# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  Rachael Maddow Book - Drift - IT'S WORKING GUYS!! THEY ARE SLOWLY GETTING IT!

## JasonM

Just watched the daily show online and John Stewart was doing an interview with Rachael Maddow, who wrote the book Drift. It was the March 29 show, so go ahead and watch it. On the Daily Show Website, but here's the link to the book:

http://www.amazon.com/Drift-Unmoorin.../dp/0307460983

I think this sounds like a really great book to have in your reading list. Definitely worth a read, and she makes a great point that the reason we don't have more push back against "wars of choice" is because people don't really feel it. 

People are slowly coming around, and the more people besides Ron Paul who start repeating the sorts of things he's saying, the more powerful and compelling our movement will become in eventually influencing some positive change in this area.

Here's the complete description. Before you start hating on Rachel Maddow, take off your hate glasses and TELL ME this doesn't sound like something Ron Paul would write. 

-------------------------------------------------

"One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1792. Neither Jefferson nor the other Found*ers could ever have envisioned the modern national security state, with its tens of thousands of "privateers"; its bloated Department of Homeland Security; its rust*ing nuclear weapons, ill-maintained and difficult to dismantle; and its strange fascination with an unproven counterinsurgency doctrine. 

Written with bracing wit and intelligence, Rachel Maddow's Drift argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails. To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan, along the way exploring the disturbing rise of executive authority, the gradual outsourcing of our war-making capabilities to private companies, the plummeting percentage of American families whose children fight our constant wars for us, and even the changing fortunes of G.I. Joe. She offers up a fresh, unsparing appraisal of Reagan's radical presidency. Ultimately, she shows us just how much we stand to lose by allowing the priorities of the national security state to overpower our political discourse. 

Sensible yet provocative, dead serious yet seri*ously funny, Drift will reinvigorate a "loud and jangly" political debate about how, when, and where to apply America's strength and power--and who gets to make those decisions.

-------------

Amazon review from a Democrat who likes Ron Paul:

-------------------------

As a Democrat, while watching the Republican debates I never expected to feel like standing up and cheering about anything they said, but that's how I felt when Ron Paul spoke about foreign policy and wars (his views on economic matters are flawed, but on foreign policy he has some good thoughts). Democrats can agree with Libertarians on the cautions as to war which Rachel expresses in this excellent book. And yes ... even conservatives should like this. TRUE conservatives (not the Neo-Cons). This country HAS drifted from thoughtful discussions before entering into war. We had already headed too far that way before 9/11, but 9/11 gave huge impetus for further drift -- too much fear about being blamed if another attack happened led Presidents to be overly warlike and Congress to be sheep, in going along with War pushes. One gets the feeling that too many members of Congress do not have an educated perspective about the proper, strong role of Congress in War policy. Every politician and voter in America should read this book and get a better perspective, a better sense of history, and work to reassert the proper caution.

----------


## airborne373

I won't be giving any money to the eugenicist hate pimp Rachel Maddow. Maddow is a student of known hard core racist Cecil Rhodes. It's going to take more than a couple passages in a book to change those facts.

----------


## kathy88

> I won't be giving any money to the eugenicist hate pimp Rachel Maddow. Maddow is a student of known hard core racist Cecil Rhodes. It's going to take more than a couple passages in a book to change those facts.


I'll read anything I can learn from. Despite the source. My library is quickly outgrowing my time.

----------


## angelatc

Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.

----------


## JasonM

> I won't be giving any money to the eugenicist hate pimp Rachel Maddow. Maddow is a student of known hard core racist Cecil Rhodes. It's going to take more than a couple passages in a book to change those facts.


That's where you are wrong. If you want to make people change their behavior, you don't just "punish" the bad stuff they do or say via things like hate mail. You REWARD them when they actually get it right.

I bought the book for the kindle app on my IPAD, and already I'm liking the intro. Talking about some of the wasteful spending on the Afghanistan war, like how some of that war money went to build houses for rich people in the Capital that don't even live in the country due to the unsafe conditions.

Again, I'm not endorsing any of her views, but when they get things right you have to give them KUDOS for it.

----------


## specsaregood

> Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.


qft

----------


## JasonM

> Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.


Dude, take your hate glasses off for a second and read the damn book even if you have to spend a few hours at books-a-million or something. She's starting to sound like Ron Paul, even just a little bit. THAT'S A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION!!!

And according to the Daily Show interview, she apparently invested quite a bit of research into this book. She even quotes Thomas Jefferson in the description of her book.

Here's the complete description. TELL ME that doesn't sound like something Ron Paul would write. 

-----------------------------

"One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1792. Neither Jefferson nor the other Found*ers could ever have envisioned the modern national security state, with its tens of thousands of "privateers"; its bloated Department of Homeland Security; its rust*ing nuclear weapons, ill-maintained and difficult to dismantle; and its strange fascination with an unproven counterinsurgency doctrine. 

Written with bracing wit and intelligence, Rachel Maddow's Drift argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails. To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan, along the way exploring the disturbing rise of executive authority, the gradual outsourcing of our war-making capabilities to private companies, the plummeting percentage of American families whose children fight our constant wars for us, and even the changing fortunes of G.I. Joe. She offers up a fresh, unsparing appraisal of Reagan's radical presidency. Ultimately, she shows us just how much we stand to lose by allowing the priorities of the national security state to overpower our political discourse. 

Sensible yet provocative, dead serious yet seri*ously funny, Drift will reinvigorate a "loud and jangly" political debate about how, when, and where to apply America's strength and power--and who gets to make those decisions.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Anyone who reads this worthless pig's book is an enemy of liberty as far as I'm concerned. She's an Obama propagandist and deserves to be thrown behind bars. Anything worthwhile she has to say is just her working to co-opt our legitimate movement and put it toward her statist goals

----------


## specsaregood

> Anyone who reads this worthless pig's book is an enemy of liberty as far as I'm concerned. She's an Obama propagandist and deserves to be thrown behind bars. Anything worthwhile she has to say is just her working to co-opt our legitimate movement and put it toward her statist goals


Yeah, let's ban reading her book too while we are at it!  Burn the book!!!!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Yeah, let's ban reading her book too while we are at it!  Burn the book!!!!


She'd be banned from releasing national books that are well-received when she's behind bars where she belongs, and that's a good thing

----------


## Okie RP fan

Don't think so, friend. 

Maddow is a talking head just as O'Reilly, Hannity, and Matthews are. She just happens to be far left, which is worse, in my opinion.

----------


## specsaregood

> She'd be banned from releasing national books that are well-received when she's behind bars where she belongs, and that's a good thing


You can write books and release them while in prison.  Besides if we banned her from releasing books then how would we identify enemies of liberty? and we'd have nothing to burn!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Don't think so, friend. 
> 
> Maddow is a talking head just as O'Reilly, Hannity, and Matthews are. She just happens to be far left, which is worse, in my opinion.


But she's co-opting our message in her new statist propaganda book! And that's a good thing! Maybe she can bring some more liberty candidates on her show and try to bury them in the near future, hooray!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> You can write books and release them while in prison.  Besides if we banned her from releasing books then how would we identify enemies of liberty? and we'd have nothing to burn!


Yeah but it'd be a book written by a known criminal, a known propagandist, a known piece of scum. She wouldn't be able to go on a press tour and be welcomed with dignity by the whore media.

----------


## angelatc

> Dude, take your hate glasses off for a second and read the damn book even if you have to spend a few hours at books-a-million or something. She's starting to sound like Ron Paul, even just a little bit. THAT'S A GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION!!!\.


She isn't coming around - she's trying to get you to come around.  She acknowledges the 10% civil liberty stuff we agree on, and then takes you on a ride into her territory.  She isn't getting it - she's getting you.  

Those of us that have been doing this a long time learned a few lessons along the way.  One of those lessons is that Rachel Maddow is a socialist warrior that will stab us in the back.

I'm tempted to buy the damned book just to post some quotes from it to make you look misguided.




> To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan,


  Yes, because all our troubles started in the 70's.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

she's a silly, twisted ideologue that's 'pandering' to the anti-war left because people are tired of her bull$#@! and her ratings are slipping. she is a manipulative bull$#@! artist, and that will never change. she sells lies for a living and if you think she's 'coming our way', i think you are deluding yourself. real change would be getting her ass off the air, along with people like her, and replacing them with people with a modicum of decency. 

her being against some wars now in a book is great. i have a feeling if she had really changed, she'd be as vitriolic against Obama on air as she was against Bush. But she's not, because as I stated in point 1, she's a freaking far left ideologue.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Gotta get the left to support Obama in this election year. Books like this are an attempt to accomplish that goal. Keep the anti-war people on the reservation for four more years of Obama.

----------


## specsaregood

> She wouldn't be able to go on a press tour and be welcomed with dignity by the whore media.


Uhm...I wouldn't be so sure about that.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> But she's co-opting our message in her new statist propaganda book! And that's a good thing! Maybe she can bring some more liberty candidates on her show and try to bury them in the near future, hooray!


Exactly... 




> She isn't coming around - she's trying to get you to come around.  She acknowledges the 10% civil liberty stuff we agree on, and then takes you on a ride into her territory.  She isn't getting it - she's getting you.  
> 
> Those of us that have been doing this a long time learned a few lessons along the way.  One of those lessons is that *Rachel Maddow is a socialist (warrior) that will stab us in the back.*


Pretty much this. She realizes she has a few Ron Paul viewers and so she likes to play with them a little bit. And in bold, I laughed. So true.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Uhm...I wouldn't be so sure about that.


Well I guess some network could put her on live from her jail cell

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Pretty much this. She realizes she has a few Ron Paul viewers and so she likes to play with them a little bit. And in bold, I laughed. So true.


Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Same $#@!s who watch that Young Turks scumbag Cenk, they got no sense

----------


## specsaregood

> Well I guess some network could put her on live from her jail cell


They could call it "you've got a visitor" and film the whole thing from behind a glass wall, and over a telephone handset.  probably be a ratings bonanza!

----------


## Okie RP fan

> Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Same $#@!s who watch that Young Turks scumbag Cenk, they got no sense


I don't know what it is, but, I hope some people realize that we truly have no friends in the media. And, I don't think I want a "friend" in the media who pushes Obama and leftist policies as Maddow does.

----------


## JasonM

> she's a silly, twisted ideologue that's 'pandering' to the anti-war left because people are tired of her bull$#@! and her ratings are slipping. she is a manipulative bull$#@! artist, and that will never change. she sells lies for a living and if you think she's 'coming our way', i think you are deluding yourself. real change would be getting her ass off the air, along with people like her, and replacing them with people with a modicum of decency. 
> 
> her being against some wars now in a book is great. i have a feeling if she had really changed, she'd be as vitriolic against Obama on air as she was against Bush. But she's not, because as I stated in point 1, she's a freaking far left ideologue.


You don't have to agree with her politics, but that shouldn't prevent you from considering what she's saying here, and she actually wrote a great book on the topic of the military industrial complex. 

Go read some of the Amazon reviews if you don't believe me. If you are against the wars, this is a good read.

----------


## airborne373

> That's where you are wrong. If you want to make people change their behavior, you don't just "punish" the bad stuff they do or say via things like hate mail. You REWARD them when they actually get it right.
> 
> I bought the book for the kindle app on my IPAD, and already I'm liking the intro. Talking about some of the wasteful spending on the Afghanistan war, like how some of that war money went to build houses for rich people in the Capital that don't even live in the country due to the unsafe conditions.
> 
> Again, I'm not endorsing any of her views, but when they get things right you have to give them KUDOS for it.



First she is pro-war now she is anti-war and you think she has had a conversion? This woman is a trained, paid propagandist who is echoing an anti-war sentiment already held by around 3 out 4 Americans. I need to see alot more action on the part of the race - baiting Maddow to believe she is anything other than an establishment media whore.

----------


## JasonM

> First she is pro-war now she is anti-war and you think she has had a conversion? This woman is a trained, paid propagandist who is echoing an anti-war sentiment already held by around 3 out 4 Americans. I need to see alot more action on the part of the race - baiting Maddow to believe she is anything other than an establishment media whore.


You don't suspect that John Stewart has been quietly bringing her around to the anti-war side lately? :P

----------


## cheapseats

#RachelMaddow is a blatant and unapologetic #Propagandist.  I give you the #LeanForward ads...INCREDIBLE-in-a-bad-way for highest-profile #MainstreamMedia STARS straightforwardly pimping #BigGovernment.  LISTEN TO HER talk about how America's days of "BIG PROJECTS" are not over, blah, blah.  NOT A TRACE OF ECONOMIC REALITY.

#RachelMaddow launched an APPALLING self-promotion junket this week...I mean, EMBARRASSING.  Even MORE embarrassingly, that did not stop her for impugning the Republican Primary Book Tour (which is ALSO embarrassing).

While Hardright Republicans compel the GOP candidates HARDER RIGHT, #RachelMaddow & Co. (wisely) segue to ANTI WAR...(realistically) assuming that Republicans upping the WEIRDNESS ante by attacking #BirthControl (and reminding people how SEXIST is The Old Boy Network), the time is ripe to re-woo disillusioned Moderates.  New York Times front page, above the fold, lately blared that MORE & MORE PEOPLE WANNA LEAVE AFGHANISTAN.

YOU PEOPLE know better than anyone the machinations behind NOT MITT.  Neither Gingrich nor Santorum would still be in the race, but for NOT MITT.  Cain and Perry would never have ENTERED, but for NOT MITT.

NOT HARDRIGHT is resonating in the Middle.

#RachelMaddow is NOT a Uniter.  She is FAR "Left", and she is ATHLETICALLY swinging for Obama.

I keep HEARING that Liberty is popular, but I keep SEEING Americans tow ANY LINE AUTHORITIES ISSUE.

It's a goddamn shame that New York Times is no longer PAPER OF RECORD.  It's a goddamn shame that "Free and Independent Press" is NEITHER and that, as a direct result, Press is not TRUSTWORTHY.

That said, the New York Times is NOT a supermarket tabloid.  ANTI WAR is gaining traction.

And "suddenly" the Machine on the other "side" sees the light.  It is NOT too late for Ron Paul Supporters to get VIRULENTLY & SUSTAINEDLY Anti War. They DID, after all, start out that way.

WHAT HAPPENED TO ANTI WAR? 6/12/11: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ed-to-ANTI-WAR

Relegated to Hot Topics.

For a CHANGE, rather than bemoaning that other people are "stealing" Ron Paul's ideas ("stolen" from yet Others), CELEBRATE the shift in discourse.  Rather than dismissing Copycats and Thieves...AND RATHER THAN GOING FURTHER "OUT THERE" ON AN ISSUE BECAUSE 'NEW PEOPLE' DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE PROBLEM...double-down specifically where and at the level at which the issues ARE resonating.  

Theoretically (stipulating the difficulty of "changing people's minds"), it would be comparatively easy for Ron Paul and studied, articulate Supporters WHO HAVE BEEN TALKING THIS TALK FOR DECADES, to persuade ANTI WAR people of the righteousness of freedom-oriented fiscal prudence.

The HARDRIGHT thing is the problem.  Shocker.  There is NOTHING libertarian about Hardright Republicanism.

----------


## airborne373

> You don't suspect that John Stewart has been quietly bringing her around to the anti-war side lately? :P


NO. Rachel Maddow is an intelligent sophisticated individual with access. She knows what is going on and has been facilitating the enslavement of the America people.

----------


## thoughtomator

> NO. Rachel Maddow is ... intelligent


that's subjective to one's frame of reference

----------


## FrankRep

> Rachael Maddow Book - Drift - IT'S WORKING GUYS!! THEY ARE SLOWLY GETTING IT!

----------


## cheapseats

> 



DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN was under consideration as the theme for an April Fools Day chip-in, was it not?

----------


## jolynna

> Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.


I haven't read Rachel Maddow's book, but maybe so. 

I have a pretty low opinion of the Koch brothers. I check Glenn Greenwald's column every day. I'm closer to more progressives than conservatives in being anti-war and VERY pro-civil liberties. So is Ron Paul. 

And before you all judge my political leanings. I've contributed time and money to the GOP for YEARS. I talk to one of our state's congressmen all the time. He and his wife are even coming to my house for dinner. Along with some bankers. ALL OF US (and I mean my husband, the bankers and the congressman and his wife) would probably be closer to the views expressed in Rachael Maddow's book THAN those the Koch brothers espouse.

In my opinion.

----------


## JasonM

> #RachelMaddow is a blatant and unapologetic #Propagandist.  I give you the #LeanForward ads...INCREDIBLE-in-a-bad-way for highest-profile #MainstreamMedia STARS straightforwardly pimping #BigGovernment.  LISTEN TO HER talk about how America's days of "BIG PROJECTS" are not over, blah, blah.  NOT A TRACE OF ECONOMIC REALITY.
> 
> #RachelMaddow launched an APPALLING self-promotion junket this week...I mean, EMBARRASSING.  Even MORE embarrassingly, that did not stop her for impugning the Republican Primary Book Tour (which is ALSO embarrassing).
> 
> While Hardright Republicans compel the GOP candidates HARDER RIGHT, #RachelMaddow & Co. (wisely) segue to ANTI WAR...(realistically) assuming that Republicans upping the WEIRDNESS ante by attacking #BirthControl (and reminding people how SEXIST is The Old Boy Network), the time is ripe to re-woo disillusioned Moderates.  New York Times front page, above the fold, lately blared that MORE & MORE PEOPLE WANNA LEAVE AFGHANISTAN.
> 
> YOU PEOPLE know better than anyone the machinations behind NOT MITT.  Neither Gingrich nor Santorum would still be in the race, but for NOT MITT.  Cain and Perry would never have ENTERED, but for NOT MITT.
> 
> NOT HARDRIGHT is resonating in the Middle.
> ...


EXACTLY!! I would also add that HARD-LEFT thing is the problem too. HARD LEFT or HARD RIGHT, it's always a HARD ON for any solutions that involve an increase in Federal and Police powers.

The only way to solve this problem is not dismissing new people on either side and marginalizing them in our group whenever they show that they don't "get it" yet. We end up marginalizing ourselves if we do. We win by uniting with people only on the issues where they have it right. So when Rachel Maddow writes a book about how bad the wars are, we get behind it 100%. And when someone on the Hard Left starts pushing something related to fiscal conservatism and criticism of the FED, we give them an EPIC head nod supporting them. 

Libertarians are never going to agree on a lot of things with Liberals, but Liberals and Conservatives can unite with Libertarians when it comes to the war issue. And we all know the national security state is majorly messed up, but it takes a major public uprising for them to give back the power Congress has wrongly taken for itself in the name of security.

It's called BUILDING A COALITION PEOPLE. And unlike the occupy movement, or the tea party movement, we have someone to Unite Around. Someone special, someone to emulate. That person is Ron Paul. And he may not win an election this year, but 4 years, 8 years, our movement will outshine the Tea Parties and Occupy Movements of this world. And if things fall apart in the US, then it isn't a time to run but our moment of Truth to win yet more elections.

And if they suspend elections, then, well, we scream and protest and join with our countrymen to get our elections back. And when we get the elections back, THAT is when we will win by a landslide and disarm the federal government that took away the elections. And we'll get rid of a hell of a lot of other bad legislation and bad CASE LAW along with it. 

Just keep fighting and talking and uniting with people when you find something you can agree on.

----------


## cheapseats

> #RachelMaddow is a blatant and unapologetic #Propagandist.  I give you the #LeanForward ads...INCREDIBLE-in-a-bad-way for highest-profile #MainstreamMedia STARS straightforwardly pimping #BigGovernment.  LISTEN TO HER talk about how America's days of "BIG PROJECTS" are not over, blah, blah.  NOT A TRACE OF ECONOMIC REALITY.
> 
> #RachelMaddow launched an APPALLING self-promotion junket this week...I mean, EMBARRASSING.  Even MORE embarrassingly, that did not stop her for impugning the Republican Primary Book Tour (which is ALSO embarrassing).
> 
> While Hardright Republicans compel the GOP candidates HARDER RIGHT, #RachelMaddow & Co. (wisely) segue to ANTI WAR...(realistically) assuming that Republicans upping the WEIRDNESS ante by attacking #BirthControl (and reminding people how SEXIST is The Old Boy Network), the time is ripe to re-woo disillusioned Moderates.  New York Times front page, above the fold, lately blared that MORE & MORE PEOPLE WANNA LEAVE AFGHANISTAN.
> 
> YOU PEOPLE know better than anyone the machinations behind NOT MITT.  Neither Gingrich nor Santorum would still be in the race, but for NOT MITT.  Cain and Perry would never have ENTERED, but for NOT MITT.
> 
> NOT HARDRIGHT is resonating in the Middle.
> ...






> EXACTLY!! I would also add that HARD-LEFT thing is the problem too. HARD LEFT or HARD RIGHT, it's always a HARD ON for any solutions that involve an increase in Federal and Police powers.
> 
> The only way to solve this problem is not dismissing new people on either side and marginalizing them in our group whenever they show that they don't "get it" yet. We end up marginalizing ourselves if we do. We win by uniting with people only on the issues where they have it right. So *when Rachel Maddow writes a book* about how bad the wars are, *we get behind it 100%.* And when someone on the Hard Left starts pushing something related to fiscal conservatism and criticism of the FED, we give them an EPIC head nod supporting them.



We are NOT on the same page, you and I.  I was typing the above Edit *IN BOLD* while you were pimping Maddow's book.

I wouldn't buy Rachel Maddow's book if it were the only English volume in the hotel gift shop in a faraway land.

----------


## Carlybee

I doubt I will read it but I will support her right to write it.  First amendment isn't selective.

----------


## JasonM

> We are NOT on the same page, you and I.  I was typing the above Edit *IN BOLD* while you were pimping Maddow's book.
> 
> I wouldn't buy Rachel Maddow's book if it were the only English volume in the hotel gift shop in a faraway land.


I think you misunderstand. I'm just saying when anyone on the Hard Left (even Rachel Maddow) espouses an anti-war sentiment, we need to give them kudos for it because Ron Paul is anti-war too. I think most people in the media actually believe their own BS as much as the people who watch their show, I don't think they are actually in cahoots with the owners of the news media in enslaving the population.

Useful idiots as they say.

----------


## angelatc

> That said, the New York Times is NOT a supermarket tabloid. ANTI WAR is gaining traction.


There is nobody as blind as those who will not see.  Anti War won the 2006 and 2008 elections.   In 201o, nobody ran on that platform so the perceived fiscal conservatives won.   

So it makes sense that the Anti War left would emerge now. It also makes sense that Obama would start bringing troops home now.  It also stands to reason that after he wins in 2012, he'll head into Iran, which will make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq look like walks in the park.  Iran isn't some bull$#@! ragtag group of civilians with glorified sticks. 

And I'm sorry - you can't claim be a $#@!ing progressive and still support Ron Paul unless you're only using him for his anti-war position.  The progressives are Socialists - capital S - and they don't $#@!ing beelieve in this movement.  The GOP let them in, and look what happened.  

The Koch Brothers are not the enemy (yet), and it's appalling that the left has managed to poison that well so successfully.

Here's how progressive Glenn Greenwald describes the Koch Brothers: 


> the libertarian billionaires who fund everything from right-wing economic policy, union-busting, and anti-climate-change advocacy to civil liberties and liberalized social policies


   - those bastards.

Here's what he says about their role in political discussions: 




> .....the Koch Brothers now serve the same function for the Left as George Soros long served for the Right:  the bogeymen who motivate the loyalists and on whom everything bad, including political losses, can be blamed. 
> 
> There’s no question in my mind that the unrestrained power over the political process and both political parties enjoyed by oligarchs is the single greatest political problem the country faces — the overarching problem — but in the scheme of corporate and oligarchical dominance, the Koch Brothers are a small part of that dynamic.  Nor do I believe that they’re motivated in their political activism by personal profit:  for people with a net worth of $20 billion, there are vastly more efficient ways to convert one’s wealth into greater wealth than spending money to influence public policy; I think they’re True Believers.


So if you think that you can proudly use Glenn Greenwald to support your irrational aversion to all things Koch, I think you've just proved you're a cheap liberal tool, here to use the libertarian movement to end the war while you're hoping to steal all that money for social welfare.  Which would be fair enough, except the Libertarians don't fight back.

----------


## maskander

Lots of accusations being flung around like monkey poo in here, I watch maddow whenever I can, she's the only one I like.

----------


## jolynna

I read Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Lincoln" too and since becoming anti-unprovoked war and anti-preventative war (as was Dwight Eisenhauer), I can't stand Bill O'Reilly. Doesn't mean I couldn't gain something from reading what he had to say.

Good heavens, if I'd have limited myself to ONLY reading books by people who are politically the same as ME, I'd NEVER have read End The Fed and would still be of the mindset I was when I was out campaigning for McCain. 

The reason many people are NOT getting MORE excited about Ron Paul is because they are still stuck in the old left wing versus right wing ruts. 


In my opinion.

----------


## DEGuy

> There is nobody as blind as those who will not see.  Anti War won the 2006 and 2008 elections.   In 201o, nobody ran on that platform so the perceived fiscal conservatives won.


Anti-war played a part in 2000 also -  George W ran on a non-interventionist platform.

I really hope someone runs on an anti-war/non-interventionist platform against Obama. If Obama tries to sell it (like in 2008), this time it'll be hard to justify the continuing debacle in Afghanistan, although I'm sure he'll come up with some sort of arrogant excuse for it. I only hope the Republican candidate (Ron Paul) takes him town on the war issue and makes it a center point of the campaign. Then will start seeing a some of Obamaniacs from 2008 not coming out to vote for him again in 2012.

On another note, the best part of the Jon Stewart interview was the exchange where they trashed both parties, and made a sarcastic comment about being in "good hands". One reason (the only really) I like Jon Stewart is because he often shows that both parties are doing a terrible job, and I think that gets people to be a little more open-minded about other candidates who don't "fit into the establishment mold".  This helps us in the long run.

----------


## cheapseats

> EXACTLY!! I would also add that HARD-LEFT thing is the problem too. HARD LEFT or HARD RIGHT, it's always a HARD ON for any solutions that involve an increase in Federal and Police powers.


Yep.

Liberal/Conservative is a False (But Lucrative) Dichotomy.  Liberal and Conservative are BALANCING influences, even WITHIN a person.  

HARD this, FAR that speaks to IMBALANCE a.k.a. DIS-EASE . . . also to OPPORTUNISM + EXPLOITATION.





> The only way to solve this problem is not dismissing new people on either side and marginalizing them in our group whenever they show that they don't "get it" yet. We end up marginalizing ourselves if we do. We win by uniting with people only on the issues where they have it right.


True. 

But that does not translate to:




> So when Rachel Maddow writes a book about how bad the wars are, we get behind it 100%.


AT. ALL.





> And when someone on the Hard Left starts pushing something related to fiscal conservatism and criticism of the FED, we give them an EPIC head nod supporting them.


Depends whether they are JOINING you . . . or BEATING YOU AT YOUR OWN GAME.






> Libertarians are never going to agree on a lot of things with Liberals, but Liberals and Conservatives can unite with Libertarians when it comes to the war issue.


All who are not "naturally" hateful and fearful, and all who are not UNNATURALLY ambitious and controlling, AND ALL WHO ARE NOT INVESTED IN THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, can unite with  Anti War.





> And we all know the national security state is majorly messed up, but it takes a major public uprising for them to give back the power Congress has wrongly taken for itself in the name of security.


You'd be surprised how many people still mutter something about WORTH IT, while being treated like LOW LIFE BENT ON HARMING THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

What must be driven home is that it is NOT worth it.  That EIGHTY BILLION on "Intelligence" in ONE YEAR meant diddly-squat in Tucson.  That NO AMOUNT OF MONEY OR HIGH-TECH AGGRAVATION can protect against Lone Wolves.  That Taxpayers can't AFFORD this much Security, which doesn't accrue to THEM anyway.  How can it be so dangerous for THEM to fly, and so obviously NOT dangerous for Jet Setters & Deciders?

#RachelMaddow (and #RandPaul, for that matter) can afford to pay $100 PER LEG OF EACH TRIP, to skirt the degradation of #TSA.  WHAT, #Terrorists don't know that American Officialdom treats "First Class" differentially AND deferentially?  WHAT, ooga-booga "Terrorist Organizations" will spring for bombs and delivery network, but not first-class tickets?






> It's called BUILDING A COALITION PEOPLE.


Rachel Maddow is working on OBAMA'S coalition, period.





> And unlike the occupy movement, or the tea party movement, we have someone to Unite Around. Someone special, someone to emulate. That person is Ron Paul.


Rachel Maddow's audience coalesce around Ron Paul?  I think not.





> And he may not win an election this year, but 4 years, 8 years, our movement will outshine the Tea Parties and Occupy Movements of this world.


No guarantees.

It will surely NOT outshine Others if Others continually cherry-pick and successfully pimp digestible parts of the Liberty Concept, leaving hapless Libertarians always with the ICKY/HARD parts.  There ARE icky/hard parts to Liberty.  The OTHER guy's freedom, for starters.

I don't know that the post itself was recent, but I recently read a post on this "libertarian leaning" board wherein a Ron Paul Supporter proposed that people who cuss should be BANNED.  I mean, for $#@!'s sake. 





> And if things fall apart in the US, then *it isn't a time to run* but our moment of Truth to win yet more elections.


Agreed.






> And if they suspend elections, then, well, we scream and protest and join with our countrymen to get our elections back.


HUH?

Joining with our Countrymen to do more than "scream and protest", I should hope. 





> And when we get the elections back, THAT is when we will win by a landslide and disarm the federal government that took away the elections. And we'll get rid of a hell of a lot of other bad legislation and bad CASE LAW along with it.


From whence comes talk of SUSPENDED ELECTIONS?





> Just keep fighting and talking and uniting with people when you find something you can agree on.


FIGHT TO UNITE?  You DO see the problem...

WAR 4 PEACE.

----------


## angelatc

> Lots of accusations being flung around like monkey poo in here, I watch maddow whenever I can, she's the only one I like.


That doesn't bode well for the future of the movement.

----------


## jmdrake

I'm not sure why this is a surprise.  The left sounds like Ron Paul on foreign policy, but they never quite deliver.  Rachael Madcow defended Barack Obama getting the nobel peace prize even though he had already announced the Afghanistan "surge".  The right sounds like Ron Paul on domestic spending but they never quite deliver.  Rick Santorum voted for more money for planned parenthood.  The only difference between the Rachael Maddows and Rick Santorums of the world is where they try to sound like Ron Paul.

----------


## jmdrake

> That doesn't bode well for the future of the movement.


The future of the movement includes winning over people who like Beck as well as winning over people who like Maddow.  There just aren't enough Andrew Napolitano fans out there to win a presidential election, especially now that Fox fired him for telling the truth.

----------


## JasonM

> The future of the movement includes winning over people who like Beck as well as winning over people who like Maddow.  There just aren't enough Andrew Napolitano fans out there to win a presidential election, especially now that Fox fired him for telling the truth.


Amen to that =/

----------


## jolynna

Those that hate Obama should be VERY glad for Glenn Greenwald. He is the ONLY one calling OUT Obama for NOT repealing the Patriot Act, NDAA, putting the nation under Martial law and the spying of HMS on American citizens. As well as the torture, covert wars, NOT covert but unconstitutional wars and the secret prisons. As well as the unjust tortures and infinite detentions of whistle-blowers.

The left that WAS foaming at the mouth over those assaults from Bush is NOW full of justification when "their guy" is doing it.

The GOP can't and ISN'T calling Obama out for THOSE things either because THEY SUPPORT all of the above. Romney started the first and greatest-of-its-time spycenter (with the help of TOP donor Raytheon lobbyist, Ed Rogers) when he was governor and appointed by Bush to Co-head the Governor's Homeland Security Council. 

NDAA was overwhelming APPROVED by Republicans...who are ONLY backing up on it now because their constituents found out what NDAA is (sure didn't hear about what it IS from the mainstream media either--not from the left OR the right media). 

It isn't true that Libertarians and anti-war progressives can't get together. ALL who are PASSIONATE about NO UNJUST WAR and HUMAN and CIVIL rights (our constitution), right OR left hate how Obama baited (saying he'd repeal the Patriot act and bring the troops home) and then switched and became WORSE than Bush on both liberty and war. Here is an example of the right AND left uniting over freedom and NOT running around murdering people to "prevent war" (http://original.antiwar.com/henderso...erence-on-war/).

Until we downsize the war machine, (instead of spending an ADDITIONAL trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon on top of the $900 + billion dollars annually we have spent under Obama) we can't "fix the economy".

I will give kudos to ANYONE who speaks out against unprovoked and unjust war and the greed and corruption behind it. Including Rachael Maddow. 

We don't HAVE to win over Rachel Maddow. If somebody that listens to her show researches WAR, they are going to run across a LOT, much of it written by progressives, that paints Obama as pretty much of a monster because of his assaults on liberty and participation in the wars. 

In my opinion.

----------


## JasonM

> HUH?
> 
> Joining with our Countrymen to do more than "scream and protest", I should hope.


Yes, absolutely. Fighting to get those elections back. And not just the arm-chair kind of fighting either.






> From whence comes talk of SUSPENDED ELECTIONS?
> 
> WAR 4 PEACE.



The talk of suspended election is speaking to those people who are paranoid that we won't have a country if we have 4 more years of anyone but Ron Paul. And you know who those people are. Hardly think it will come to that, Liberty has seen rougher waters than this, but you never know what will happen.

----------


## floridasun1983

I guess next we'll introduce Karl Marx as a champion of liberty because he once read Thomas Jefferson.

----------


## FrankRep

> I guess next we'll introduce Karl Marx as a champion of liberty because he once read Thomas Jefferson.


I hear that Karl Marx was a big supporter of fairness and equality.

----------


## JK/SEA

Maddow=Glenn Beck....only............different.

----------


## cheapseats

> I'm not sure why this is a surprise.  The left sounds like Ron Paul on foreign policy, but they never quite deliver.  *Rachael Madcow defended Barack Obama getting the nobel peace prize* even though he had already announced the Afghanistan "surge".


He didn't "just" collect the #NobelPeacePrize concurrent with ordering the #AfghanSurge, the Afghan Surge was concurrent with #OlympicOpeningCeremonies.  All KINDSA twisted.

Does #RachelMaddow champion decriminalization of #marijuana with the same FERVOR with which she champions All Things Gay?  NO, she does not.

Embrace Anti War, like a long-lost lover.

ATTACK RACHEL MADDOW (in the spirit of targeting Voters in #BattlegroundStates).

Play hardball, or don't.







> The right sounds like Ron Paul on domestic spending but they never quite deliver.  Rick Santorum voted for more money for planned parenthood.  The only difference between the Rachael Maddows and Rick Santorums of the world is where they try to sound like Ron Paul.


Like I said, theoretically, it should be comparatively easy for Ron Paul and knowledgeable, articulate Supporters to persuade Anti War Centrists With Ethics of the righteousness of FISCAL PRUDENCE STEEPED IN LIBERTY.

----------


## JasonM

> I guess next we'll introduce Karl Marx as a champion of liberty because he once read Thomas Jefferson.


If you're trying to convert a bunch of Marxists to the cause of liberty, how better than to quote their own hero if he says something that validates Ron Paul? 

I'm trolling of course. :P

----------


## JasonM

> I hear that Karl Marx was a big supporter of fairness and equality.


Too bad he didn't get the memo that some people are "more equal" than others, and some people have a right to be treated "more fairly" than others.

----------


## FrankRep

> If you're trying to convert a bunch of Marxists to the cause of liberty, how better than to quote their own hero if he says something that validates Ron Paul? 
> 
> I'm trolling of course. :P


You forget that Marxists exploit any issue they can to get more power. Don't get fooled.

----------


## cheapseats

> I read Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Lincoln" too and since becoming anti-unprovoked war and anti-preventative war (as was Dwight Eisenhauer), I can't stand Bill O'Reilly. Doesn't mean I couldn't gain something from reading what he had to say.
> 
> Good heavens, if I'd have limited myself to ONLY reading books by people who are politically the same as ME, I'd NEVER have read End The Fed and would still be of the mindset I was when I was out campaigning for McCain. 
> 
> The reason many people are NOT getting MORE excited about Ron Paul is because they are still stuck in the old left wing versus right wing ruts. 
> 
> 
> In my opinion.



Big BIG difference between READING and BOOK SALES.

Big BIG difference between EMBRACING CONCEPTS and CELEBRATING PEOPLE.

#RachelMaddow is a friend of Liberty ONLY insofar as it pertains to Gays and the "traditional" Disadvantage/Have Not's.  That is MY takeaway from the television broadcasts that I have seen.

Rand, Racism, Rights & Right, 5/24/10: http://singlenessofpurpose.com/mcpol...-rights-right/

----------


## angelatc

> You forget that Marxists exploit any issue they can to get more power. Don't get fooled.


Exactly.

----------


## jolynna

> I guess next we'll introduce Karl Marx as a champion of liberty because he once read Thomas Jefferson.


I didn't say she was a champion of liberty, I said IF she wrote against war and the war machine, good. 

I've never read her book. But, I'm not going to not read it and close my mind to every idea in it because I disagree with her politics. I read Mein Kampt and managed NOT to turn into a Nazi. Should I decide to read Maddow's book I probably won't become an Obama lover. Anymore than reading Condaleeza Rice's books made me love Bush or what his administration did. 

Jodi Kantor's book, The Obamas is on my kindle. I haven't read it yet. Same with Dick Cheney's, In My Time. 

I think gathering information from SEVERAL points of view and always being open to RETHINK anything is a good thing.One of my regrets is that I can't live long enough to read ALL THE BOOKS I want to read.

In my opinion.

----------


## cheapseats

> You forget that Marxists exploit any issue they can to get more power. Don't get fooled.





> Exactly.





> Embrace Anti War, like a long-lost lover.
> 
> ATTACK RACHEL MADDOW.
> 
> Play hardball, or don't.



Was #RachelMaddow BOOK-DEAL Anti War when #Obama ordered a surge in the YEARS-OLD war in #Afghanistan?  No.

Has she loudly and consistently praised Ron Paul's foreign policy?  No.

Does she impugn Republicans who are hawking their books?  Yes.

got FLIP FLOPPING?

#NikitaKrushchev: The press is our chief ideological weapon.

#AllenGinsberg: Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.

#JimMorrison:  Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.

#JosephGoebbels: Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...But, I'm not going to not read it and close my mind to every idea in it because I disagree with her politics. I read Mein Kampt and managed NOT to turn into a Nazi.
> 
> ...I think gathering information from SEVERAL points of view and always being open to RETHINK anything is a good thing.


Absolutely, absolutely.  Everything you can get your hands on, whenever you can.

But don't BUY books of Adversaries and Enemies.  HOW YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY is the thing they care about most.  Evidence abounds that MONEY TRUMPS EVERYTHING in America.

Politicians and Talking Heads (= effectively Lobbyists) should not be pimping their own books WHILE IN OFFICE/PULPIT. got bias? got spin? got unfair advantage?





> One of my regrets is that I can't live long enough to read ALL THE BOOKS I want to read.


One day, this sad reality really REGISTERED: If I spent every waking moment of the balance of my life READING, there is still not enough time to read everything that I would LIKE to read and that would be GOOD FOR ME to absorb.

----------


## angelatc

> Was #RachelMaddow BOOK-DEAL Anti War when #Obama ordered a surge in the YEARS-OLD war in #Afghanistan?  No.
> 
> Has she loudly and consistently praised Ron Paul's foreign policy?  No.
> 
> Does she impugn Republicans who are hawking their books?  Yes.
> 
> got FLIP FLOPPING?
> 
> #NikitaKrushchev: The press is our chief ideological weapon.
> ...


Exactly.  She writes a book about the evils of war, the extravagance and boondoggles of war-related spending, and perhaps she's right about that.  But what she will never, ever acknowledge is that the same government doing these wasteful things is also incapable of running welfare programs.  She's undoubtedly talking about the wasted spending overseas and the ridiculous Homeland Security budget, but try to point out the same waste and fraud when it emerges in her beloved  Homeland Social Security, and the argument quickly becomes "We don't need a smaller government. Just a better one!"

She would rather have a prowar progressive in office than an anti-war conservative.   I already know she's not capable of intellectual honesty, and while it's true there are more books than time, there's no valid excuse to push aside endless better reads in favor of her tripe.

This isn't her "getting it."  This is an anti-capitalist making a capitalistic buck at the expense of the true anti-war believers.

----------


## cheapseats

> I don't know what it is, but, I hope some people realize that *we truly have no friends in the media*. And, I don't think I want a "friend" in the media who pushes Obama and leftist policies as Maddow does.


MAINSTREAM CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA is an entirely different animal from FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS.

Commoners must BUILD THE LATTER, just like back in the day.  Heads up: THE PAY SUCKS.

----------


## cheapseats

> Exactly.  She writes a book about the evils of war, the extravagance and boondoggles of war-related spending, and perhaps she's right about that.  But what she will never, ever acknowledge is that the same government doing these wasteful things is also incapable of running welfare programs.  She's undoubtedly talking about the wasted spending overseas and the ridiculous Homeland Security budget, but try to point out the same waste and fraud when it emerges in her beloved  Homeland Social Security, and the argument quickly becomes "We don't need a smaller government. Just a better one!"
> 
> She would rather have a prowar progressive in office than an anti-war conservative.   I already know she's not capable of intellectual honesty, and while it's true there are more books than time, there's no valid excuse to push aside endless better reads in favor of her tripe.
> 
> This isn't her "getting it."  This is an *anti-capitalist making a capitalistic buck* *at the expense of the true anti-war believers.*



By "independently" (unofficially) HERDING THEM BACK TOWARD THE LEFT (the flip side of the War 4 Profit coin), despite Obama's indisputable trashing of certain key campaign promises.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...But what she will never, ever acknowledge is that the same government doing these wasteful things is also incapable of running welfare programs...



NOR is she likely to admit how many of our "engagements" stem from Do Gooders' pie-in-the-sky determination to SAVE EVERYONE.

----------


## cheapseats

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ric...dow-net-worth/


"CelebrityNetworth" pegs Rachel Maddow's net worth at TWELVE POINT FIVE MILLION.

It is a ROBUST paycheck that, after expenses, accumulates $12.5 million of wealth.

Rachel Maddow has kept her trap shut on Anti War for a lotta months of paychecks.

----------


## flynn

In my experience with left leaning statists, they are among the worst self righteous, arrogant, violent, intellectually dishonest, incredulous, dogmatic, and angry bunch of people on this planet. Their religion is the state. I would not advocate giving kudos to anyone who's endorsing the progressive left liberals ideology.

----------


## ZenBowman

> MAINSTREAM CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA is an entirely different animal from FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS.
> 
> Commoners must BUILD THE LATTER, just like back in the day.  Heads up: THE PAY SUCKS.


Wouldn't any non-state media be corporate-owned, almost by definition?

----------


## cheapseats

> Wouldn't any non-state media be corporate-owned, almost by definition?



Indeed NOT.  As an obvious but certainly not the only example, Wall Street Journal used to be FAMILY OWNED & OPERATED.  I have read reports of REGRET among the Bancrofts.

Educating the (poor) masses has ALWAYS been a key component of getting out from under tyranny, and (cheaper) newsprint has historically (logically) been commoner among Commoners than (costlier) books/educations.

----------


## ZenBowman

> Indeed NOT.  As an obvious but certainly not the only example, Wall Street Journal used to be FAMILY OWNED & OPERATED.  I have read reports of REGRET among the Bancrofts.
> 
> Educating the (poor) masses has ALWAYS been a key component of getting out from under tyranny, and (cheaper) newsprint has historically (logically) been commoner among Commoners than (costlier) books/educations.


I wasn't using corporate owned as a technical term, but meant it more as "owned by private interests".

Technically, a magazine owned by the Bush family could also be described as family-owned, but we'd hardly call it independent. At the end, it depends on what people want to read, the dominant news channels will reflect what people want to read, hear and watch.

----------


## cheapseats

> I wasn't using corporate owned as a technical term, but meant it more as "owned by private interests".


CORPORATE-OWNED is an extremely technical term.  It exonerates individuals of responsibility in a way that Private Ownership does NOT.  It places the interests of SHAREHOLDERS above . . . what?  Truth. Family interests. Personal ambition.  Life is hard and people are TRICKY.

"Free and Independent" does not automatically parlay into "Accurate and Scrupulous".

INDIVIDUALS AMASSING TOO MUCH MONEY/INFLUENCE/POWER is the crux of our (unsustainable) #WealthGap.  Americans GOING WEAK AT THE KNEES in the face of Stardom and Wealth?  Let's just say that UNBIASED, RELIABLE JOURNALISM is not the only Principle to go by the wayside.




> Technically, a magazine owned by the Bush family could also be described as family-owned, but we'd hardly call it independent.


Opposite.  Technically, people of Bush's ilk get TOO independent...and do whatever the $#@! they please, irrespective of fairness or fallout...gallingly confident that their Wealth will protect them from the consequences of their designs and decisions.





> At the end, it depends on what people want to read, the dominant news channels will reflect what people want to read, hear and watch.


Yes and no.

Absent physical assembly en masse and in unison, also absent the HANDICAP DU JOUR to win the capricious attention/resources of Professional Saviors, the "Power of the People" lies in their WALLETS.

That said, they WILL choose from among AVAILABLE $#@!.

Michael J. Fox, AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT:  *They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.*

----------


## lester1/2jr

I wasn't going to read it, it seems like a rehash of stuff I've already read at mises and elsewhere, but the paleos have convinced me to buy it, maybe a few copies.

----------


## cheapseats

Ron Paul should OWN this issue.

Ron Paul should be able to steal this thunder, and CAPITALIZE on the (it's about time!) resurgence of Anti War sentiment.

I'd like to hear Ron Paul say something along the lines of: 

_"I can't quote #RickSantorum verbatim because I don't swear, but this really is b.s. I mean, I have been saying FOR YEARS things that other people are only now trotting out in our ridiculous AND RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE Election Season. Not 'just' a la carte principles, but SEASONAL a la carte principles. NO ONE running for President, Obama included, can be spun to be more ANTI NEEDLESS WAR than I am.  NO ONE running for president can be spun to be more ANTI WASTEFUL/WRONGFUL SPENDING than I am."_

----------


## whippoorwill

I like books.

----------


## cheapseats

> I like books.


Me, too.

Which has nothing to do with:

1.)  Rachel Maddow drawing a big salary while NOT beating the Anti War Drum for most of Obama's term

2.)  Rachel Maddow "suddenly", IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN WHICH SHE HAS A CLEAR FAVORITE, using her position to PIMP HER BOOK containing, from what I gather, many points that Ron Paul has been making for years WITH CONSPICUOUSLY LITTLE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE.

Great, great, great if she has REALIZED the wrongness of Perpetual War.  EVERY conversion is a good one.  But this is a VERY educated, VERY influential woman who is CONSPICUOUSLY late to the Anti War party.

----------


## Origanalist

> Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.


Ugh.

----------


## cheapseats

> http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ric...dow-net-worth/
> 
> 
> "CelebrityNetworth" pegs Rachel Maddow's net worth at TWELVE POINT FIVE MILLION.
> 
> It is a ROBUST paycheck that, after expenses, accumulates $12.5 million of wealth.
> 
> Rachel Maddow has kept her trap shut on Anti War for a lotta months of paychecks.






> In my experience with left leaning statists, they are among the worst *self righteous, arrogant, violent, intellectually dishonest, incredulous, dogmatic, and angry bunch of people on this planet. Their religion is the state.* I would not advocate giving kudos to anyone who's endorsing the progressive left liberals ideology.



Same can be said for those whose religion is Religion and those whose religion is Money/Power (note overlap 'twixt Religion/Money/Power).

Many "left-leaning Statists" MEAN well...they positively PAVE THE ROAD TO HELL with good intentions.  They "just" don't get bogged down with pesky details like PAYING for stuff.  Or FEASIBILITY...what a buzz-kill THAT is.

#RachelMaddow is a #LimousineLiberal.  LimousineLiberals have Money/Power issues, same as/differently from Conservative Rich, but they are also ambitious-unto-greedy about making PHILANTHROPIC NAMES for themselves.  At others' expense, natch.

LIMOUSINE LIBERAL is a strong card to play in this election.  

NO MATTER HOW BAD THINGS GET, there they are, the Limousine Liberals, arranging for the Middle and Lower Classes to extend yet more here-ya-go help to the Lowest Classes.

Disillusioned Democrats must be made to see that their "party" is also spearheaded by RICH, oblivious, impervious, high-flying, do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do Extraordinary Earners.

----------


## bolil

Newt Gingrich likes to sound like Ron Paul too... Are we winning him over or is he attempting a co-opt coupe?  Now apply the same logic to Maddow.  I wouldn't buy her book if I got a government bailout.

----------


## cheapseats

> The future of the movement includes winning over people who like Beck as well as winning over people who like Maddow.  There just aren't enough Andrew Napolitano fans out there to win a presidential election, especially now that Fox fired him for telling the truth.






> Amen to that =/






> Maddow=Glenn Beck....only............different.



Just as different, and as similar, as they could be.

People who like Maddow and people who like Beck (or any two figurehead Extremists/Inciters) are apt to agree that MAINSTREAM MEDIA STARS FOSTER DIVISIONS IN THE ELECTORATE. 

It is in the best interests of the American people and, as it happens, it is in Ron Paul's best interests if #MainstreamMedia becomes the focus of PUBLIC IRE.  

They SHOULD be the focus of public ire, on #TrayvonMartin "alone".  Ron Paul's name doesn't even have to be MENTIONED to deliver a rant on MEDIA BIAS & MANIPULATION.

ANTI WAR and MEDIA MANIPULATION are two subjects that "naturally" end up showcasing Ron Paul, without TRYING to pimp him.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

It's one thing to appeal to people on the left and the right as individuals. Supporting the book of someone who has repeatedly shown to be hostile to liberty is what is ridiculous and what nobody here should do

----------


## cubical

She is a central planning socialist. I doubt she changed that much.

----------


## cheapseats

#RachelMaddow glosses over the #AfghanWar, AND Obama's escalation of it, while LAVISHING attention on #GayMarriage.

http://wn.com/Rachel_Maddow_On_Obama..._Marriage_Bill

----------


## cheapseats

From where I sit, most #MainstreamMedia Stars & Starlets INSTIGATE & FAN FLAMES. 

Notice how UNAFRAID they are of reprisal. They are EXTREMELY well-compensated for stoking the fires of a dangerously divided Electorate.  They are sequestered in Ivory Towers, above the fray, like the Big Shots they "cover". 

I don't think Americans could get OFF THEIR GIZMOS long enough to revolt but, if they ever did, I'd hope like hell that Media Super Stars would bite the bullet in the first round of action.  They are not "merely" SOWERS OF DISCORD, but sowers of discord FOR PROFIT.

----------


## anaconda

Maddow would turn on Ron Paul at the first opportunity if it meant furthering her agenda. Maddow needs the big government apparatus to realize her agenda. She is a hypocrite and part of the problem. She is classic "left cover" or a "left gate keeper" of which Webster Tarpley refers to. I did like her piece on the Herman Cain Art Project, however.

----------


## anaconda

> Written with bracing wit and intelligence, Rachel Maddow's Drift argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails. To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan, along the way exploring the disturbing rise of executive authority, the gradual outsourcing of our war-making capabilities to private companies, the plummeting percentage of American families whose children fight our constant wars for us, and even the changing fortunes of G.I. Joe. She offers up a fresh, unsparing appraisal of Reagan's radical presidency. Ultimately, she shows us just how much we stand to lose by allowing the priorities of the national security state to overpower our political discourse.


And let me guess: when November rolls around she will enthusiastically endorse Obama and cast her vote for him. Enough already.

----------


## cheapseats

> Maddow would turn on Ron Paul at the first opportunity if it meant furthering her agenda. Maddow needs the big government apparatus to realize her agenda. She is a hypocrite and part of the problem. She is classic "left cover" or a "left gate keeper" of which Webster Tarpley refers to. *I did like her piece on the Herman Cain Art Project, however.*



LOL, agreed.  

Another HOWEVER, however: The source of the hilarity was HERMAN CAIN.  Given a nationally televised stage, anyone with half a brain and an ordinary wit coulda had 'em in the aisles with HERMAN CAIN as material.

I find it particularly galling when they use the POWER of a supposedly news-and-information pulpit to INTERVIEW EACH OTHER, AND PIMP THEIR OWN & EACH OTHER'S BOOKS.

NEWS & INFORMATION...because we said so, and they corroborated it.  Two sources, what MORE d'ya want?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.


Don't you want to be one of the cool kids?

----------


## JasonM

> In my experience with left leaning statists, they are among the worst self righteous, arrogant, violent, intellectually dishonest, incredulous, dogmatic, and angry bunch of people on this planet. Their religion is the state. I would not advocate giving kudos to anyone who's endorsing the progressive left liberals ideology.


So, in other words, even if she started repeating everything Ron Paul said word for word, you'd still hate her guts and assume she's just being dishonest and trying to make money off you. Got it.

----------


## JasonM

> I wasn't using corporate owned as a technical term, but meant it more as "owned by private interests".


As opposed to "publically owned interests"? As is owned by the state? That's no good either.

People in the media (the actual people) only say what they do partly in order to get higher in the social order of things by trying to make those connections. Social connections is what it's all about folks.

----------


## coffeewithchess

Sorry, I consider her like most of the media...part of the problem, not the solution. Throwing around a few good lines doesn't mean she has changed, it probably means she is pitching a product to an audience trying to make a buck.

Trust, but verify? In this situation, there isn't much trust (if any) to begin with. I wonder if she even wrote it, or if it was a ghostwriter...using her name, and making some $$$$?

----------


## JasonM

> Sorry, I consider her like most of the media...part of the problem, not the solution. Throwing around a few good lines doesn't mean she has changed, it probably means she is pitching a product to an audience trying to make a buck.
> 
> Trust, but verify? In this situation, there isn't much trust (if any) to begin with. I wonder if she even wrote it, or if it was a ghostwriter...using her name, and making some $$$$?



Here's what you need to understand about the media: they only tell people what they THINK they want to hear in order to make $$$. 

Now sometimes they try to fudge and try to shape what people want to hear.

But overall, the one thing these people care about is $$$$$$$$$$. Even if they don't believe it (it's very hard to write a book you don't actually believe), the fact that these guys publish these books and they sell at all is at least an indicator that they are smart enough to know that "Anti-War sells".

Besides, she really does expose some good stuff in her book. I had no idea that we actually used afghanistan war funds to build McMansions in afghanistan for rich people that don't even live there. Very appalling.

----------


## cheapseats

> People in the media (the actual people) *only say what they do partly in order to get higher in the social order of things* by trying to make those connections. Social connections is what it's all about folks.


So true.




> #NoamChomsky:  The media want to maintain their intimate relation to state power. They want to get leaks, they want to get invited to the press conferences. They want to rub shoulders with the Secretary of State, all that kind of business. To do that, you've got to play the game, and playing the game means telling their lies, serving as their disinformation apparatus.



And partly they "just" DO AS THEY'RE TOLD, which may manifest in what they do NOT say as much as in what they DO say. 

DOING WHAT THEY'RE TOLD TO DO is very common for EMPLOYEES of all stripes.

----------


## JasonM

> But in the past generation or two, we've drifted off that historical course. The steering's gone wobbly, the breaks have failed. It's not a conspiracy, there aren't rogue elements pushing us to subvert our national interests to instead serve theirs. It's been more entertaining and more boneheaded than that. The good news is we don't need a radical new vision of post-Cold War American power.*We just need a "small c" conservative return to our constitutional roots, a course correction.* The book is about how and why we've drifted. It wasn't inevitable. And it's fixable."


Final paragraph of her book intro. 

I don't care who you are, it's quite a sight when even a "Big L Liberal" like Rachel Maddow is saying we need a "small c conservative" to set things right. 

And like it or not, most folks aren't conspiracy nuts (for better or for worse, depending on who you are), so the fact that she's saying "It's not a conspiracy, there aren't rogue elements pushing us to subvert our national interests to instead serve theirs." is just her way of preventing people from dismissing her arguments out of hand.

----------


## JasonM

I mean come on. Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that someone like her is starting to say this $#@!?

----------


## FrankRep

> Final paragraph of her book intro. 
> 
> I don't care who you are, it's quite a sight when even a "Big L Liberal" like Rachel Maddow is saying we need a "small c conservative" to set things right. 
> 
> And like it or not, most folks aren't conspiracy nuts (for better or for worse, depending on who you are), so the fact that she's saying "It's not a conspiracy, there aren't rogue elements pushing us to subvert our national interests to instead serve theirs." is just her way of preventing people from dismissing her arguments out of hand.


We have a problem because she's a "Big L Liberal" who likes Big Government. 

That's not a conspiracy.

----------


## cheapseats

> So, in other words, even if she started repeating everything Ron Paul said word for word, you'd still hate her guts and assume she's just being dishonest and trying to make money off you. Got it.



Would YOU wonder why she is saying in the months before an election what she has pointedly NOT been saying for the lion's share of Obama's term?

If she has SEEN THE ERROR OF HER WAYS AND CHANGED, that's swell.  For her, for everyone. The more people who reject WAR AS WAY TO MEANS, the better.  Ending the wars would be winning, no matter who wins.

Me, I think this is very much part of Obama's reelection effort (not to say she isn't making a career push, she IS).  I sense she will influence fundraising among LGBT's...for Obama, not ANTI WAR.

EITHER WAY, even if she has changed, she ain't changed THAT much.  She's with the BLUE team. 

Her book IS an opportunity to juxtapose an election-season epiphany with Ron Paul's CONSISTENCY OVER MANY YEARS.

----------


## JasonM

> Would YOU wonder why she is saying in the months before an election what she has pointedly NOT been saying for the lion's share of Obama's term?
> 
> If she has SEEN THE ERROR OF HER WAYS AND CHANGED, that's swell.  For her, for everyone.
> 
> Me, I think it is very much part of Obama's reelection effort.  I expect she'll be significant in fundraising among LGBT's, too.
> 
> EITHER WAY, even if she has changed, she ain't changed THAT much.  She's with the BLUE team. 
> 
> Her book IS an opportunity to juxtapose an election-season epiphany with Ron Paul's CONSISTENCY OVER MANY YEARS.


Sure, I'll give you that. It just goes to show we're starting to shape the demand for liberty and a sane foreign policy, and Ron Paul is given the credit.

I think it's awesome that Ron Paul's ideas are starting to take root in even people like her. And even if her automatic knee jerk reaction to Ron Paul is "this guy is crazy", if that makes her do her own research (which is more than most folks do for their book), then that's a positive outlook. 

Don't forget, many of us used to be neocons that drank the kool aid. Back in 2004, I actually wanted Bush to win the election instead of Kerry and thought the Iraq war was a good thing to get rid of Saddam. It wasn't till 2007 till I started hearing Ron Paul and started reading his arguments.

Lets see if she continues to recover from her Liberalism, or if she reverts, shall we? :P

----------


## FrankRep

> Sure, I'll give you that. It just goes to show we're starting to shape the demand for liberty and a sane foreign policy, and Ron Paul is given the credit.


Oh look! The Progressives (Communists) loved peace during the cold war. I think they're really understanding liberty!

JasonM, please don't be duped by Progressive Propaganda. This is a trick that they've played before.



*Wikipedia: Soviet influence on the peace movement*


During the Cold War (19471991), when the Soviet Union and the USA were engaged in an arms race, the Soviet Union promoted its foreign policy through the World Peace Council and other front organizations. It has been claimed that it also influenced non-aligned peace groups in the West.

The World Peace Council (WPC) was set up by the Soviet Communist Party in 1948-50 to promote Soviet foreign policy and to campaign against nuclear weapons at a time when only the USA had them. The WPC was directed by the International Department of the Soviet Communist Party via the Soviet Peace Committee,[1] a WPC member. The WPC and its members took the line laid down by the Cominform that the world was divided between the peace-loving Soviet Union and the warmongering United States. From the 1950s until the late 1980s the Soviet Union used numerous organizations associated with the WPC to spread its of view of peace.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I mean come on. Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that someone like her is starting to say this $#@!?


Most people can see through her bull$#@! because of the way she treated Rand. She's a propagandist who can't be trusted.

----------


## angelatc

> I mean come on. Am I the only one who thinks it interesting that someone like her is starting to say this $#@!?


She isn't just "starting" to say these things though - that's the problem.  She's said these things many times before, and she'll likely say them again.  But she didn't capture the anti-war movement from Ron Paul.  She's leading them back home to the Dems for the election.  

I can't believe you don't remember the things she's said and done in the past.   But rest assured there are lots of people here who held out hope that Maddow (or Beck) were "starting to come around!" at some point over the last few years.  

Nobody is dismissing her arguments, and if you're still wasting...I mean, spending your time arguing philosophy with the Liberals all day, then it's useful to have Maddow quotes to throw out there.  

What we're dismissing is her reason for introducing those arguments at this particular juncture - as in, right before the election.

----------


## JasonM

Well, if the anti-war left goes back to the Democratic party, it will be because Obama fulfilled his promise and stuck to his "timeline" for getting out of Iraq. Then he'll say "see? I kept my promise in Iraq, now I will keep my promise to get out of Afghanistan by 2014". Never mind that Obama did the whole Libya thing, and then he sent a couple hundred marines to Africa for some reason.

----------


## cheapseats

> But she didn't capture the anti-war movement from Ron Paul.  She's leading them back home to the Dems for the election.


NO ONE has captured the Anti War Moovement.  IT IS UP FOR GRABS.

It has lain dormant while folks argue about more pressing things, like Gay Marriage and Birth Control.  

Just like #OccupyWallStreet WAS up for grabs. 

ORDINARY PEOPLE are getting increasingly Anti War.  ANTI WAR is on the rise.  So say (unreliable, yuck yuck, yada yada, but nevertheless widely circulated) headlines.  I am sorry to say Anti War is not gaining traction because people have SEEN THE LIGHT, but because they have SEEN THE BUDGET.  No matter, to the point at hand: A VOTING BLOC IS COALESCING...AND NO ONE IS PANDERING TO IT.

Don't give props to MADDOW, of the Lean Forward Ads, WHOSE MISSION IS TO (MAKE MONEY &) SWAY EMBITTERED/UNDECIDED/ET AL. BACK TO OBAMA.

Brace yourselves for this sort of angle: REACTIONARY REPUBLICANS BLOCKED HIM AT EVERY TURN. GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO *REALLY* BE PRESIDENT, WITHOUT THE REELECTION SWORD HANGING OVER HIS HEAD.  HE'LL GIVE 'EM WHAT-FOR.  YEAH, MAN.

Ron Paul/Supporters must generate buzz about Ron Paul's "slow and steady" appeal GROWING IN TANDEM WITH ANTI WAR SENTIMENT.

In the sprawling, indeed VAST landscape of American Government, is there anyone ALIVE who has longer, more consistently or more ardently opposed PERPETUAL WAR?






> I can't believe you don't remember...


If I had a a hundred bucks for every time I've said that, I'd be a MILLIONAIRE FOR HIGHER TAXES.  Not higher taxes CONCEPTUALLY.  Not higher taxes PERMANENTLY.  "Just" while we HOVER ON THE BRINK OF LOSING WHAT REALLY MATTERS.

----------


## FrankRep

> Well, if the anti-war left goes back to the Democratic party, it will be because Obama fulfilled his promise and stuck to his "timeline" for getting out of Iraq. Then he'll say "see? I kept my promise in Iraq, now I will keep my promise to get out of Afghanistan by 2014". Never mind that Obama did the whole Libya thing, and then he sent a couple hundred marines to Africa for some reason.


The anti-war left will stay left (Big Government).

----------


## pahs1994

didn't Maddow just get fired by current tv?

----------


## cheapseats

> didn't Maddow just get fired by current tv?


Olbermann.

----------


## cheapseats

> The anti-war left will stay left (Big Government).



Can you imagine a Hardright Republican voting DEMOCRAT?

----------


## buck000

I watched the interview on The Daily Show, and was generally getting a "hey, she's channeling Dr. Paul" vibe, until about 3:35 in the vid, where she says after explaining that the Constitution was subverted or citizens lied to because of national security, etc., issues, "We make all of these incremental changes to make it just less hassle, to get around the things we need to get around, to do what we know is right."

That last little phrase at the end gave me pause.  It sounded like she agrees that there should be war, national security-based intrusion in our lives, etc. but "they" just need to be a little "better" about doing it.

I try to watch Maddow's show to get a different perspective.  I think she's a good researcher (especially when it comes to exposing Republican BS), but her delivery is just so annoying, I can't take more than a few minutes.  I can take Stewart's presentation of left-leaning perspectives, couched in comedy, much more than I can Maddow's; she's just not nearly as funny or as impressive as she thinks she is, imho.

She (and Stewart) are still convinced that only Government can solve Really Big Problems. Again, imho.

----------


## HigherVision

> Anyone who reads this worthless pig's book is an enemy of liberty as far as I'm concerned.


Word

----------


## Cowlesy

MS-NBC should be renamed MS-Comedy Central, because they're jokes.

----------


## pahs1994

> Olbermann.


same thing

----------


## angelatc

> Well, if the anti-war left goes back to the Democratic party, it will be because Obama fulfilled his promise and stuck to his "timeline" for getting out of Iraq. Then he'll say "see? I kept my promise in Iraq, now I will keep my promise to get out of Afghanistan by 2014". Never mind that Obama did the whole Libya thing, and then he sent a couple hundred marines to Africa for some reason.


Ya think?

The anti-war movement doesn't actually even exist on a large scale.   It never left the Democratic Party  - it's a tool of the Democratic Party.

----------


## kuckfeynes

The democratic system works very well. Indoctrinate kids when they are young and naive. Tell them conservatives want them to fend for themselves and liberals want to share the wealth and give them free things and make everyone equal! Don't give them any background in economics or sociology to think this through for themselves. Accentuate Republican warmongering over mid-east oil of the last 2 decades, and just touch briefly on Vietnam and focus mostly on the social issues of the 60s. Voila, Democrats are the peace party. Rinse and repeat.

I could barely believe my ears a few months ago when one of my best buddies that I grew up with in this system, devoutly anti-war in 2003 like myself and our other indoctrinated friends, started JUSTIFYING drone warfare & private militarization as an acceptable alternative to US military boots on the ground. Once you have someone caught in the dichotomy of us vs. them in the battle of lesser evil, it's amazing how volatile deeply held beliefs can be with a little rhetorical manipulation.

----------


## cheapseats

> Ya think?
> 
> The anti-war movement doesn't actually even exist on a large scale.   It never left the Democratic Party  - it's a tool of the Democratic Party.



What's the phrase, LIKE A RED-HEADED STEPCHILD?

Better yet...like CINDERELLA among the step-sisters.  So ready, waiting TOO patiently, to be the belle of the ball.

In the TOOL analogy, this one has been carelessly left outdoors, growing rusted and dull.  

OBAMA ESCALATED AFGHANISTAN.  On that "alone", Ron Paul's camp should be able to sharpen, shine AND OWN such Anti War emotion/energy as gathers IN THE MIDDLE.

Fuhgeddabout winning over Maddow-caliber Liberals.  Not gonna happen...in the SAME WAY that Hardright Republicans will not be brought 'round to voting Democrat.

----------


## JasonM

> The democratic system works very well. Indoctrinate kids when they are young and naive. Tell them conservatives want them to fend for themselves and liberals want to share the wealth and give them free things and make everyone equal! Don't give them any background in economics or sociology to think this through for themselves. Accentuate Republican warmongering over mid-east oil of the last 2 decades, and just touch briefly on Vietnam and focus mostly on the social issues of the 60s. Voila, Democrats are the peace party. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> I could barely believe my ears a few months ago when one of my best buddies that I grew up with in this system, devoutly anti-war in 2003 like myself and our other indoctrinated friends, started JUSTIFYING drone warfare & private militarization as an acceptable alternative to US military boots on the ground. Once you have someone caught in the dichotomy of us vs. them in the battle of lesser evil, it's amazing how volatile deeply held beliefs can be with a little rhetorical manipulation.


Well if you had to choose between occupying yemen, oman, libya, and a few other places just for good measure and choosing to accomplish the same objective with drones, which would you choose?

Of course, both choices are two sides of the same coin, which of course means your friend is asking the wrong types of questions.

The first question is, does this even tangibly help us? Is this the only way to go after people who, presumably, are very very bad? Is it really worth spending millions of dollars just to kill a handful of militants? I mean we're dealing with people that consider themselves to be winning if the US had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and incur the hate of the locals against the US just to kill them. I mean you think the fanatics on the "Religious Right" in the US is bad, they got nothing on the fanatics of the Muslim version of the religious right. 

ON THE OTHER HAND!! The American people are allowing the creation of a super national security apparatus to fight these bozos, never realizing that this may one day be used on the American people themselves. No one supporting this thinks they'll ever be labeled a "terrorist" until they find themselves on a watch list they cannot get off of. 

What is happening is that the American people are letting themselves be dragged into a nationalized witch hunt just like the era of McCarthyism. The national security freaks know that someone, maybe themselves, will be ruined for life if another epic attack like 9/11 occurs on their watch, so they do whatever they can to keep it from happening. 

So they adopt policies and propose changes using logic that tries to eliminate ALL the risk from high risk people at the EXPENSE of people who pose little to no risk to national security. If accepted, that logic very quickly converts any representative form of government into a police state like Syria or Egypt.

----------

