Your video, Lawrence O'Donnell discusses Russell Brand's "Revolution", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

A better description might be "Lawrence O’Donnell criticizes The New York Times for claiming there are witnesses that back up police stories without ever producing a whit of evidence to back it up."
I'm guessing these mysterious 'witnesses' are actually only officer Willson's account, but if they admit that it's too obvious how misrepresented, self serving, and untrustworthy these 'corroborating witness statements' are.

Your video, Lawrence O'Donnell - What Constitution says about treason, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

Lawrence O'Donnell is a bad actor.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NetRunner:
Paul defines honesty in starkly ideological terms. You're "honest" if you agree with him, or attack people he disagrees with. But if you believe in liberal causes, or support Democratic politicians, you are by definition some nefarious agenda-driven hack who doesn't care about the truth.
Do you mind if i interrupt to ask where he's said that?
This isn't a jibe or challenge. I just like a man who doesn't give fucking slippery answers and this dude seems to be the first politician i have seen in my life who doesn't give slippery answers. You're implying he's slippery, and i don't want to fall for it, so i would appreciate enlightenment.


I took that from this, starting around 0:53:

The more liberal stations some of them wouldn't dare want to talk to me because their agenda is Democratic party politics and they're not for liberty, they're just for Democratic party politics and big government. But even on those stations, you will have a few very honest people.

Which is followed by his comments about Stewart being "honest" because "when the left really messes up, he loves to go and get 'em." Because apparently it's rare that liberals ever deviate from just toeing the line on "Democratic party politics".

Because, you know, nobody like Olbermann, or Maddow, or Cenk Uygur, or Ed Shultz, or Lawrence O'Donnell, or Sam Seder, or Thom Hartmann, and nobody on blogs, or anywhere else has ever "gone after" Democrats for screwing up.

Granted, I didn't get my entire view of Ron Paul from this video alone. I've been listening to this guy off and on for years now.

I guess I know Paul best from the Campaign for Liberty e-mail list. See, way back in 2007, I used to think Paul was a different kind of Republican -- a softer, kinder, more honest sort, who would be willing to work with liberals on important issues, so I signed up for his e-mail list. Back then, the e-mail he sent out matched that first impression.

At least, they did right up until Obama became President. Ever since it's been 3 years of pure vitriol and hatred. Here's some highlights from one from earlier this year:

Fellow Patriot,

Big Government took a huge leap forward in 2010. And you and I will suffer the consequences unless we take action today.

You see, the statists look for every opportunity to gain more power over our lives – and they found another one in the ObamaCare scheme.

It is a huge step toward a full takeover of our personal medical decisions, as well as a massive tax increase and a huge loss of liberty. It will also cause further destruction to our already fragile economy.
...
Please read the email below from Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. Campaign for Liberty has a great plan to help me win this fight, but they are going to need every Patriot in our Revolution to join them.
...
[Letter from John Tate that Paul wants us to read]
Dear NetRunner,

The ObamaCare scheme is designed to do two things statists love more than anything else: vastly increase the size and power of government and give our federal masters more control over our personal business.

Power over our very lives.

It's getting harder and harder for them to conceal their true intentions - and people are waking up to it.

You and I saw the results of this in the recent elections, giving us an opportunity to take action.

Ron Paul has a plan to fight back and END THE MANDATE, but Campaign for Liberty needs your help today to get the battle really moving.

You see, the debate over nationalized health care isn't about what Congress wants to "give" Americans.

It's not even about health care at all.

It's about power.

It's about what THEY take.

It's always been about what they take.

And their "take" is staggering.

Delightful bunch of two-faced psychopaths, if you ask me.

>> ^marinara:

Laurence is lying. no?


I figured when I clicked the link on the e-mail I'd see that your comment contained a link to something to back that claim up. Guess not.

Seems pretty dickish to downvote the video just 'cause you don't like what it says, especially when it was obviously not going anywhere anyways.

>> ^bobknight33:
Netrunner What bull shit Hey lets bait the guest then nail him. Good lord dude. Thank GOD no one watches this pathetic network, except idiots and intellectual fools.


People do watch this show--they just don't sit and worship Fox News like most conservatives; they actually have lives and don't masturbate profusely to the Glenn Beck... All hyperbole aside, you watch yours, and please stop whining about other News shows.

And despite you being right, and despite Goodlatte being very smart and articulate--the Representative IS wrong about the constitution. In fact, so are nearly all the Conservatives and Liberals out there--Tea Party and other.

The constitution is a document of "Can not" for the government. They cannot search and seize without due process, they cannot infringe upon free speech, they cannot force you to worship a cow god--or have a judge find you guilty for that offense alone, etc. It is a law for government. However, that said, if the "law" is not on the books, then the fucking constitution does NOT prohibit!

Basically, Goodlatte get's this simple concept ass-backwards. He thinks you must prove that a law applies to the LAW. Problem is, his porn laws, and most "moral" laws out there--unconstitutional by his standards. For example, EVEN IF porn is not protected by free speech, the Constitution still does not allow him to censor because he cannot get it up himself (Where does the constitution allow the Federal government to stop me from masturbating in my own home? See, not there...)

But seriously, this is sooooooo not a fail...

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Duckman33:
Wonder if Cenk will get his slot.

The new lineup is supposedly:
6pm Cenk Uygur
7pm Chis Matthews (unchanged)
8pm Lawrence O'Donnell
9pm Rachel Maddow (unchanged)
10pm Ed Shultz
Which give us, as someone at Balloon Juice put it, "FDL-style nonsense at 6pm, Beltway Spazz and nonsense at 7pm, Arrogant Insiderism at 8pm, Rachel at 9pm, and Angry Dude at 10pm".
In the short run, I just wanna know about what's happening to Keith because I like the guy, but in the long run I wanna know if MSNBC intends on being a real liberal voice, or just a caricature of liberalism that the media uses to perpetuate false equivalencies with Fox.
Choosing Cenk as their backfill for Keith has me worried they're going for the latter. Give Chris Hayes or Sam Seder a show instead, bitches.


Hey. I like Cenk, or at least the stuff that gets sifted from him.

>> ^Duckman33:

Wonder if Cenk will get his slot.


The new lineup is supposedly:

6pm Cenk Uygur
7pm Chis Matthews (unchanged)
8pm Lawrence O'Donnell
9pm Rachel Maddow (unchanged)
10pm Ed Shultz

Which give us, as someone at Balloon Juice put it, "FDL-style nonsense at 6pm, Beltway Spazz and nonsense at 7pm, Arrogant Insiderism at 8pm, Rachel at 9pm, and Angry Dude at 10pm".

In the short run, I just wanna know about what's happening to Keith because I like the guy, but in the long run I wanna know if MSNBC intends on being a real liberal voice, or just a caricature of liberalism that the media uses to perpetuate false equivalencies with Fox.

Choosing Cenk as their backfill for Keith has me worried they're going for the latter. Give Chris Hayes or Sam Seder a show instead, bitches.

BTW, if you got a real "West Wing" vibe from this, there's a reason for that -- Lawrence O'Donnell worked as a writer/producer for The West Wing in his years between being a Congressional staffer, and going to work as a contributor for MSNBC.

>> ^dag:
I appreciate these kinds of lies being put down hard. The wingnuts get traction when there isn't a strong voice to expose disinformation. (Swifboating for example) Welcome to the culture war- we're taking ground little by little.


Tell that to Rush Limbaugh. I think he's almost completely marginalized now. NOT.

Your video, Lawrence O'Donnell - The Disgrace That is The Cheneys, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There is no possible way for any intelligent person to possibly disagree with anything Lawrence O'Donnell says here.