12 votes

Rand Paul: "What America 'needs' is NOT another Politician. What America needs is a Revival!" - FULL Speech

Rand Paul - Liberty University Convocation

http://youtu.be/1zyXSAv0b2w
Liberty University
Published on Oct 29, 2013

Rand Paul speaking at Liberty University Convocation, Lynchburg VA, October 28th, 2013.

** Rand was/IS correct to warn about the Ethical Dangers of "Designer Babies," as relayed @ recent Liberty University Convocation

The 'Ethics' of genetics tech/innovation usage in determining who gets to live, die, or improve, aka "designer babies," (H/T: SlugNuts) aka. eugenics, especially one determined by a centralized state's mechanisms determining such (aka. oBUSHmaScare), has been debated and resisted from its very founding days, and still to this day.

But, if you needed any more evidence that SOME among the white-robed cultists are literally sociopathic, look no further than the following (NOTE: this is from a group of Oxford University linked self-described 'ethicists'!!!):

OMG: Psychotic Aussie "Ethicists," Yes, EthicistS argue FOR Killing Fetuses AND Healthy Infants!

***********************

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-1...

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

Alberto Giubilini1,2,
Francesca Minerva3,4

1Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to Dr Francesca Minerva, CAPPE, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia; francesca.minerva@unimelb.edu.au

Contributors AG and FM contributed equally to the manuscript.

Received 25 November 2011
Revised 26 January 2012
Accepted 27 January 2012
Published Online First 23 February 2012

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

***********************

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.


New arrival: but if his parents earn more than £60,000 each he will lose his Child Benefit from January Photo: Alamy

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

H/T: JDawson

***************************************************************

The fact that Rand is merely citing reality, and using a film, GATTACA, as a visual aid for the modern dumb-ed down sheeple, and the likes of MADCOW are feigning indignant, and biitching and whining about him reading off Wiki description of the film's plot as "plagiarizing," is pretty propagandistically, telling:

Where'd you get your speech,Rand?

http://youtu.be/bV0TXNpFJFg
News
Published on Oct 29, 2013

'Cause you know, obviously, well, pfft, didn't ya know? If you read off the back of its BluRay packaging's description box or the same info given by the film co, recited in Wiki, then you tell someone else about the film's plot as described by the producers themselves, it's "plagiarizing"... you know: just like writing a novel about it and calling it your own, yay! Didn't ya know?

Is this how seriously dumb-ed down MADCOW's 200 member audience is?

Are all 'liberals' this moronic, these days?

I 'get' that MADCOW's official job description is to be the GE warWHORE propagandist, but WTF is the rest of 'liberals' excuse?

Are her viewers so moronic, that they actually think that this is a 'controversial' view, when geneticists and 'ethicists' and the citizenry constantly talk about this very issue?


Designing Life: Should Babies Be Genetically Engineered?

Wynne Parry, LiveScience Contributor
February 18, 2013 12:22pm ET


Do you think parents should have the option to genetically modify their unborn children?

NEW YORK — The increasing power and accessibility of genetic technology may one day give parents the option of modifying their unborn children, in order to spare offspring from disease or, conceivably, make them tall, well muscled, intelligent or otherwise blessed with desirable traits.

Would this change mean empowering parents to give their children the best start possible? Or would it mean designer babies who could face unforeseen genetic problems? Experts debated on Wednesday evening (Feb. 13) whether prenatal engineering should be banned in the United States.

Humans have already genetically modified animals and crops, said Sheldon Krimsky, a philosopher at Tufts University, who argued in favor of a ban on the same for human babies. "But in the hundreds of thousands of trails that failed, we simply discarded the results of the unwanted crop or animal."

H/T: SlugNuts

***************************************************************

All Rand was saying is that as a scientist himself while he is NOT against the science of genetics, that said, he's simply warning that one should seriously think about the consequences of "playing God," and the derivative society that it may result in, should 'designer babies' become as common as a nose job in Beverly Hills.

Big whup.

Another non-controversy 'controversy', whipped up by the statist propagandist drama queens, for pure propaganda agenda. Hey, it is Tuesday, already, no?

***************************************************************

UPDATE 1: Rachel Madcow, the "Educated Idiot" racist Cecil Rhodes 'Scholar,' who's apparently clueless of what "plagiarism" really means

For those interested in keeping score, more popcorn hour; Rand's rebuttal vs. the ever disgusting, whiny, pathetic, clueless, GE propagandist WarWhore MADCOW, on ABC/Disney-owned Univision's new venture, FusionTV:

Rand Paul Fires Back at Plagiarism Claims

By VERONICA BAUTISTA - 10/30/2013, 05:41PM / Updated 10/30/2013, 05:56PM

Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow accused Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) of lifting sentences from a 1990s science fiction movie’s Wikipedia page and using them in a speech to support Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.

In an interview with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos, Paul was asked if there is any truth to Maddow’s claim.

“We borrowed the plot lines from Gattaca. It’s a movie,” Paul said. “I gave credit to the people who wrote the movie…Nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from.”

But the allegations of plagiarism against Paul go deeper. BuzzFeed reported that this is not the first time that the Tea Party favorite has used Wikipedia as a source.

Since WHEN, is talking about, reciting, a movie plotline written-out by film producers themselves, well-noted in a very public site like Wikipedia, and letting the audience know that you're talking about it, constitute "plagiarism"?? Rand never stated those plotlines were his words, nor did he claim he wrote or made those films. Obviously rhetorical, but still: whereTF is the 'controversy'??

Note their source for 'claiming' this is a 'deeper issue: BuzzFeed.

LOLOLOL!!!

It's always the same assholes: RawStory.com, Slate.com, Salon.com, HuffPost, BuzzFeed.com, Gawker.com, BusinessInsider.com, DailyBeast.com, Mediaite.com, New Yorker.com, DailyKos.com, Soros' ThinkProgress/Center For American Progress, Media Matters, ADL/SPLC et al.

They may as well just put themselves under 'WLOADNMW' banner: We Love oBUSHma And Dems No Matter What!

If you observe ANY attack vs. libertarians, Ron and Rand Paul, you can bet it's coming from one of those; then they echo each other, then 'claim' it's a "deeper" 'issue,' when in reality, it's nothing but a non-controversy-'controversy.'

Seriously, does someone need to print out a 3x5 'How to spot MSM propaganda tactics for Dummies' card for their audience??

How the HELL is this not obvious, what they're doing???

It's literally like their viewers are a bunch of cargo-cultists who've never seen TV or internet until two days ago, and everything they see/hear is considered the 'truth' in their 'minds.'

We are in the year 2013, with TV/Film media being around for almost a hundred years, and the internet in its post ARPANET, in its current iteration, for over almost two and a half decades, right??

Wah! wah! Mommy! Mommy! LOL

More laughs; check out the degenerate's 'rebuttal' to Rand's rebuttal:

Rachel Maddow Declares War On Rand Paul For Plagiarizing Wikipedia

http://youtu.be/0sI_Usrx_NE
Les Grossman Best of YouTube - News & Politics
Published on Oct 30, 2013

***************************************************************

UPDATE 2: Irony of ironies: Madcow herself is a 100% documented, REAL "plagiarist," and a video authorship 'thief!'

H/T: FonzDrew:

Rachel Maddow mocked Rand Paul for plagiarism, but she’s been accused of it too

Kurt Wallace, Rare Contributor
Posted on October 31, 2013 6:21 pm

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow created headlines this week when she alleged that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had plagiarized a recent speech from Wikipedia, but it turns out the liberal cable news host has been accused of plagiarism herself.

In 2010 on his blog “Open Salon,” Michael Rodgers of North Port, Fla., wrote a blog post titled “Rachel Maddow Plagiarized My Blog!

(Read Related: More accusations of Maddow plagiarism emerge after Rare report)

“Don’t get me wrong, I love Rachel Maddow,” Rodgers wrote. “Truth be told, I’m a huge fan. So, if she wanted something from my blog, all she had to do was ask. I would have given willingly because that’s the kind of guy I am.”

[...]

Rodgers then became perturbed upon seeing his own unique angle being copied on Maddow’s program: “I’m sitting there Wednesday evening watching MSNBC and there is Rachel Maddow…TELLING THE SAME DAMN STORY!!”

More accusations of Maddow plagiarism emerge after Rare report

Betsi Fores, Rare Staff
Posted on November 1, 2013 8:46 am

More accounts of Rachel Maddow plagiarizing have surfaced following Rare’s Thursday evening report that the MSNBC host has been accused of plagiarism.

The report makes Maddow look hypocritical given the headlines she made earlier this week accusing Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) of lifting a movie plot summary off of Wikipedia.

The cited video in question:

How to #Occupy the News with Fair Use

http://youtu.be/aq2ELwg5BwM
Peter Brauer
Uploaded on Nov 4, 2011

You have the right to use and profit off video excerpts from the main stream media with out their permission in your own reporting on #ows.

When Rachel Maddow used clips from my documentary about #OWS without asking me, at first I was furious. But then I realized that the news media's broad employment of fair use allowed me to sample and edit corporate news in my own reporting. Every citizen has the right to create their own reporting and incorporate a ton of corporate news without asking for permission. Here is how. When you see something on the news, web, or anywhere and want to comment on it, the fair use doctrine let's you share your voice with the world on youtube. Together lets continue to change the national conversation. #OccuppyTheNews

I recommend you learn more about fair use at these sites:
http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/focus-areas/copyright-and-fair-use

Here is my full video called Occupy the Nor Easter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOpYDBnCXt4

My blog:
http://goodrules.us




Comment viewing options

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

updated

new headline: Rand Paul: "What America 'needs' is NOT another Politician. What America needs is a Revival!" - FULL Speech

from: "Rand was/IS correct to warn about the Ethical Dangers of "Designer Babies," as relayed @ recent Liberty University Convocation"

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

update: Meet Rachel Madcow, the REAL "plagiarist"

UPDATE 2: Irony of ironies: Madcow herself is a 100% documented, REAL "plagiarist," and a video authorship 'thief!'

H/T: FonzDrew:

Rachel Maddow mocked Rand Paul for plagiarism, but she’s been accused of it too

Kurt Wallace, Rare Contributor
Posted on October 31, 2013 6:21 pm

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow created headlines this week when she alleged that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) had plagiarized a recent speech from Wikipedia, but it turns out the liberal cable news host has been accused of plagiarism herself.

In 2010 on his blog “Open Salon,” Michael Rodgers of North Port, Fla., wrote a blog post titled “Rachel Maddow Plagiarized My Blog!

(Read Related: More accusations of Maddow plagiarism emerge after Rare report)

“Don’t get me wrong, I love Rachel Maddow,” Rodgers wrote. “Truth be told, I’m a huge fan. So, if she wanted something from my blog, all she had to do was ask. I would have given willingly because that’s the kind of guy I am.”

[...]

Rodgers then became perturbed upon seeing his own unique angle being copied on Maddow’s program: “I’m sitting there Wednesday evening watching MSNBC and there is Rachel Maddow…TELLING THE SAME DAMN STORY!!”

More accusations of Maddow plagiarism emerge after Rare report

Betsi Fores, Rare Staff
Posted on November 1, 2013 8:46 am

More accounts of Rachel Maddow plagiarizing have surfaced following Rare’s Thursday evening report that the MSNBC host has been accused of plagiarism.

The report makes Maddow look hypocritical given the headlines she made earlier this week accusing Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) of lifting a movie plot summary off of Wikipedia.

The cited video in question:

How to #Occupy the News with Fair Use

http://youtu.be/aq2ELwg5BwM
Peter Brauer
Uploaded on Nov 4, 2011

You have the right to use and profit off video excerpts from the main stream media with out their permission in your own reporting on #ows.

When Rachel Maddow used clips from my documentary about #OWS without asking me, at first I was furious. But then I realized that the news media's broad employment of fair use allowed me to sample and edit corporate news in my own reporting. Every citizen has the right to create their own reporting and incorporate a ton of corporate news without asking for permission. Here is how. When you see something on the news, web, or anywhere and want to comment on it, the fair use doctrine let's you share your voice with the world on youtube. Together lets continue to change the national conversation. #OccuppyTheNews

I recommend you learn more about fair use at these sites:
http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/focus-areas/copyright-and-fair-use

Here is my full video called Occupy the Nor Easter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOpYDBnCXt4

My blog:
http://goodrules.us

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

updated

full speech video posted:

Rand Paul - Liberty University Convocation

http://youtu.be/1zyXSAv0b2w
Liberty University
Published on Oct 29, 2013

** Rand Paul speaking at Liberty University Convocation, Lynchburg VA, October 28th, 2013.

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

Updated: idiot hour; when a "Rhodes Scholar" is clueless of

what the definition of "plagiarism" is.

UPDATE 1: Rachel Madcow, the "Educated Idiot" racist Cecil Rhodes 'Scholar,' who's apparently clueless of what "plagiarism" really means

For those interested in keeping score, more popcorn hour; Rand's rebuttal vs. the ever disgusting, whiny, pathetic, clueless, GE propagandist WarWhore MADCOW, on ABC/Disney-owned Univision's new venture, FusionTV:

Rand Paul Fires Back at Plagiarism Claims

By VERONICA BAUTISTA - 10/30/2013, 05:41PM / Updated 10/30/2013, 05:56PM

Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow accused Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) of lifting sentences from a 1990s science fiction movie’s Wikipedia page and using them in a speech to support Virginia gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli.

In an interview with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos, Paul was asked if there is any truth to Maddow’s claim.

“We borrowed the plot lines from Gattaca. It’s a movie,” Paul said. “I gave credit to the people who wrote the movie…Nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from.”

But the allegations of plagiarism against Paul go deeper. BuzzFeed reported that this is not the first time that the Tea Party favorite has used Wikipedia as a source.

Since WHEN, is talking about, reciting, a movie plotline written-out by film producers themselves, well-noted in a very public site like Wikipedia, and letting the audience know that you're talking about it, constitute "plagiarism"?? Rand never stated those plotlines were his words, nor did he claim he wrote or made those films. Obviously rhetorical, but still: whereTF is the 'controversy'??

Note their source for 'claiming' this is a 'deeper issue: BuzzFeed.

LOLOLOL!!!

It's always the same assholes: RawStory.com, Slate.com, Salon.com, HuffPost, BuzzFeed.com, Gawker.com, BusinessInsider.com, DailyBeast.com, Mediaite.com, New Yorker.com, DailyKos.com, Soros' ThinkProgress/Center For American Progress, Media Matters, ADL/SPLC et al.

They may as well just put themselves under 'WLOADNMW' banner: We Love oBUSHma And Dems No Matter What!

If you observe ANY attack vs. libertarians, Ron and Rand Paul, you can bet it's coming from one of those; then they echo each other, then 'claim' it's a "deeper" 'issue,' when in reality, it's nothing but a non-controversy-'controversy.'

Seriously, does someone need to print out a 3x5 'How to spot MSM propaganda tactics for Dummies' card for their audience??

How the HELL is this not obvious, what they're doing???

It's literally like their viewers are a bunch of cargo-cultists who've never seen TV or internet until two days ago, and everything they see/hear is considered the 'truth' in their 'minds.'

We are in the year 2013, with TV/Film media being around for almost a hundred years, and the internet in its post ARPANET, in its current iteration, for over almost two and a half decades, right??

Wah! wah! Mommy! Mommy! LOL

More laughs; check out the degenerate's 'rebuttal' to Rand's rebuttal:

Rachel Maddow Declares War On Rand Paul For Plagiarizing Wikipedia

http://youtu.be/0sI_Usrx_NE
Les Grossman Best of YouTube - News & Politics
Published on Oct 30, 2013

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

interesting film trivia for those who maybe interested, and

to those who maybe unfamiliar, the film GATTACA is titled after the core components of DNA, GATC:

The name is based on the first letters of guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nitrogenous bases of DNA.

What's more, the film's director Andrew Niccol deals with the question of eugenics, what it means to be human, what defines us as humans, and/or 'what makes us human', as a central premise/theme in several of his noted films:

The Truman Show (1998, writer)
S1m0ne (2002)
The Terminal (2004, writer)
In Time (2011)
The Host (2013), and...

Lord Of War - AK Cash register
http://youtu.be/Zgo323lHPaI
Hattiwatti
Uploaded on Mar 26, 2011

** Not about eugenics (though I suppose, one could make the argument that Nick Cage's character does supply warlords involved in genocide, so the film still kinda touches on eugenics), but a personal fave: Lord of War (2005), loosely based on the life of Viktor Bout.

One of the best taglines, ever: I supplied every army, but the Salvation Army!

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

Is that all Rachel Maddows got?

She couldn't attack the message Rand had, so she accused him of plagiarism? If you notice Rand during the speech, Rand held his hands up with quotation gestures, indicating he was quoting the script. That is a far cry from plagiarizing a speech.

yup, pretty much: "Is that all [MADCOW]'s got?"

which is why, at this juncture, I can't decide what's worse, the GE propagandist warWHORE's obvious agenda, or her gullible moron audience, who literally cannot discern reality, and the obvious, even when watching what's plainly obvious in the video.

if you go to youtube and search "Rand Paul" and click on the 'categorize by uploaded date'-feature, you'll see the vast majority of 'liberal' idiot posters simply regurgitating MADCOW's propaganda in their headlines, ie. "Rand Paul caught plagiarizing Wikipedia" as if that was the focus of the speech, let alone an accurate description of what actually transpired for that matter!

you know, you'd think in the current 24/7 internet/TV driven visual culture, in a country that basically invented the TV/Film entertainment/info-tainment medium as the world knows it today, you'd think the audience would've become a bit more savvy in deconstructing visual data, especially after almost 100yrs of it, regardless of whether one were alive for only 22yrs of it, or 70yrs of it.

but alas, for some reason, there's a core segment of population that still cannot fathom when they're being lied to, by the flickering pixels.

it's actually quite astounding to watch.

wonder what 'alien' off-worlders must be thinking, when they observe this, truly ALIEN sub-set species of humans: homo sapien stulta sapiens.

oy veh!

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

Lets also not forget

that Margaret Sanger (the mother of Planned Parenthood) believed in eugenics and had a lot of racist quotes in her writing. I can research and get them but its such common knowledge that I feel like its not needed.

Interesting how most of the clinics are in poor and minority neighborhoods.

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

yup; and did you see that recent video whitewash segment

by those KOCHtopus faketarians at Reason, on Sanger?

LOL, it was sooooooooo horribly propagandistic, even by Nick 'Look at me, I'm Fonz, and I'm cool 'cause I wear his jacket' Gillespie's non-'standards,' I could barely watch it! LOL, check out all the down votes, from actual libertarians:

Margaret Sanger Was Anti-Abortion!?!? Peter Bagge on Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and "Woman Rebel"

http://youtu.be/zAA2eK1K3pw
ReasonTV
Published on Oct 28, 2013

sad, because despite it all, occasionally, they do some good video shorts on some libertarian issues: ( https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adailypaul.com+reasontv ancapmercenary )

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

Cartoonists are now historians?

Interesting.

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

sadly, it seems that's where

America is, today...

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

updated

...

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