It was an interesting story to watch unfold. The media was clearly torn on how to deal with rand Paul on this matter. He was speaking up for civil liberties that liberals historically claim as their home turf so they had to praise his message, while still shooting the messenger.

Rachel Maddow did her best by calling Paul a flawed messenger and Matthews of course talked about how rand talked about hitler and if there is one thing a liberal loves to do is talk about how you can't talk about hitler, because you know,he's like voldermort, if you speak his name he actually existed.

In the end the media settled on the classic line of, well Paul is just another tin foil hat tea party guy, repeat it enough and plenty of people will believe it. I wonder if the media could ever look back on history and look at all the things they have called crazy that now exist, both good and bad.

I guess that is the problem of the liberal, never thinking about the future only thinking about the struggle to get there.

The corporate-owned media doesn't care about individual rights. They care about making money. So it would make sense to label somebody who believes in small government as a lunatic blasphemer. Also, liberals aren't really liberal. They're social democrats. Real liberalism prioritizes rights over everything else, while liberals tend toward utilitarianism and change through an authoritarian large government: either on the local, state or federal level. I like the label progressive better for them.  All of their endeavors for rights include group rights, through the anti-borgouis social marxist policy called critical theory. 

Damn. I bet that left a mark.