Left is scared of Rand - O'Donnell Spends Second Day Tearing Into Him

[daviddee]

...

[juleswin]

I am just going to wait for Rand's response to this attack before making any judgments. I do not like Lawrence O'Donnell but he did make a strong point with solid arguments against Rand. But we will see what Rand's response is.

Anyway, now hes showing a NH presidential poll with one name and I mean the name that you do not say missing in it

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/09aApril/odonnell-ap.001.jpg



Leftist television channel MSNBC made a mockery of journalism and itself after it was exposed blatantly disregarding the truth by distorting the meaning of a non-binding Senate Resolution and the views of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the Obama administration’s United Nations-backed war in Libya.


MSNBC Untruthful About Sen. Rand Paul's Views on Libya (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/6971-msnbc-lies-about-sen-pauls-views-on-libya)


Alex Newman | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
04 April 2011



"There wasn't a vote,” a member of Sen. Paul’s staff told (http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/03/truth-about-senator-paul-and-senate.html) the Free Man in Kentucky blog. “It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution — which is non-binding — was in and out before he made it back to the floor."
...

[sailingaway]

Oh, we have a response or ten. This was a blatant cram down and the text wasn't released prior to it 'passing without objection' which they call 'unanimous consent' and which is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial items.

I'll get a good cite or two.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...d-switched-war

"How the Senate was bait and switched into war
By: Conn Carroll 04/04/11 3:26 PM
Associate Editor Of Commentary
Washington Examiner

Last week, minutes after President Barack Obama explained to the nation why he took the country to war, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) posted a statement on YouTube first noting Obama’s 2007 claim that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation” and then adding: “Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval.”

But the day before on This Week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told ABC News’ Jake Tapper: “The United States Senate called for a no-fly zone in the resolution that it passed on March 1st.”

So who is right? Did the president go to war without any approval from the Senate, as Sen. Paul says? Or did the Senate approve the president’s use of military force, as Secretary Clinton claims?

The answer involves a secretive Senate procedure known as “hotlining".... " rest at link. We ALL should be outraged. This is NOT representative government.

and here's a thread on it: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?285634-The-truth-about-Senator-Paul-and-Senate-Resolution-85.-Lawrence-O-Donnell-owes-retraction.

[Brett85]

I do not like Lawrence O'Donnell but he did make a strong point with solid arguments against Rand.

No he didn't. He's been blatantly lying about this since day one, as has been pointed out over and over again. Why people here give credibility to this hate monger is beyond me.

[jct74]

Here's tonight's latest pile of steaming crap from O'Donnell:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE5-0lik7tw

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42443535

[sailingaway]

No he didn't. He's been blatantly lying about this since day one, as has been pointed out over and over again. Why people here give credibility to this hate monger is beyond me.

This. We have to hit this HARD everywhere we see it. The fact that MSNBC has done this day after day shows they know how vulnerable they are with OBAMA'S OWN SUPPORTERS on this issue.

[jct74]

O'Donnell just finished day #2 of laying into Rand on the Libya issue. It is clear they have Rand under a microscope... looking for anything.

If anyone can shed some light on this please let me know. I was out of the country for most of March so I am unsure as to what he is speaking about.

Actually this is already the 4th time in a week he has been flinging this same doo-doo around. Here are the previous three:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42385868
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42350498
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42330991

[Chester Copperpot]

with all the attention theyre giving rand he might as well run for president. haha

thanks msnbc..

[Matt Collins]

The right is scared of him too heh. (and by "right" I mean "neocons" or big-government Republicans)

[Chester Copperpot]

Where does this O'donnell character broadcast out of.. and do they sell tickets?

[Brett85]

Here's tonight's latest pile of steaming crap from O'Donnell:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42443535

It makes me too mad to watch this guy. What's the summary of what he said?

[juleswin]

No he didn't. He's been blatantly lying about this since day one, as has been pointed out over and over again. Why people here give credibility to this hate monger is beyond me.

Then Rand better take his offer and set the record straight on his show. Because that was a very compelling lie backed up with what look like fact and you know what happens when you tell a lie long and loud enough.

[juleswin]

It makes me too mad to watch this guy. What's the summary of what he said?

Rand is a lying hypocrite and coward who directs his staff to lie on his behalf. He used the word lie so many times that you just might start believing it

[sailingaway]

Then Rand better take his offer and set the record straight on his show. Because that was a very compelling lie backed up with what look like fact and you know what happens when you tell a lie long and loud enough.

He shouldn't go near the guy's show. That guy wants to be the next Maddow incident and controls the microphone, and LIES. Bad combination.

[specsaregood]

Then Rand better take his offer and set the record straight on his show. Because that was a very compelling lie backed up with what look like fact and you know what happens when you tell a lie long and loud enough.

Fail, you don't go on enemy territory when they are a known liar and have full editorial control of the content. HE can get his message across on much friendlier networks/shows who also have higher ratings.

[Sola_Fide]

I can't look at this idiots face. Anybody care to give me a quick rundown?

[sailingaway]

Further, think what O'Donnell is saying -- clearly 'Senate' isn't Congress. Clearly a motion 'passed without objection' isn't the proper means to authorize war in any event. O'Donnell is saying 'ignore that if Rand Paul should have objected earlier. If he should have magically objected during the 40 second read of the title (with no mention of a no fly zone) into the record, then he shouldn't speak now. We should be OK with Congress not having authorized military action, if only Rand Paul should have objected then.'

That is insane.

[specsaregood]

Rand is a lying hypocrite and coward who directs his staff to lie on his behalf. He used the word lie so many times that you just might start believing it

The fact is, you can't blame this unconstitutional war on Rand or the Republicans or even Bush. They own it and it is gonna hurt them. No matter how many lies they tell it isn't gonna stick. Esp. not after the amendment the democrats just tabled to shutdown debate on the topic. This Odonnell douche can foam at the mouth all he wants.

[sailingaway]

I can't look at this idiots face. Anybody care to give me a quick rundown?

not from me, I'm not watching. I know what happened, now.

[low preference guy]

Then Rand better take his offer and set the record straight on his show.

LOL. No. Why should Rand help a nobody get ratings for his show that nobody watches, just because he lied about Rand?

[low preference guy]

Just watched. It's just a bunch of lies, lies, and more lies, one after another. The strategy is obvious: repeat it non-stop and hope something sticks. But it won't convince anyone, except those who will dislike Paul no matter what.

Favorite quote:


So today, 90 senators voted consistently with what they voted on in March 1, and 10 contradicted themselves, including Rand Paul.

Actually, the part I laughed the most was when Larry'O extended an invitation to Rand to go on the show, as if there's a snowball chance in hell that would happen.

[sailingaway]

.

Favorite quote:

So in other words he is just lying again since there was NO VOTE previously.

[specsaregood]

LOL. No. Why should Rand help a nobody get ratings for his show that nobody watches, just because he lied about Rand?

So you don't advocate giving a dog a piece of pupperoni after it craps on the floor?

[jct74]

God, no wonder this guy has zero ratings. He has such a creepy stare into the camera, especially when the camera starts doing that slow zoom in on his face, and his voice/tone is so grating to the ears, such a miserable person. Absolute torture to listen to.

[sailingaway]

God, no wonder this guy has zero ratings. He has such a creepy stare into the camera, especially when the camera starts doing that slow zoom in on his face, and his voice/tone is so grating to the ears, such a miserable person. Absolute torture to listen to.

I listened to one of them, it was enough.

[Trigonx]

I hate how slow he talks as if he is telling the absolute truth and every word must be listened to and believed. I could only watch about 60 seconds of one of his first nights lying about Rand.

[Inkblots]

Ugh, that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back. To those asking for a content summary, he basically uses various conjugations of the phrase "Rand Paul lies" about 80 times, mentions the name of his website about 60 times, says that the resolution including the sentence "calls on the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory" satisfies the Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war on Libya (WTF?), and last, but not least, implies that Sen. Paul - who, if I recall a prior post at Free Man in KY correctly, had not even received the final draft of the resolution which included the reference to the UN considering the possibility of a no-fly zone, and was not on the floor to object when it was rushed through in under a minute - voted to declare war on Libya by not objecting, and so is a hypocrite for saying the President had no Constitutional right to go to war.

Anyone who suggests it would be worth Rand's time to appear on the show of anyone this stunningly dishonest needs to brush up on their PR skills.

[jct74]

I hate how slow he talks as if he is telling the absolute truth and every word must be listened to and believed. I could only watch about 60 seconds of one of his first nights lying about Rand.

LOL, yes. Rachel Maddow too, she always talks like such a know-it-all, except she talks real fast and in a much more snarky/perky tone. O'Donnell is the absolute worst to listen to though.

[daviddee]

...

[Chieppa1]

LOL. No. Why should Rand help a nobody get ratings for his show that nobody watches, just because he lied about Rand?

Not only do I agree, but I think this should be Rand response quote. Just not in first person.

[acptulsa]

The right is scared of him too heh. (and by "right" I mean "neocons" or big-government Republicans)

And people wondered why some of us were all for Obama beating McCain last time. Now we can beat on the people 'our party' and the people we need to win over for the primaries consider 'the sole enemy'. This is so much more comfortable a position to be in. We don't get to point out the hypocracy of our friends in public because they're not getting much chance right now to expose their hypocracy. Instead we have Obama, who is as rich a fount of hypocracy as the nation has seen since Nixon. Our cups runneth over!

[acptulsa]

I don't know what makes O'Donnell think a U.N. resolution is an adequate substitute for a Congressional Declaration of War, but the Constitution and I differ. Perhaps he believes the U.N. can trump the Bill of Rights, too. I don't know and don't trust him enough to want to find out.

What more needs to be said?

[sailingaway]

I don't know what makes O'Donnell think a U.N. resolution is an adequate substitute for a Congressional Declaration of War, but the Constitution and I differ. Perhaps he believes the U.N. can trump the Bill of Rights, too. I don't know and don't trust him enough to want to find out.

What more needs to be said?

Heck, it even violated Article 2 of the UN charter which prohibits interfering in the domestic matters of a member state.

[acptulsa]

Heck, it even violated Article 2 of the UN charter which prohibits interfering in the domestic matters of a member state.

Ha! You're right.

That's what more needed to be said. Interfered in the internal affairs of a member state. This one!

[sailingaway]

Ha! You're right.

That's what more needed to be said. Interfered in the internal affairs of a member state. This one!

Yeah, well, and Libya is a member state, too....

[acptulsa]

Yeah, well, and Libya is a member state, too....

Oh, them. Poor kids. This'll teach them to ask liberals for help. I guess they thought it was a joke when Reagan said the scariest words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help...


'It has just become almost impossible for a country to have a nice, home-talent revolution among themselves without us butting in.'--Will Rogers

[ronaldo23]

LOL to those claiming that Rand should go on O'Donnell....you apparently never saw Schiff and Ron's interview.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYEtTkanDx0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYFTfiU11KE

[terp]

Interesting that O'Donnel is going nuts on the 9 senators who "changed their mind", but doesn't take issue w/ Obama's hypocrisy on this issue.

[sailingaway]

and ignores the Constitutional question because his entire point is distraction.

[Brett85]

Interesting that O'Donnel is going nuts on the 9 senators who "changed their mind", but doesn't take issue w/ Obama's hypocrisy on this issue.

He won't criticize "the chosen one" on any issue.

[jct74]

This is up on Mediaite. Most of the commentors think O'Donnell is a d-bag.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-o%e2%80%99donnell-claims-sen-rand-paul-owes-his-staff-an-apology-for-making-them-lie/

[sailingaway]

This is up on Mediaite. Most of the commentors think O'Donnell is a d-bag.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-o%e2%80%99donnell-claims-sen-rand-paul-owes-his-staff-an-apology-for-making-them-lie/

Thanks.

[RPIdeaMan08]

I threw up a little

[MaxPower]

O'Donnell just won't let this go, and the irritating part is that a great deal of the liberal public now believes this garbage. We may be looking at a couple of driving forces, here:

First, the people behind MSNBC may be afraid of the influence Rand might have on their audience; Obama has just taken a move straight out of the classic neoconservative playbook which most liberals purport to hate, while Rand has put himself out there making an impassioned and eloquent argument against Obama's actions (pointing out the president's rank hypocrisy while he's at it) that many of these MSNBC-ites, if they were to shut off the blare of the mainstream media and stop to listen, would actually agree with. This could, if left unchecked, lead to a drop in support for Obama, and even precipitate some defectors to the libertarian cause. As such, these folk are quite desperate to divert attention from or even deny Obama's quite real and quite serious flip-flop while working to discredit the messenger.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff." -Marcus Tullius Cicero

Second, O'Donnell gets to generate interest in his program by making a provocative attack on a high-profile Senator, and would probably very much like to goad Rand into coming on the show, given the tremendous ratings boost the prospect entails.

If I were in Rand's shoes, I think sheer rage would drive me to take up his offer, go on his show and point out the (quite numerous) falsehoods and glaring holes in his arguments, though admittedly there is a good likelihood O'Donnell would somehow spin the interview such that most of his (partisan left-wing) audience would still think he was right.

[sailingaway]

RAnd shouldn't reward bad behavior, of course. Who in their right mind would want to go on this guy's show? He's the new Olbermann.

[AdamT]

Meet your new enemy.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/09aApril/odonnell-ap.001.jpg

[LukeP]

To me this indicates that O'Donnell is the goto propaganda man from Obama's Administration to carry their talking points. They are smart enough to recognize this could be a big issue either as in impeachment or reelection and want to believe that they haven't royally screwed up. They hope they can just shoot down any criticism on this but they have really met a formidable foe with Rand. As I observed in the KY election, throwing lies at Rand just points the magnifying glass on him and eventually just makes him look that much better.

[Bman]

I can't even watch that crap. O'Donnell and Ed are the two worst personalities ever let to have their own shows. Why they don't move to a different country is beyond me.

[speciallyblend]

Here's tonight's latest pile of steaming crap from O'Donnell:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE5-0lik7tw

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#42443535

makes me want to bash the you tube screen in but in the end that means my computer gets pounded:(