Rand Paul

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell: Rand Paul Is 'ridiculous, sick, paranoid'

|

Rage, rage, against the dying of your light. ||| Mediaite
Mediaite

Was it a momentous occasion Wednesday when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) drew praise from Rush Limbaugh to Code Pink, from Van Jones to Jennifer Rubin, by forcing the Obama administration to cough up at least some ball-advancing if unsatisfying answers about how and when it feels OK about assassinating American citizens on U.S. soil? MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell thinks so. And not in a good way: "It was the first time the black-helicopter crowd out there had one of their own, speaking into a Senate microphone," O'Donnell hissed.

Watch O'Donnell's vein-throbbing support for Paul-bashing Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), then enjoy it as his less-conservative guests, E.J. Dionne and Ryan Grim, come to Paul's defense:

Reason on Paul's filibuster here.

NEXT: Bin Laden's Son-in-Law to Appear in NY Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Somebody criticized TEAM BLUE? Larry has a sad.

    1. Take it easy on Larry. This is most likely the first time he has had people on who disagreed with him.

  2. Rand Paul must have really hit a nerve based on all the hysterical shrieking from the usual suspects.

  3. HOLY SHIT THIS IS EMBARRASSING.

    1. Agreed, the wrong person was asking questions about the drone program and to the wrong administration!

    2. He’s only following orders!

  4. “It was the first time the black-helicopter crowd out there had one of their own, speaking into a Senate microphone,” O’Donnell hissed.

    Uh, Lawrence? I don’t own a black helicopter.

    1. Is Larry going racist?

      1. He’s a socialist. He’s always been racist.

  5. That alt-text is so optimistically retarded it is making me physically ill.

    Don’t be a sucker, Matt.

    1. I think it should say “He’s been called a drone so many times that he took personal offense at Rand’s comments” or something similar.

  6. I don’t like the name Lawrence, only faggots and sailors are called Lawrence. From now on you’re Gomer Pyle.

    1. You’re so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece!

      1. Are you allowed to eat jelly doughnuts, ifh?

    2. I didn’t know they stacked shit that high.

    3. “Did your parents have any children that lived?”

    4. I bet you’re the kind of guy that would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around.

  7. “‘To somehow allege or infer that the President of the United States is going to kill somebody like Jane Fonda, or somebody who disagrees with the policies, is a stretch of imagination which is, frankly, ridiculous,’ McCain said Thursday morning on the Senate floor.”

    I’d like to know how visiting a country the US is at war with, wearing that country’s uniform and brandishing a weapon isn’t as good a reason for a drone strike as any other.

    1. Better than most reasons I’ve heard. Or just decide to bomb the gun she was posing next to.

    2. Jane was never an “imminent threat”.

      1. You mean she wasn’t an “immediate” threat. We both know “imminent” means whatever the Obama administration wants it to mean.

      2. Probably not by post-911 standards, AssCement. They shrug off accidental deaths like a fat nerd absent-mindedly excretes gallons of diarrhea while playing WoW.

        1. They shrug off accidental deaths like a fat nerd absent-mindedly excretes gallons of diarrhea while playing WoW.

          So something like this?

      3. She didn’t have to be dipshit. You need only be a “leader” to be considered an imminent threat. More importantly, she was not on US soil. Al Alwalaki was not an imminent threat either.

        Killing American citizens for being propaganda agents for the enemy. That is your legacy jackass, own it.

        1. As Rand Paul said, Al Alwalaki was not protected by the US Constitution while in Yemen.

          1. So that gave the President the right to kill him even though Yemen was allied country and not a combat zone? By that logic they could have killed him in Paris too.

            Shut up you murderous little retard.

          2. “As Rand Paul said, Al Alwalaki was not protected by the US Constitution while in Yemen.”

            “There was a man named al-Awlaki. He was a bad guy, by all evidence available to the public that I’ve read, he was treasonous. I have no sympathy for his death. I still would have tried him in a federal court for treason and I think you could have been executed.”

            Don’t make shit up, there’s a transcript

            1. OB doesn’t need to read transcripts, he knows the truthiness of his words no matter what icky evidence has to say.

          3. As Rand Paul said, Al Alwalaki was not protected by the US Constitution while in Yemen.

            Bull fucking shit! IIRC, he went out of his way to say that Al Alwlaki should have been charged (at the least) and tried (optimally) before he was just executed.

            And what about his son, who was killed at a different location some time later? What did Paul say to give the thumbs-up to that murdered American minor?

            Christ, shrike. You’re down the rabbit hole. And by “down”, I mean you have your dick in, and by “rabbit hole”, I mean Obama’s asshole.

            1. Technically, doesn’t Shriek have Obama’s dick in his asshole?

            2. Christ, shrike. You’re down the rabbit hole. And by “down”, I mean you have your dick tongue in, and by “rabbit hole”, I mean Obama’s asshole.

              FIFY

      4. Jane was never an “imminent threat”.

        Did she ever fully renounce her actions? If not, she is still an “imminent threat” according to the Executive:

        Where the al-Qa’ida member in question has recently been involved in activities posing an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, and there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities, that member’s involvement in al-Qa’ida’s continuing terrorist campaign against the United States would support the conclusion that the member poses an imminent threat.

    3. Somebody didn’t actually listen to what Rand said.

      1. Yeah, I was going to reply, but what’s the point since the our park camper obviously hasn’t actually been paying attention.

        1. “Yeah, I was going to reply, but what’s the point since the our park camper obviously hasn’t actually been paying attention.”

          Rand’s point was that nobody knows the criteria the POTUS uses to determine a target is an “imminent threat”. I simply reiterated the same point.

          1. We know a little bit. We know from the Al Alwacki memo that being a “leader” whatever that is makes you an imminent threat, which is complete bunk and is the kind of thing liberals used to get angry about when we did it in Vietnam. But apparently doing it with Americans is just a ok.

    4. My father was overseas serving his second tour as a B-52 pilot when she posed for that picture.

      We don’t allow Jane Fonda movies in our household, as you might imagine.

      1. Let it go. She was young and stupid.

        1. Let it go. She was young and stupid.

          Stupid is forever and she was 35. I ain’t too fond’a Hanoi Jane and actions have consequences. There is nothing she did either before 1972 or after that is required watching.

      2. I wonder how many innocent villagers she killed, compared to your father?

    5. I’d like to know how visiting a country the US is at war with, wearing that country’s uniform and brandishing a weapon isn’t as good a reason for a drone strike as any other.

      Because Jane Fonda is white. Everyone knows assassination is only for minorities.

  8. It’s been interesting (and occasionally surprising) to see who actually has principles, and who is just a partisan hack.

    No surprise in this case, though.

  9. O’Donnell, you are no Sean Hannity. Leave the outrageous lies to the wingnuts.

    1. Like “missile defense doesn’t and cannot work?”

    2. hey look, squirrel! fox! sean/rush!

      Deflect and distract. Not nearly as catchy as shock and awe, but a hell of a lot more accurate.

    3. I see you managed to survive the crippling depression triggered by watching Dear Leader be so disrespected. How does it feel now that you and your fellow pro-regressives have been thoroughly unmasked for the fascists you are?

      1. I’m not a progressive, you dumbass. I am against SS/Medicaxx, against affirmative action, against all other social programs, pro-corporate, pro-wealth, and solidly capitalistic.

        As I have stated I vote for the most secular capitalist running.

        I despise Aborto-Freaks and Christo-fascist war-mongers (the GOP).

        1. I’m not a progressive, you dumbass.

          You have to stop saying this shit. It is too funny and ridiculous even for a retarded sock puppet.

        2. you are full of shit; may want to take out the plug as it your system is experiencing huge levels of backup. You are so pro-Obama and pro-Dem that you make Van Jones look moderate. Everything you claim to support is opposed at every turn by the very people you vote for.

          1. Tip for you two little sister-boys, millions of us pro-market types are not chained to your GOP plantation.

            1. GOPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!1!!1!! It’s the new BOOOOOSH!!!!11 Say the magic incantation, and any criticism goes away!

            2. right…because everyone here is so pro-GOP all the time.

        3. pro-corporate, pro-wealth, solidly capitalistic…. I despise… Christo-facist war-mongers

          This is all bullshit. You continuously defend people who despise any large company or accumulation of wealth, you defend government control of the economy, and you regularly fellate and defend a Christian facistic war-monger. You’re such a liar.

          1. FUCKING INSANE! I regularily admire Buffett, Soros, the Google founders, and dozens of other “wealth accumulaters” and anyone sane here can attest to that. You dumbasses live in a bubble where anyone who ever voted for a Democrat is a Marxist.

            1. Like I said, you regularly admire corporatists who suck at the government teat (Buffet, Soros) while calling for more governmental control that benefits them. Wealth accumulation through political dealings is not capitalism.

              1. Buffett and Soros have 1/20th the lobbyists that the Koch’s do. They are investors – the Kochs are rent-seeking inheritance twins. The Kochs have government contracts galore.

                You’re out of your league with me on corporate knowledge.

                1. Yeah, lobbying to deregulate so the only way they can get money is by convincing people. SO corporatist, amiright?

                  Meanwhile, Buffet and Soros just HAPPEN to “invest” in government-funded boondoggles, but THEY’RE the rampant capitalists.

                  You’re out of your league with me on corporate knowledge

                  I bet you get a lot of tips when you’re ready to get off your knees.

                2. You’re out of your league with me on corporate knowledge.

                  How’s FSLR working out for you? Made any money shorting gold yet?

                3. They are not twins

            2. I smell urine.

              It’s almost as if a raving lunatic, with urine stained pants were screaming at the walls again.

        4. When you start hyphenating random words by adding the letter “o” to the first one, you’ve already lost.

          1. You liberto-freaks and your commento-actions are ridiculouso-nutty! WIN!11!1!

      2. Why are you guys interacting with the Internet equivalent of the urine-stained homeless guy shrieking “Booooosh, Boooossshh” at the wall?

        1. That’s a FAQ here. I can only assume it’s because it’s so damn entertaining to throw rage-grenades at them for making idiotic comments.

    4. Your comment is so mind-numbingly idiotic and pointless, buttface. How do you even remember to breathe?

      Seek help.

  10. “Angry McCain ups ante, calls Paul, Cruz ‘wacko birds'”

    “‘It’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,’ McCain told Huffington Post’s Jon Ward”

    Wouldn’t want to leave all the ad-hominem attacks for Lawrence O’Donnell now would we.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..le/2523661

    1. I cant decide which is more entertaining McCain’s little meltdown or the progressives who suddenly find themselves agreeing with him.

      1. Option B. McCain has always been that way.

    2. “It’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,” McCain told Huffington Post’s Jon Ward.

      Is that a quote from John McCain, beloved cranky Grandpa of the left-media? The same John McCain who ferried a huge crew of sycopant reporters with him on the “Straight Talk Express”? The same John McCain that had the left-media on his side enough to run for President of the United States?

      Hey, John McCain… cool story, bro.

      1. I’d take his advice. He’s really good at losing on the national stage.

        …Wait. Shit.

  11. MSNBC should change its name to the Fairy Tale Network.

    1. Well, they do have an over abundance of fairies. Why not have them do something useful like tell tales.

  12. I didn’t watch the 13-hour bat-beating of the POTUS, but I wonder, if it’s “ok” to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil with a missile, why can’t they just be sniped? Wouldn’t that be cheaper and make it easier to avoid “collateral damage?” If they can do one, surely they can do the other. This doesn’t mean it’s right, but it does mean that drones themselves are not the issue. The issue is the fact that rights don’t exist in the eyes they government and probably have not for a long time.

    I guess part of the unspoken rage here is that using a robot to blow someone away is even more of a bloody vagina tactic than sniping them from 3/4 of a mile away. The fact is, putting boots on the ground, and wrestling the suspect to the ground is the manliest option, but if they were so afraid of an old unarmed Arab they had to chuck his corpse into the sea, obviously any red-blooded american that defies them should be nuked from orbit. What a bunch of fucking pussies.

    1. Yes, the technology is not the issue. Someone about to unleash a bucket of anthrax in the NY subway system should and would be shot on sight if discovered.

      1. That’s worlds away from the power they claim to have now.

      2. you mean like the Times Square bomber who was only caught minutes before the plane took off? Just stop.

      3. Which is totally the same thing as making speeches and sermons on the other side of the planet that may or may not inspire like minded Islamists to carry out terrorist attacks.

        Or for that matter being born to the wrong father. Pathetic.

    2. but I wonder, if it’s “ok” to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil with a missile, why can’t they just be sniped? Wouldn’t that be cheaper and make it easier to avoid “collateral damage?”

      I’m sorry. What did you say again?
      /Randy Weaver’s family

      1. Hence, The issue is the fact that rights don’t exist in the eyes they government and probably have not for a long time.

        1. **ding-ding**

          Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

    3. I wonder, if it’s “ok” to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil with a missile, why can’t they just be sniped?

      Better yet, why not just create a real-life “Treadstone Project”? Just have a bunch of Jason Bournes running around taking out anyone the executive branch decides is a “terrorist”.

  13. Thats why you jsut have to ride it out man.

    http://www.PrivateWeb.da.bz

  14. few things are more fun to witness than someone caught in the act of being himself. You have to admit, though, it’s amazing that O’Donnell can talk what with Obama’s dick being in his mouth.

    1. He can still talk because it ain’t that big, eagle.

      1. Bullseye!

      2. No. He can still talk because Obama’s dick is in O’Donnell’s other mouth.

        1. Well sloopy, I just threw up. I hope you are happy.

          1. He’s only happy if you threw up on a Michigan fan.

    2. Some of you are fixated on Obama’s penis.

      1. Someone who is so afraid of people that he has to usurp the power to nuke them from orbit without a trial is obviously compensating for something. I’d say the same if Bush did this bullshit. Hell, he probably did, but (somehow) he didn’t have the audacity to publicly claim it.

        1. you bring up perhaps THE point – Paul would have said the same thing even if Bush or some other Repub were claiming this power. The Dems are on board with it because it’s their guy who would have it; they would be howling were a Repub trying to do this. The GOP, meanwhile, is okay with this power on its face, which explains the McCain clown show.

          1. If McCain insists on hanging around he should be required to wear a big red rubber nose and some size 47 shoes. He’s completely useless, he may as well supply some entertainment value.

      2. It’s probably hard for you to see when you’re choking on it all the time.

      3. Do you understand the concept of irony?

        1. It’s ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

          Or something like that.

          1. Or Palin’s Buttplug telling somebody he is fixated on Obama’s penis…

    3. Other than a little marble mouthiness it doesn’t seem to affect his speech much.

  15. The President and Holder are so fucking idiotic. The really could fuck up a cup of coffee. The fact is that yes some extreme circumstances, the President would have the right to tell the military to whack an American citizen. If an American citizen hijacked a plane and was flying towards New York, we would probably shoot it down. But that is the kind of decision you hope you never have to make. And it also the kind of decision that is best left ambiguous. You do not want to set a precedent that the President can kill Americans. But at the same time it is conceivable in some extreme circumstances that he might have to. So what you do is leave the question ambiguous. You never answer that question because any answer will either set a dangerous precedent or be a lie. But this administration is so power hungry and so fucking incompetent they just can’t help themselves from saying stupid damaging shit.

    1. just as frightening is the majority silence in Congress over this power. Paul and a few others are the minority.

      Dems say nothing because it’s all about Team with them. A good many Repubs, the Cheney/Bolton types for example, think Obama is onto something.

      The watershed moment isn’t that a president thinks he has the right to kill an American citizen. It’s that so many folks have to be reminded by a few Senators that this is problematic.

      1. The watershed moment is not that the President understands that in some cases he may have to kill an American citizen. Every President knew he had that power. The difference is every other President up to and including Bush was disturbed by that thought and didn’t want the power memorialized. This President loves the idea and wants to write it down and set it as precedent. And in our legalistic, immoral civil culture, that is very dangerous.

      2. God, Bolton. Saw that FuckNut on Stossel the other day, and he basically said “might = right” when he brought up the confederacy in some capacity. Like the disingenuous bastard couldn’t imagine a world where the seceding parties weren’t painted as racist slave-owners for eternity. Fuck that guy.

        1. The South were racist slave holding assholes. The fact that they succeeded doesn’t change that. That is who they were. And South’s behavior before the war, doing things like Dred Scott, invading and terrorizing Kansas, and passing the fugitive slave act, marked them as slave owning racist assholes for all eternity.

          Fuck them.

          1. slaveowners, who included some blacks, were hardly the majority of Southerners. I realize it’s hip to portray the South as irredeemably racist but that doesn’t make it true.

            A few of the Founders were among those slave-owners but even they knew the practice had a limited shelf life.

            1. It doesn’t matter if they were a majority of southerners. Their sin was not just slavery. It was also forcing on the rest of the country. How libertarians can defend the people who gave us the Fugitive Slave Law, which was quite literally the worst most anti liberty law ever passed in this country is beyond me.

              What is hip is to portray the South as not that bad and the rest of the country just as racist. And that is bullshit. The South was that bad. It was an anti-American racist aristocracy that got exactly what it deserved.

              1. I’m not “defending” anybody; just calling bullshit on the notion that everyone in the South was a slave-holding plantation master. It’s easy to look at the world through 2013 goggles. But good to know that you support widespread looting, pillaging, rape, burning of food stores, and the like.

                Nothing says national unity quite like ensuring half the country is more fucked than Dresden was, and the leaving it on its own to recover. To say nothing of the suddenly-free slaves who had no idea what to do next, where to go, how to feed their families.

                1. Right. Slavery was evil, but I’m less convinced that killing 3/4 of a million people was the least evil option available for ending it.

          2. The South were racist slave holding assholes.

            What percentage, in your estimation, held slaves?

            1. Doesn’t matter. What percentage supported slavery? Just because most of them were too poor to own slaves doesn’t get them off the hook

              1. And what percentage in the North were racist fucks? Just because they couldn’t own slaves doesn’t get them off the hook.

                1. By all objective historical information, people in the North were just as racist as those in the South and were an essential part of the slave trade and the enforcement of slave laws and the degredation of Black citizens.

                  This is obviously an emotional issue for John, though, not a logical one.

          3. That wasn’t the point. The point was that resisting the government = “YOU ARE ALL A SLAVE-OWNING RACIST PIECES OF SHIT WHO DESERVE TO BE PILED IN HEAPS LIKE CORDWOOD AND SET ABLAZE.” Not ALL southerners owned slaves, and although most (99%?), might have been racist (don’t know, don’t care because IT’S 2013), I’m sure the North were not paragons in that regard. Lumping people together in groups and claiming they are all evil and claiming it’s ok to murder them is shit statist sociopaths fucking do.

            Fuck that piece of shit Bolton.

            1. Here is the thing Drax. If you support succession do it. But don’t hitch that cause to the flaming pile oppressive shit that was the antebellum South.

              Secession doesn’t redeem the South. It is just that the South shouldn’t destroy the notion of secession.

              1. The issue here is that THEY (you?) hitch the idea of secession to the South.

                I’m sure if I lived at the time with the same world view and I had some amount of testicular fortitude (probably not likely with my genetic makeup), I’d be happy helping escaped slaves into the North. But that’s a cartoon fantasy. The reality is, statist violent fucks like Bolton are happy beating that idea over people’s heads to claim the only way out is through his colon of bullshit.

            2. Lumping people together in groups and claiming they are all evil and claiming it’s ok to murder them

              You know who else…

        2. Might actually does make right man. That’s whole point behind not supporting gun control.

          It’s true for nation-state as well. Why else is North Korea not free and Cuba still under the jackboot of Castro?

          And might is going to make somebody right in Syria.

  16. It’s unfortunate that the majority of Americans agree with Larry. A senator spends almost 13 hours on the floor speaking about freedom and liberty and the media’s big story is “Rand Paul: Attention Whore Seeks Attention.” If I were Rand, or anyone else with the means to do so, I would pack up my life and GTFO with a hearty “Fuck you all!” Move to a relatively safe place, wait for the country to collapse, then come back and try to jump-start one of the new nation-states that forms after the collapse.

    1. I am not sure a majority do. “The President should not kill Americans” is the kind of short, simple, message that gets through to even low information voters. Retarded freaks like Shriek don’t understand that. But I think most Americans do.

      And the other issue is that McCain and the President have been so idiotic in their defense of this. They have basically said “well of course the President can kill our enemies” like that is anything but question begging.

      1. But I think most Americans do.

        I think you’re overestimating your fellow citizens. People simply do not want what Libertarians are selling.

        1. If you notice, even the President backed off a bit on this. I think they are buying this and this is not particularly “libertarian”. A lot of non libertarians are disturbed by this.

          1. John, in this case, you. are. wrong. Sorry.

            The Mgmt

  17. Golly gee, I wonder if the leftist press would be acting differently if the question had been posed to Bushitler instead of the current president.

    1. Look, we’re not supposed to waterboard these people, but a drone strike is just okay.

    2. I seem to recall that Sen. Dick Durbin was cheered on the left for comparing Guantanamo to Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and Pol Pot’s killing fields.

      Of course, he was criticized for minimizing the horror of the Holocaust, but otherwise the left was fine with it.

      And, of course, everybody was fine when Kennedy said of Abu Ghraib: “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.”

      And the Bush=Hitler meme …

  18. Breaking news! Lawrence O’Donnell’s still a statist asshole.

  19. O’Dumbel has to misstate facts to back up his indignation. First he pretends that the administration answered the question before the filibuster – the question was what powers the Pres has, and the administration just said “well, we wouldn’t do that, though maybe we can. 9/11!”

    He suggested McCain came up with the Jane Fonda analogy, though it would have actually suited O’Dumbel’s case better to acknowledge Paul brought it up. Anyway, Fonda did at least the same kinds of things Awlickme did – propagandize for the enemy and posing holding an enemy gun on enemy soil.

    And the reference to the Tea Party is in the context of why an innocent person (eg, a Tea Partier) mistakenly categorized as a drone target should have the right to a fair trial. In a world where terrorists can be mistaken for film critics, Lord only knows what mistakes may go into making the kill list. In a world where even juries can make mistakes, are we to believe that an anonymous civil servant putting names on a list won’t make errors?

    If O’Dumbel has such a compelling case, why did he have to be so creative about the facts?

    1. You can tell this hurt them badly or they wouldn’t be going so insane over it.

  20. As long as people like McCain and Graham are still ostensibly in charge of the GOP there is no point in voting for the GOP, as you might as well stick with the morons of the Democratic Party. Of course I don’t think McCain and Graham give a shit either.

    1. You are aware that the MSM loves Graham and McCain because they don’t represent mainstream GOP opinion, yes?

  21. I thought I could not hate the GOP more than I did. I was wrong. We’re not allowed to even ask for clarification of a policy that, by the administrations own admission, includes the possible killing of Americans on American soil (presumably because the Fed Govt has declared them “members” or “a leader” of a terrorist group)? And to do so makes us crazed conspiracy theorists?

    Yes, John McCain, it’s crazy to think the govt or agents of the govt would kill someone for any reason other than imminent threat. Because that’s never happened before. Fuck!!!!!

  22. This filibuster has been one of the best things to happen in politics in a LONG time. It has essentially become a litmus test, and you can get a sense of whether a person has any principles at all based on their reaction. O’Donnell is filled with loathing, therefore he’s obviously a Team Blue government-worshiping fuck. Jon Stewart had kind words, so he had a smidgeon of integrity somewhere. John McCain foamed at the mouth about it because he hates the idea of questioning presidential authoritah, while Ted Cruz spent most of the day helping because he prefers the rule of law to the rule of men.

  23. Lawrence O’Donnell engaging in blatant ad hominem tu quoque (Rand Paul would never have critized Bush!), argumentum ad lapidem (Rand! You so CWAZY! I won’t say why you CWAZY, but you CWAZY! Rand Paul is stark raving mad!), association fallacies (OMG! Rush agrees with you! That makes you WRONG!).

    In other news, water is wet.

  24. Shorter Lawrence O’Donnell: sell crazy somewhere else, we’re all stocked up here.

  25. I had a patient yesterday who had Fox News on in the room, and just kept bashing Paul all day long. Complete unrelated, I may or may not have had a really hard time finding a good IV site, and had to keep sticking the person over and over again. And I may or may not have been using an 18-gauge needle.

  26. Is there more vile, despicable, power fellating, boot licking, Obama fluffing toadie on the face of the earth than Lawrence O’Donnell? I’m having a hard time coming up with one. What a fucking douchebag.

    1. Nevermind, I came up with one after perusing the rest of the comments on this thread. See: Shriek, above.

  27. O’Donnell is just a fanboi, like half of what passes for talent at PMSNBC. He doesn’t oppose Paul’s message — that’s why he tweeted about standing with Ron Wyden — he just hates Republicans. There’s no value to his message outside of the station’s lefty feedback loop.

  28. Who is worse O’Reilly or O’Donnell?

    Hands down O’Donnell. O’Reilly is not as easy to pen down.

  29. Howe did you come across this vid? I didn’t think anybody watched O’Donnell.

  30. Normally, I would agree with Mr. O’Donnell. But at present, we have a president who, apparently, sees political advantage in causing harm to the American people.

    If a president can do that over a couple of percentages points; what will he do with an armed drone flying over everybody’s head?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.