Thales Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Looks like it's paying off having a new office in Washington D.C. Here is the email I just received from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: Dear ARC Subscriber: RadioAmerica’s G. GORDON LIDDY is devoting a SPECIAL BROADCAST of his nationally syndicated three-hour talk radio show to Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and understanding the current state of events through the lens of Objectivism. The broadcast will air live on Monday, November 17, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m., Eastern Standard Time. The Ayn Rand Center’s Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate, Elan Journo, Thomas Bowden and Eric Daniels will be the exclusive guests for this extended broadcast. They will discuss the financial crisis, Bush’s claimed defense of capitalism, today’s challenges to free speech, and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other topics. The broadcast will air on 200 radio stations across the country as well as on XM satellite radio (on a delayed basis). Live streaming audio will be available on http://www.radioamerica.org/ or at http://www.radioamerica.org/PRG_ggordonliddy.htm. G. Gordon Liddy encourages call-in questions from listeners across the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) Pretty damn interesting! Maybe it'll start something like... "Mr. Liddy will not speak to you today. His time is up. I have taken it over. You were to hear a report on the world crisis. That is what you are going to hear." Edited November 14, 2008 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) Excuse my language, but what the flying f*ck? Giddy is a f*cking domestic terrorist. He was one of the guys that broke into the Watergate hotel, and has openly called for the death of police officers. Why are they sanctioning this guy? ARI's lost their damn mind. Edited November 14, 2008 by Capitalism Forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils_Advocate Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Pretty damn interesting! Maybe it'll start something like... "Mr. Liddy will not speak to you today. His time is up. I have taken it over. You were to hear a report on the world crisis. That is what you are going to hear." "My name is Yaron Brook. You are probably asking, 'Who the hell is Yaron Brook?'" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) Mammon, are you referring to this comment: After the federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, Liddy advised his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." Edited November 14, 2008 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Giddy ... Why are they sanctioning this guy?Of course Liddy is an idiot, but I the ARC definitely does not sanction the show by going on it. In fact, I would hope they would spend as much time as he will give them, telling him why he is wrong on many things. Sometimes an opponent like Liddy will invite one on a show (as Laura Ingram did to Provenzo). If one has the stomach and the skill, the best thing is to take them up on it. Provenzo was not sanctioning Ingram, nor is the ARC sanctioning Liddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Of course Liddy is an idiot, but I the ARC definitely does not sanction the show by going on it. In fact, I would hope they would spend as much time as he will give them, telling him why he is wrong on many things. Sometimes an opponent like Liddy will invite one on a show (as Laura Ingram did to Provenzo). If one has the stomach and the skill, the best thing is to take them up on it. Provenzo was not sanctioning Ingram, nor is the ARC sanctioning Liddy. I think they are giving some sanction to Liddy by appearing on the show. I've only listened to him a few times, but from my recollection he is not unreasonable as a rule. He does employ logic explicitly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 I think they are giving some sanction to Liddy by appearing on the show.Okay, but what does "sanction" mean here? What exactly can we construe them to be saying about Liddy, if one were to frame it as a sentence? What could we construe Provenzo to be saying about Ingram when he went on her show? What about when Obama appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show? Is the sanction something like: "you are someone we will deign to talk to, because there are some among your audience who we might want to reach", or was Obama giving Bill O'Reilly some larger sanction than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Okay, but what does "sanction" mean here? What exactly can we construe them to be saying about Liddy, if one were to frame it as a sentence? What could we construe Provenzo to be saying about Ingram when he went on her show? What about when Obama appeared on Bill O'Reilly's show? Is the sanction something like: "you are someone we will deign to talk to, because there are some among your audience who we might want to reach", or was Obama giving Bill O'Reilly some larger sanction than that? First, let me say that I believe Liddy will be much better than Ingram. Liddy is more philosophically rigorous than Ingram. Regarding sanction, what they are doing is giving Liddy a level of trust that he will allow an honest broadcast of Ayn Rand's ideas. So, they are sanctioning him to that extent. They aren't sanctioning Liddy's ideas, since they are explicitly advocating Objectivism. So, I agree with you there. However, I'm wondering if Liddy has recently discovered the philosophy and maybe it's growing on him. If so, more power to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 ... what they are doing is giving Liddy a level of trust that he will allow an honest broadcast of Ayn Rand's ideas.Fair enough... they're going on assuming (or at least hoping) that he will give them a chance to actually present their side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Fair enough... they're going on assuming (or at least hoping) that he will give them a chance to actually present their side. Yes, and if he doesn't they can refuse to go on again. Then again, if the show goes well, they might return multiple times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Regarding sanction, what they are doing is giving Liddy a level of trust that he will allow an honest broadcast of Ayn Rand's ideas. Is hoping or giving him a chance the same as sanctioning? It could be that they are going to appear with a 'let's wait and see' attitude. It may also be that if they were aware that Liddy was going to present views on Ayn Rand that they wanted to have the opportunity (if presented) to put some check on his premises. I personally would only consider them sanctioning him if they did not challenge some information that he presented which they knew to misrepresent her or her philosophy. I wouldn't expect them to be philosophically forgiving just to get air time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Oh my gosh, I just had a chuckle reading his bombastic personal website description of himself. Read it, it gets goofier the further it goes on. An Israeli trained paratrooper who has jumped with the elite Israeli army, Liddy has the NEED FOR SPEED. He drives a 200mph sports car and rides two Harley Davidsons, has piloted a Soviet aerobatic plane and World War II allied and Luftwaffe aircraft. The G-Man has been there, done that, and taken home the Tee shirt. In any case, I'll eagerly look forward to listening to ARC's discussion with Chuck Norris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Of course Liddy is an idiot, but I the ARC definitely does not sanction the show by going on it. In fact, I would hope they would spend as much time as he will give them, telling him why he is wrong on many things. Sometimes an opponent like Liddy will invite one on a show (as Laura Ingram did to Provenzo). If one has the stomach and the skill, the best thing is to take them up on it. Provenzo was not sanctioning Ingram, nor is the ARC sanctioning Liddy. Well, they better be really hard with him. I don't like this at all. It looks kind of like Liddy is showing the ARI around like their his pals you know? Being associated with Liddy is going to hurt the ARI's reputation. What's going to happen is that because they appeared on the show, people are going to associate them with Liddy... who endorses John McCain as well. Why doesn't the ARI appear on more liberal talk shows? I think appearing on all these talk shows, and the fact that a lot of these hosts supposed make references to Rand puts us to close to the conseratives. "We don't want to be seen with that crowd" is a way to put it. Fair enough... they're going on assuming (or at least hoping) that he will give them a chance to actually present their side. Or Liddy is going to expose them as liberals and plant listening devices into the ARI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 I mean, I know any publicity is good publicity. I know going on a show like this is a way of activism. But, I'm entirely sick of seeing right-wing pundits using Rand and that making us look bad. If the Provenzo it then that will be fine, if Liddy compares to Galt then we are going to have a PR diaster on our hands. Mammon, are you referring to this comment: Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Fair enough... they're going on assuming (or at least hoping) that he will give them a chance to actually present their side. Well, he is giving 5 guys from ARI exclusive access to his entire 3 hour show, so they will have ample opportunity to present their views on a range of subjects. Liddy is not Ingram, and this is not some 5-minute interview where the host can just shout them down. He doesnt operate that way. I suspect that many people here will have an entirely different view of Liddy after the show airs. He is a very interesting and thoughtful guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 (edited) Well, they better be really hard with him. I don't like this at all. It looks kind of like Liddy is showing the ARI around like their his pals you know? Being associated with Liddy is going to hurt the ARI's reputation. What's going to happen is that because they appeared on the show, people are going to associate them with Liddy... who endorses John McCain as well. Why doesn't the ARI appear on more liberal talk shows? I think appearing on all these talk shows, and the fact that a lot of these hosts supposed make references to Rand puts us to close to the conseratives. "We don't want to be seen with that crowd" is a way to put it. Or Liddy is going to expose them as liberals and plant listening devices into the ARI. I don't think they have to be hard on Liddy as such; I mean not for any opinion he does not express during that show. Since he is the host, he is not on trial, the ARC is. So, to the extent that he offers any counter-argument during the show, they have to be strong on that. They simply have to be strongly uncompromising on their own positions. From what I've seen on the folk from ARI, they will do so. For example, they will not spend time trying to sell the idea that they share common-ground with Liddy and his audience, without strongly pointing out the serious disagreements. You've got to look at this appearance as one early step in a process lasting years. If some people make the wrong association after one show, they will change that notion over time. I would imagine that the ARI would be more than happy is a very popular liberal talk-show host gave them time on a show. With these things, one usually sends out feelers, but the host makes the decisions. Good idea about those listening devices, they need to destroy the complimentary pens that say "Liddy" on them, and burn all their clothing when they leave his offices. Edited November 14, 2008 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 I would imagine that the ARI would be more than happy is a very popular liberal talk-show host gave them time on a show. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...rviews_hartmann But that's just me thinking Thom Hartmann is a liberal. By Mammon's standards, he's probably a dangerous ultra-right-wing extremist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Is hoping or giving him a chance the same as sanctioning? It could be that they are going to appear with a 'let's wait and see' attitude. It may also be that if they were aware that Liddy was going to present views on Ayn Rand that they wanted to have the opportunity (if presented) to put some check on his premises. I personally would only consider them sanctioning him if they did not challenge some information that he presented which they knew to misrepresent her or her philosophy. I wouldn't expect them to be philosophically forgiving just to get air time. Sanction is formal and explicit approval, so I think that they are approving of him to the point where they will go onto his show and present their views. They don't have any problem engaging with him for three hours in a presumably friendly manner. Remember, Liddy is a well known person and has been for some thirty years. Hey, I think this could be a good show. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...rviews_hartmann But that's just me thinking Thom Hartmann is a liberal. By Mammon's standards, he's probably a dangerous ultra-right-wing extremist! Hartmann is a clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Excuse my language, but what the flying f*ck? Giddy is a f*cking domestic terrorist. He was one of the guys that broke into the Watergate hotel, and has openly called for the death of police officers. Why are they sanctioning this guy? ARI's lost their damn mind. 1. So he was a burglar, who was punished, and there is no way you could reasonably expect that he will do it again. How does that make him a domestic terrorist? Which large american population did he terrorize? Was he involved or did he support the only act of domestic terrorism of the past decades, the Oklahoma City bombing? 2. Or is this quote your argument? "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."(august 26, 1994) While I disagree with him on what happened at Waco, on which he is free to have any opinion if he wants (that isn't illegal), I do agree with the statement, which basically says people should defend themselves against tyranny. The statement did not cause the violence at Waco, since it was made a year and a half after that was over. So where's the act of terrorism? P.S. He explained his statement in more detail here: "I was talking about a situation in which law enforced agents comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated." 3. As far as calling for the death of a police officer, that isn't worse than calling for the death of anyone. Police officers are not special, they have the same exact rights we have. If someone, anyone is an immediate threat to your life, you are within your rights to kill them in self defense. The fact that they are police officers is irrelevant: if you have a problem with him calling for someone's murder, the issue should be that, not the victim's profession. And please, prove that he's calling for murder, and explain why he hasn't been prosecuted in a country in which that is quite illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Hartmann is a clown. And so is, IMO, another person I mentioned in that post. BTW, what does "Organizer" in red letters mean? Is that something like what Obama was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Going onto a show isn't a sanction of the person except to say he isn't some sort of criminal. I don't like Limbaugh, but I'd be thrilled to hear that the ARI was getting a lot of publicity there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 BTW, what does "Organizer" in red letters mean? Is that something like what Obama was? (I have been given the explanation in private.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 [lots of questions] Good luck getting an answer to your questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tps_fan Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 What's going to happen is that because they appeared on the show, people are going to associate them with Liddy... who endorses John McCain as well. Why doesn't the ARI appear on more liberal talk shows? I think appearing on all these talk shows, and the fact that a lot of these hosts supposed make references to Rand puts us to close to the conseratives. Ahhh, so you are afraid that there will be a "guilt by association"-type of fallout? Do people normally think of Ayn Rand as "that gal that fraternized with Johnny Carson"? Was AR some sort of a sellout for deigning to be interviewed by _Playboy_ magazine? I wouldn't use the term sanction since I don't take ARC to be endorsing Liddy. I think ARC is willing to trust or figure upon the notion that Liddy can deliver a nationally syndicated radio broadcast which will give them a fair shake at further exposing AR's ideas to a wider audience. Don't conservatives constitute a substantial portion of the audience that ARI and ARC (and we!) want to reach? Oh, and let's not forget that ARI staff have gone on "Air America", so no, they aren't simply focusing on one part of their audience or one type of radio broadcast. Just consider the scope and context of the event, and you might reconsider.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.