie. NON-GOP primary state-level politics participants. Because those who WILL be 'inspired' to participate at precinct level politics, will ALREADY BE participating, anyway: ie, that NPR interview was not targeted toward you or me, Granger, but for the possible General Election voters who may not be aware of what libertarianism is, and how Rand 'fits into' the whole 'rise of libertarian faction vs. GOP establishment'-civil war and what all that means heading into the 2016 POTUS election cycle, for the on the fence, and the general electorate who maybe be open to considering someone like Rand.

Let this be clear: you have no need to 'convince' curious and informed electorate.

These MSM shows are NOT listened to by ALREADY curious and informed electorate. That, is the point. You're going on a show to inform those whose opinions are 'shiftable.' Thus in the aggregate, if your current job is a politician, regardless of how principled you are, or not, right there, right now, you're there to convince them to 'vote' for you, if you're a Kentuckyian, if not, the issues you stand for, so in 2016, you may know whom TO vote for (the eVoting machine fraud and party establishment status quo infighting, turf war, shenanigans etc. aside).

Capice?

Though obviously Rand's actions and MSM's constant smears and mischaracterizations do affect HOW the clueless electorate perceive him, but WHAT they end up perceiving about Rand, he has ZERO control over. That said, he can, at least at those incidences in which he has some airtime to expound further about who he is, what he believes, at least to the somewhat non-brainwashed on the fence sheeple, HOW he responds to media assholes can and will influence those potential voters, which let's face it, IS why he comes on 'enemy turf' shows/hosts, etc. So why not use it in his favor? - was the whole point.

The slightly on the fence sheeple whose opinions can be shifted depending on HOW something is said to them, obviously is double-edged: both good and bad. They can be convinced to go either direction, depending on HOW you talk to them. They don't have an original, critical thinking process; that's why media tricks work on them, to begin with, anyway.

But as voters, those are often the most vehemently obnoxious ones, because they feel they're 'deserved' something because they 'chose' to participate in the political process, even though, everything they spew is a regurgitation of what they've been 'told' to believe and repeat. And like it or not, if you're ALREADY likely to vote for Rand, it doesn't matter how he did on NPR interview or what he really said: you've done your homework, ALREADY.

These shows are ALWAYS for that on-the-fence-sheeple voting bloc.

THAT, my dear Granger, WAS my point.

If Rand didn't feel they're important enough to engage, he has no reason to get on NPR. But he did so, hoping like Judge Nap on FakeBizChannel, even if only 10% are awakened or made curious by something he said, the seed would've been laid, and it would have been worth it. But, by the same token, precisely because to those electorate HOW you say something is much more important than WHAT you say, why not have a pre-prepped tact that doesn't make you come off as being 'defensive,' when you have ready made-response for other criticisms and issues anyway? - was the whole point.

Nuance Granger. Nuance.

** if the above "nuance" didn't explain it clearer, for you, You and I will be at an impasse and will simply be repeating the same shiite over and over. To wit, if so, I have no need to engage you further on this issue. Adieu, Grange.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Still don't agree

you say:

"Rand's sole purpose of coming on the show was to dip into the waters of the General Election voters, ie. NON-GOP primary state-level politics participants. Because those who WILL be 'inspired' to participate at precinct level politics, will ALREADY BE participating, anyway: ie, that NPR interview was not targeted toward you or me, Granger, but for the possible General Election voters who may not be aware of what libertarianism is, and how Rand 'fits into' the whole 'rise of libertarian faction vs. GOP establishment'-civil war and what all that means heading into the 2016 POTUS election cycle, for the on the fence, and the general electorate who maybe be open to considering someone like Rand."

I don't agree. Rand's purpose is to provide some understanding to philosophy- not for the general population, but for the MSM pundints on NPR. For example, the show opens with two Libertarian pundant GUESTS who are there to educated the NPR staff.. then Rand, so they have "clips" to hold him to.

Again, I don't agree:

"These MSM shows are NOT listened to by ALREADY curious and informed electorate. That, is the point. You're going on a show to inform those whose opinions are 'shiftable.' Thus in the aggregate, if your current job is a politician, regardless of how principled you are, or not, right there, right now, you're there to convince them to 'vote' for you, if you're a Kentuckyian, if not, the issues you stand for, so in 2016, you may know whom TO vote for (the eVoting machine fraud and party establishment status quo infighting, turf war, shenanigans etc. aside)."

These shows are AIRED, but the message is not for the general public except for entertainment, and why they took the racist perspective, as they oppose Rand, but know he is going to run for president, so they are looking for clips to HOLD HIM to.

We see if differently:

"W he responds to media assholes can and will influence those potential voters, which let's face it, IS why he comes on 'enemy turf' shows/hosts, etc. So why not use it in his favor? - was the whole point."

The media was looking to get him on the racist issue, not because of the voting public.. except for entertainment, but to HOLD HIM TO THE RACIST LABLE. I think Rand did outstanding by telling him.. first, he had fired Hunter and then when he was pressed, He threatened to walk off.. and that worried them, because they were about to face DEAD AIR. This was very good for Rand because he nipped it in the butt. He didn't give MSM anything to hold him on. He stayed. He finished the program and HE WAS IN CONTROL. VERY GOOD. They didn't wash him and spit him out of the spin cucle as RACIST.. he left as I'm IN CONTROL.. and whether you respect that or not, the people like Amy Goodman, sitting in her office with her penicl taking notes.. thought.. That's good.. he's in CONTROL.. that's PRESIDENTIAL.. the general public can say, "Well he got all huffy about it. Who wouldn't get huffy being called a RACIST on NATION PUBLIC RADIO?

This makes my point:

"The slightly on the fence sheeple whose opinions can be shifted depending on HOW something is said to them, obviously is double-edged: both good and bad. They can be convinced to go either direction, depending on HOW you talk to them. They don't have an original, critical thinking process; that's why media tricks work on them, to begin with, anyway."

Rand gave them NOTHING to continue the RACIST LABLE. RAND ENDED IT!!

It doesn't matter what voters feel except for ENTERTAINMENT

"But as voters, those are often the most vehemently obnoxious ones, because they feel they're 'deserved' something because they 'chose' to participate in the political process, even though, everything they spew is a regurgitation of what they've been 'told' to believe and repeat. And like it or not, if you're ALREADY likely to vote for Rand, it doesn't matter how he did on NPR interview or what he really said: you've done your homework, ALREADY."

It matters how Rand did on NPR because of the pundits in the back room taking notes to attack Rand at a later date. RAND ENDED THE RACIST LABLING. They now KNOW, he won't tolerate it. He is in control.. this is EXCELLENT.

Nodisrespect but

"hoping like Judge Nap on FakeBizChannel"

Judge Nap is ENTERTAINMENT.

"Adieu" Copy that and ditto (Nuance intended).

GREAT! You can disagree, forever. That's nice and all.

But really?

Rand and Boaz were on to actually "educate" the substitute/guest host??

No, seriously??

I don't agree. Rand's purpose is to provide some understanding to philosophy- not for the general population, but for the MSM pundints on NPR. For example, the show opens with two Libertarian pundant GUESTS who are there to educated the NPR staff.. then Rand, so they have "clips" to hold him to.

LOL!

Are you kidding me? You're being overly sarcastic...right??

You are aware of how this whole political reality works, right? What unicorn universe do we live where NPR scribes actually give a fcuk about properly understanding philosophies, on air? Or, that Rand is there to 'educate' them, instead of earnestly trying to INFORM a few potential voters?

Newsflash, Grange: they have statist-propaganda radio networks, ie. NPR, precisely BECAUSE they want to brainwash the 'shiftable' sway-able, gullible sheeple populace AUDIENCE, not the hosts. You're not gonna "educate" paid-professional political hacks, operatives and shills. Really? Like can you educate Hannity or O'Reilly to 'get' minarchism, anarcho-Capitalism, Agorism, let alone accept it?

Now, you're being outright silly, or terribly sarcastic. But, somehow, I'm leaning with the former. LOL.

Molly Ball is NOT a "Libertarian pundant" (it's pundit, by the way).

She's a liberal hack who scribes for the Atlantic.

Grange, seriously, if I'm gonna 'correct' you, I'd at least have the common courtesy toward my verbal-sparring 'opponent' to actually research what I'm about to assert, before attempting to make unfounded declarative statements, especially if my aim is to 'educate' my opponent:

http://www.dailypaul.com/233954/the-atlantic-mag
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/02/politics...

Every rag has their 'beat' reporters, like how Grace Wyler was tasked to cover the Pauls for the stock-fraudster Henry Blockhack's Business Insider, and Rosie Grace for BuzzFeed.

And, Molly Ball was just on 'the Paul Family'-beat for the Atlantic: that does not mean she's a libertarian.

http://www.theatlantic.com/search/?sort=time&source=search&q...

The ONLY real libertarian-ish person at the Atlantic is Conor Friedersdorf who was/is more fair-ish to the Pauls than the rest of MSM scribes (which isn't saying much, nevertheless):
http://www.theatlantic.com/conor-friedersdorf/
http://www.dailypaul.com/279719/conor-friedersdorf-at-the-at...
http://www.dailypaul.com/214459/conor-theatlantic-rick-santo...

Get your facts straight, Granger!

Well...suppose, then again, Glenn Beck called/calls himself a "libertarian"!!! LOL whoTF isn't one, these days?? LOL! I take that back Granger!!! LOL! Yup, you should call her a 'libertarian!' lol.

These shows are AIRED, but the message is not for the general public except for entertainment, and why they took the racist perspective, as they oppose Rand, but know he is going to run for president, so they are looking for clips to HOLD HIM to.

Um, yes, I agree.

What??

Which is why, I don't think you actually have any idea, what I've been talking about.

OF COURSE, they'll splice these clips later on to say "see, he's a racist! here's a proof!" No shiite, Sherlock. Again, I don't disagree with you on the reality of the political process and HOW they'll chop it up. Like you're telling me some 'secret?'

Like, really?

That said, you and your whole 'this wasn't meant for the public'-meme?

Huh? like WTF?

If you're a state propaganda MSM, why bother having a show with an audience (however little), if you're not gonna have an audience you WANT to brainwash??

Why have a show with audience, if it's not TO malign what "libertarianism" is to uneducated masses? You think the host's intent WASN'T to malign libertarianism and Rand as "racist" directly and by proxy, you really think he would've carried the line of questions he did?

You're confusing intent and result. The Ruling Class' intent is always propaganda. The resultant effect, for the uneducated sheeple, is always entertainment, but it still succeeds as a propaganda for the Ruling Class.

Have you met a 'typical' NPR demographic?

Regardless, frankly, I don't know what you're arguing about. I AGREE with you, they will manipulate it, I agree that it will be taken as entertainment by the uneducated masses. Think we disagree on the extent of perception playing into reality. I'd say more, you say less.

All of which brings me to question your comprehension skills. You're not disagreeing with me on any of the specifics of the point I've initially raised, then you went off a a tangent: like no shiite, MSM will lie about it to stick the 'racist'-label. And you think I don't see that...because that's actually what I said?

Are you even reading what you're actually writing about, let alone my replies?

Frankly this??

Nodisrespect but

"hoping like Judge Nap on FakeBizChannel"

Judge Nap is ENTERTAINMENT.

"Adieu" Copy that and ditto (Nuance intended).

I'm kinda disappointed that you said that like it's actually 'witty.'

However I will close with this though. Granger, you think Judge Nap is entertainment?

Granger, YOU are my entertainment at DP.

No nuance needed. Adieu x 2.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Yes to the subject Title, NO to the content

No, I'm not kidding you. The voting public is irrelevant and why so many think and say, VOTING IS RIGGED. Yes, it is. MSM is ENTERTAINMENT. Who is nominated, WHO is on the ballot has NOTHING to do with the voting public and everything to do with the committee vetting. NPR is interveiwing Rand for pundit's TALKING POINTS for ENTERTAINMENT VALUE ONLY.

NPR and MSM likes to come across as INFORMED, so this is why they AIR polotocians pholosphies and then have writers and hosts on programs give endless debates over issues and actions that have NOTHING to do with who or what issues make it to the ballot.

OK, they can "brainwah" all they please.. Obama can say he'll end wars.. but he doesn't. We can talk about occupying Wall Street for 5 years, but that doesn't end Wallstreet...

OK Molly Ball is not a Libertarian Pundit, she's a Liberal Hack, who makes good ENTERTAINMENT for NPR.

You give me two examples of Periodical Media as proof? Yes, Every rag has their POLITICAL PUNDIT ENTERTAINMENT EDITORS, so? Is the repeated use of the word ENTERTAINMENT not connecting dots for you?

I'm not here to debate who was Libertarian or Liberal because that's besides the point I am trying to get you to understand.

MSM - TV, Radio, rags IS ENTERTAINMENT.. It doesn't matter what the VOTING PUBLIC thinks.. they have NO POWER to put anyone on the ballot. NONE.

I think Rand has made it clear to NPR he's not going to ENTERTAIN NPR's RACIST ENTERTAINMENT AGENDA.. and if they want Rand, who they will, they will have to STOP with the RACIST or they won't get Rand for THEir ENTERTAINMENT. That would hurt them if they can't get Rand, and they KNOW that. So it will stop, and they will have to READ THEIR NOTES from this interview and HUNT for a new angle or other dirt besides RACIST Hunter.

Why have a SHOW? Because it fills the AIR and makes money.

Ruling class pays attention for ENTERTAINMENT.

Yes, I have met "typical NPR demographics" and find they take their ENTERTAINMENT seriously.

I'm saying that MSM is ENTERTAINMENT. If you want to put someone on the ballot, it is not MSM or ENTERTAINMENT, but the vetting that goes on Committees. Political Party Committees are WHO and WHAT vet nominees and candidates, nominate them and get them on the ballot. Not MSM ENTERTAINMENT and the voting public.

I apologise if you FEEL that I am on a tangent... I am merely explaining to you:

1. ALL forms of MSM are ENTERTAINMENT (no power)
2. Committees vet candidates and issues for ballot access
3. NPR will NEVER bring up the racist issue again.

Yes, Judge Nap is ENTERTAINMENT. He has NO POWER, his listeners have NO POWER, the few people on committees vetting candidates and issues have ALL THE POWER (puppets, shills, regular joes).

I hope you finally get what I am saying. If not, enjoy your entertainment, because that's all it is.. what teh committees do will have NOTHING to do with MSM in any form, just ENTERTAINMENT, least we forget, Ron Paul had the biggest fan club in modern history, and that didn't even get him the nomination because he didn't have the people he needed on committees.

NO to the subject title, NO to the content! LOL

Oh Granger,

'Talking' to you is like watching text printed on mirror-like Mylar, shredded in a blender, and watching it on recycle at 10,000FPS; while it maybe visually hypnotizing, but at somepoint you realize you're more bemused at the prospect of its spin, than its content, because the content itself is nothing but shredded semantics nonsense.

LOL

Now, I realize why, even as one of the longest members here at DP, that I've never rarely if ever bothered to engage in a conversation with you.

After today, not likely to do it, anytime soon.

I don't know what you think you're arguing or debating with me about, when NONE of the points you brought up so far, I actually disagree with you on, that much.

But oddly, you're saying them as if you think you're gonna win some fictitious debate with me.

Why? For what purpose? What do you exactly get out of it?

You just keep repeating shiite I've said "No Shiite Sherlock" to, repeatedly, as in: yes, I ALREADY 'get' that you've stated no matter how many times you CAP "ENTERTAINMENT" like other person doesn't 'get' it, I do, along with the reality of the fecklessness of the voting process.

But, glad you found the proper spelling for "pundit" though, and at least honest enough to admit that you new jack shiit about Molly Ball, despite the fact that you asserted yourself via declarative sentences pretending to know, even worse: in a 'lecturing' tone! LOL.

You DO 'get' that I DON'T DISAGREE with you on the following, right? Nor, was it ever my point of contention with you, right?

I'm not here to debate who was Libertarian or Liberal because that's besides the point I am trying to get you to understand.

MSM - TV, Radio, rags IS ENTERTAINMENT.. It doesn't matter what the VOTING PUBLIC thinks.. they have NO POWER to put anyone on the ballot. NONE.

Um, yeah, like no shiit; I've only stated what is factually obvious: Rand only came on the show to influence the possible voting bloc who maybe on the fence/not-so-brainwashed-yet, NOT "to educate" the substitute host about WTF libertarianism is!

Now, one may inquire: why do I keep repeating, why it matters HOW Rand is perceived by the masses, even though you Granger don't because you keep confusing yourself into believing that there's no difference between the general electorate, BEFORE the primary process, vs. AFTER the primary when the names on the ballot in November for general elections would've already been determined??

Because, the fact is, in general election (pay attention Granger: that would be AFTER the primaries when the final names that will be on the General Election ballot in November would've ALREADY been determined), despite what you've been CAP-ping, the 'idiot masses' DO have a say in HOW the result comes out...barring any eVoting fraud and AP central tabulation fraud.

Capice??

I'm saying what anyone here with a functioning neuron can clearly see; what I'm clearly stating, bluntly, without any nuance: barring any eVote and AP central tally fraud, the "idiot masses," as in the GENERAL electorate, ARE what decides the outcome of the GENERAL election, come November 2016!

Now, seeing as how the POTUS-ship is what Rand will be gunning for, don't ya think it kinda matters?

I love how people want to debate shiit, until they're corrected on it, then claim they never wanted to debate you on it.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

P.S. Even though Judge Nap is now officially, literally half the man he used to be, he is a gazillion times more the intellectual-heavyweight, than you will EVER be, Granger.

Observing your exchanges over the yrs with other members here, you've always come off particularly socially awkward (then again, many if not most libertarians are, so it never mattered to me), so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply being misunderstood.

But until now, I had no idea how obnoxiously condescending you can be, especially given how much difficulty you have in communicating your ideas, clearly to others, here.

You actually, no joke, without an ounce of sarcasm, actually laughably think that Judge Andrew Napolitano, one of the most brilliant libertarian legal minds dipped in Austrian Economics alive, is "ENTERTAINMENT"??

And, you actually DON'T think that probably an exponentially more number of people here see you, as the REAL entertainment??

Do you have a mirror??

Adieu, seriously, like forever.

So disappointed in you Granger. And I had such high hopes.o(

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Good for Rand

John Harwood is a muckraker.. I have NEVER liked NPR and this interveiw reminds me why. Roght on to Rand for standing up and showing how bullies like harwood perpetuate snarkiness in liberals he wouldn't get off Jack Hunter.. and I bet the woman caller was his friend..

RIGHT ON RAND!!!!

STAND WITH RAND 2016

*))

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Kudos to Rand..

For standing up to the attempted smears. One of the commentators made a couple other snide remarks, such as saying Ron Paul "refused" to speak at the 2012 RNC (not true, they denied him a speaking slot). NPR gets so desperate with their propaganda sometimes that despite how angry it makes me, I've got to laugh.