Ron Paul Channel's very first show: Interview with Greenwald

[BumRushDaShow]

Originally broadcast 8/12/13.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Are you in favor of the NSA spying on everyone? Or are you a Ron Paul worshipper?

Each of us must choose one of those two alternatives.

[KittyWampus]

45. Do you agree w/Greenwald that defeating Democrats & helping Republicans is a good strategy?

[MannyGoldstein]

46. If that's what he says, then of course I don't agree. nt

[Autumn]

2. Fuck Ron Paul. I sure wish Rachel would interview Glenn Greenwald.

I would watch that.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. !!

[LondonReign2]

3. Well thank goodness

This means that everything the NSA is doing is perfectly fine then.

Whew, I was worried there for a while.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Sorry but your "A" + "B" does not equal "C". nt

[LondonReign2]

10. LMAO

It certainly doesn't, that's the whole point. Your attempt to discredit Greenwald means zero in the context of the NSA's illegal spying.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. LMAO at your rolling on the floor

The point being that like the Pauls, Greenwald is an opportunist. He doesn't give a shit about spying. All he wants is his next gig.

Snowden could have been like a "Deep Throat" (Mark Felt), but giving up the media frenzy and attention was too much for an opportunistic Libertarian pseudo-journalist like Greenwald.

[LondonReign2]

17. OK, Greenwald, the Pauls, and Snowden are all horrible, horrible people

Let's just stipulate that for sake of argument.

SO FUCKING WHAT? The NSA is still illegally spying on Americans.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Fuck Ron Paul

Silver-tongued racist, anti-semitic bastard.

The Pauls pal around with other Libertarian ilk like Pat Buchanan.

Be wary of any "message" coming from them. Push Congress to repeal the damn Patriot Act.

[LondonReign2]

20. Oooooooooook

Now, how's that illegal NSA domestic spying got ya feeling?

[BumRushDaShow]

22. So how's your bubble world got you feeling?

As a black person in the U.S. every fucking fiber of my life, going all the way back to when my ancestors were dragged kicking and screaming and bleeding to this country, has been "spied on ". Welcome to my world.

So like people on DU are just figuring this out?

[LondonReign2]

25. If you think it was bad to do it historically, why do you seem to think it is OK now?

It seems kind of counterintuitive to hate it then but be OK with it now.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. Why do leftists think that anyone is "okay" with it?

This is a bullshit argument.

Leftist Libertarians seem to prefer a "means" to an end that is ultimately self-beneficial. Thus the all or nothing arguments.

[LondonReign2]

28. I don't understand

OK, so you're not ok with the illegal NSA spying?

Then what is the point of trying to discredit Greenwald? And why defend Obama in regards to the NSA, which he is supporting whole heartedly?

[BumRushDaShow]

29. You ignored my solution

See "Deep Throat" versus narcissistic me me me Greenwald - where he is right there to chronicle the engineered voyage from Hawaii to Hong Kong to Moscow, a story that plays out like a fucking cold-war era movie-of-the week.

And the President has asked for discussion - with the goal to make Congress CHANGE THE LAW - and that does not equal all the hyperbolic Greenwald-Snowden-worshipping bullshit that passes for "discussion" on DU.

[LondonReign2]

31. Obama clearly does NOT welcome discussion on this topic

Exhibit A: WaPo being pressured by the White House to change their story and not use direct quotes from the very person the WH directed them to.

Exhibits B-Z are all out there in plain view.

I don't know what solution you are referring to, but by his words and his actions Obama is very much on board with everything the NSA is doing..which you say you are against.

[stevenleser]

34. You dont seem to welcome discussion of Greenwalds Libertarianism. Does that mean you did something

wrong?

[LondonReign2]

36. You can discuss your dislike of Greenwald as much as you like

But shooting the messenger doesn't mitigate or excuse what the NSA is doing

[stevenleser]

38. You're inability to address my question tells me all I need to know. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

35. So you think that the President is micro-managing?

There have been articles about his style as a professor and how he engaged in and provoked debate, often taking the devil's advocate position to force his students to argue for their position. For some reason, he takes seriously the "Team of Rivals" perspective (like the book) and lets all the positions be argued while he sits back and listens... and then selects a way forward.

There is this obsessive insistence that he is "very much on board" without considering that he is following a famous Lincoln-ism (from Lincoln's quote):

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”

By insisting that this President not "enforce" all the provisions, people would have no idea those provisions or potential harmful interpretations of the provisions, are even there - until it's too late... when a less benign President gets ahold of them. Otherwise, using them, exposes them, causes outrage, and HOPEFULLY provokes the citizenry to tell CONGRESS (NOT the President who has no such power to to legislate) to REPEAL the law.

[LondonReign2]

37. Micro-managing? No

I don't think so, I don't believe he is in there managing day-to-day operations. In his statements and actions, however, he is fully supporting them. So your theory is IMO extremely optomistic. I just don't see it, him supporting them in an effort to essentially point out how awful they are. The effective grounding of Morales plane just doesn't jibe with that.

YMMV.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. How many things have we started to see changed

so far by using this method? One of the most visible examples of change has been the entrenched TSA. And now guess what's gone out of the airports? The "naked body" image scanners that the previous administration insisted upon.

Methodically, with "strict" enforcement of the law and the ensuing outrage, Congress (including Democrats who supported alot of the crap) is left mumbling and stuttering, and slowly revisions are being proposed and enacted - in some cases, with them managing to find ways around the teabaggers who have a history of blocking anything he would propose.

The "strict" enforcement of the current flawed Immigration law at least produced some workable solutions for a new path-to-Citizenship law that just needs to get past the loud-mouthed teabagger and Libertarian hump.

There were DUers who swore up and down that the Bush Tax cuts would never ever be repealed and would remain, in their entirety, in place.

"Change" is never easy.

[ljm2002]

47. And Bob Woodward was DNI...

...whose motives for going after Nixon were perhaps not what we all thought they were at the time.

Which made zero difference in the substance of the matter. Same as here.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. Mark Felt remained anonymous

until just before he died. He wasn't duped by Woodward to go on a world tour



to be used by others



while the pseudo-reporters haul in a whirlwind of attention and cash.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. exactly. That logic is silly.

hence negating whatever point you were trying to make with the OP.

[stevenleser]

32. It's another questionmark in terms of Greenwald's credibility. Libertarians agenda is to hurt Obama

and Democrats. They are perfectly willing to lie and exaggerate to do so.

[Bobbie Jo]

6. Go figure

[dionysus]

8. libertarian douchebags unite!11111!

[Bobbie Jo]

14. With their own channel, even.

[DevonRex]

16. Looks like they already did.

Already did. And seems to me the investigation has taken another turn. A very sharp turn. This could get interesting.

[Cha]

49. Thread Winner!

[David Krout]

7. So...any thoughts on what Greenwald said on the interview?

If you listened to it, of course.

[Bobbie Jo]

9. Yeah

Fuck Ron Paul.

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. Seconded: Fuck Ron Paul. n/t

[freshwest]

40. OMG! *cleans computer monitor* Thanks.

[ProSense]

41. .

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Of course I listened to it

It's the same old shit that he has been saying.

He is a narcissist looking for the next wad of $$$. Ironically, Paul seemed bored by the guy.

[Whisp]

64. ha! I thought so too. Paul looked snoozie and uninterested...

I guess Greenwald has that something about him..

There's Something About Greenwald....


zzzzzZZZZZzzz

wait, let me

zzzZZzzzz telll you

what I think it iszzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZ.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. I suppose this makes Snowden a liar now, or something, right? n/t

[ucrdem]

26. He was already a liar.

We established that about three months ago.

[Blue_Tires]

33. It just makes me doubt greenwalds judgement

I'm pretty sure people like Phelps, Larouche, Alex Jones or David Duke are against the nsa too...Doesnt mean its a good idea to appear on their shows....

[David Krout]

51. like you didnt doubt his judgment before the interview nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

62. I don't care for this as well; it's just important that people remember the message is pure fact. n/

[madrchsod]

18. anyone who would go on ron paul`s channel has zero creditability

i hope snowden realizes he`s been screwed.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. And what's worse

Greenwald was Paul's very first guest interview for the launch of the Channel.

[ProSense]

42. Funny story:

Ron Paul Seeks UN’s Help In Domain Ownership Dispute

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who once filed legislation to end the United States' participation in the United Nations, is now turning to the international organization for help in obtaining two domain names, the Texas Tribune reported Monday.

The former presidential candidate and congressman filed a complaint Friday with the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations agency, against the owners of RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org so he could gain control of the domains, according to a blog post published on the site.

His supporters are not pleased with Paul's actions.

Shocked and angered supporters cited Paul’s move as a betrayal of the libertarian principles he has espoused. The website owners reportedly offered to sell the domain name, RonPaul.com, and the 170,000-person mailing list for $250,000 — kicking in RonPaul.org for free — saying that was the free market solution to settle the dispute.

But rather than buy the domains, Paul decided to take his grievances to the organization he railed against during his many years in Congress.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ron-paul-seeks-uns-help-in-domain-name

This story cracks me up.

[geek tragedy]

23. The Holy Trinity of Greenwald, Snowden and Assange are all Paul loving tools who

promote the Koch brothers interests.

Greenwald supports CITIZENS UNITED.

Assange spied on climate change scientists and tried to smear them, and pushes climate change denialist propaganda.

Cui bono?

[ucrdem]

24. Kochs, Pauls, and Greenwald

[quinnox]

30. Interesting and good interview, hadn't seen it

Thanks for posting it.

[freshwest]

43. Sorry, I ain't watching those douchebags. Obama said directly that he wanted Congress to REVOKE

his powers and those of FUTURE presidents as well.

I did not vote for GAS and they do not answer or do a damned thing for me. The idea that these guys are gonna help us is laughable.

Might as well wave a magic wand and make the world go away. The gullibility of the public worshipping heroes made up by media is astounding. They think GAS is going to get in the news and say 'Poof, it's fucking magic' and the problems disappear, as Tim Wise said.

Media circuses are now full fledged propaganda for the 1%, like the Koch brothers who created the Tea Party, Libertarians, John Birch Society, the Pauls and all the rest of the 'Patriots.'

These clowns are not elected officials and those who are, like Paul want to end all regulation to sell the country to the corporations and let churches rule us all.

Assange kissing ass shows him to be what I decided he was some time ago, a 1% shill. He and his pals are nothing like whistle blowers I have known. They don't get to live it up and travel the world and have the eyes of media on them.

No, their work is done close up to the Beast, changing it, not making a buck. No one stood beside them and gave them air time.

NONE ever espoused the anti-human ideas Snowden has nor would they go to work for someone they thought was wrong to begin with, they wanted to better the world. They are the real whistleblowers since they care about other people first and not themselves. Too much self promotion going on with this crew.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. OMG I finally figured out what "GAS" was

[freshwest]

48. Best to learn it in a sanitarium like this, more hygienic, ya know.

And Right On with your comments on this thread. Thanks for stating the reality so clearly.

[MADem]

52. Amazing hypocrisy and hyperbole on the part of interviewer and interviewee.

I guess Greenwald can throw any principle under the bus, if it means a payday for himself. I wonder if he realizes that he's close to jumping the shark?

Greenwald made a great show of moving to Brazil because of DOMA and discrimination, but he snuggles up to Ron Paul, who dog whistles gay marriage to curry favor with the far right.

In February 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's Justice Department had determined that a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and, as a result, the administration would no longer argue in support of the act's constitutionality in court.[146] Paul issued a statement to Iowa Republicans criticizing the Obama administration's position, saying: "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state."[147][148]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

What a pair of sleazebags. They certainly deserve each other.

And notice, towards the end, how Ron Paul eagerly notes that he talked with Ralph Nader for "over an hour!" And then after he signs off from his love fest with GG, he switches gears to that old "collapse of the dollar" chestnut! Can't teach an old dog new tricks....no matter what he does, he can't stop the hands of time. Good thing.

I don't think these two are being honest at all about their agenda, here--they want to become part of the GOP One Percent, where no pesky Dems are regulating anything the rich do. The rich get richer, poor get poorer.

BTW, thank you for your comments on this thread--you and SteveLeser make excellent arguments without resorting to name calling, characterization, or personal attacks against posters. Well done.

[BumRushDaShow]

59. Here is the Libertarian credos, front and center

The Virtue of Selfishness

Throughout history, man has been offered the following alternative: be “moral” through a life of sacrifice to others—or be “selfish” through a life of sacrificing others to oneself. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand blasts this as a false alternative, holding that a selfish, non-sacrificial way of life is both possible and necessary for man.

The Virtue of Selfishness is a collection of essays presenting Ayn Rand’s radical moral code of rational selfishness and its opposition to the prevailing morality of altruism—i.e., to the duty to sacrifice for the sake of others.

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Rand gives an outline of her code of rational selfishness, and of her argument establishing it as the only objective, fact-based moral code in human history. In the course of the essay, she raises and answers a fundamental and fascinating question: Why does one even need a morality?

In essays including “The Ethics of Emergencies,” “The ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests,” and “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” she raises common ethical questions, shows how altruism has crippled people’s ability to approach them rationally, and explains how her moral code provides a solution to them. In “Man’s Rights” and “The Nature of Government” she applies her ethics to formulate the basic principles of her political philosophy, while rejecting the altruistic doctrines of “rights” to health care, employment, etc.


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_virtue_of_selfishness

Sound familiar? The railing against "altruism" is certainly NOT "liberal" or "progressive". In fact it is the antithesis of those concepts. To even embrace being "selfish" without accepting that their brand of it DOES harm others, is what they miss.

And being "opportunistic" is certainly right up there as a prime example of this philosophy of "rational selfishness". Their argument being - "See??!1!11!! I exposed the EVIL Nazi fascist Obama!!111!!1! Now I EARNED my cookie!!!1!11! Meanwhile those who they "use" to get to their goal, are summarily discarded and ultimately "sacrificed" for the $$$. They see this as a "win-win".

[MADem]

60. It's terribly perverse, isn't it? And not terribly subtle, either! nt

[darkangel218]

53. How can a Democratic president be okay with the NSA spying?

Why didn't POTUS help Snowden?? If POTUS was against mass surveillance of American people, how come he didnt try to stop it??

Can someone please answer my questions? I want answers, not twisted links.

Why didn't POTUS change anything re NSA?

[geek tragedy]

54. Um, the NSA's job is to spy.

Snowden broke the law, ergo no help from POTUS.

[geek tragedy]

57. There is no evidence of such a program aside from Internet hyperbole. nt

[geek tragedy]

61. Is the NSA vacuuming up my personal information and scrutinizing it?

99.99% chance it's not--I wouldn't trigger any of their filters.

[darkangel218]

56. Refresh my memory please.

When did the American people agreed to be spied on.

[Whisp]

65. Two Pees in a Pod. n/t