well Duhhh…

I’m not a big Paul fan, but in his defense I think he’s been pretty clear:  He’s personally against abortion, but thinks it should be decided by the states.  That second part is about as libertarian as it gets.  In fact, I bet there are plenty of libertarians that feel the same exact way.

I wonder how many times fake newsman O’Donnell has called out fake comedian Bill Maher for being a fake libertarian himself.

What will the Paul Bots do when Crazy Uncle Ron sells them out at the GOP convention to Romney in a bid to secure the VP slot for Rand?

Ever since the Ron Paul Cult started a few years ago, I have consistently maintained that he is 50% libertarian. He is libertarian in economic matters. He is conservative in social matters.

The most revealing thing about Ron Paul, in my opinion, is that he was invited to be the keynote speaker at the John Birch Society a few years ago. Ron Paul would never be on the Libertarian Party ticket … and there is a Libertarian Party.

I think Ron Paul is a Republican. He is GOP all the way; otherwise, he’d run as third party candidate.

Is he supposed to care?  He is running as a Republican, not to measure up to whatever Lawrence thinks a libertarian should be.  In fact, he is a paleoconservative Constitutionalist, but the Constitution is a pretty libertarian document.

Didn’t I hear Ron Paul say last night that the morning pill was indeed contraception?

NEVER

Dr. Racist Newsletters 2012!

I’m a registered libertarian and I’m pro choice, but if your personal convictions tell you that a life begins at conception – then it’s not a matter of freedom, it’s a matter of taking a life.  It’s actually not hypocritical at all.

I am not buying that one.

Last night he correctly stated that the morning after pill is not an “abortion pill.”

You are not paying attention. Ron does not buy the bullshit conception argument.

if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The
law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the
states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very
early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after
pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special
manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless.
Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or
her own moral choice.

No one in TV Talking Head Land has had or is having any more fun during this GOP contest than LO’D.

Lawrence again trying so hard to stop people to vote for Ron Paul to save his job. Pushing the mainstream narrative that people only like Ron Paul cause he wants to decriminalize the use of Marijuana. Never fails its election time & its only about Pro Life vs. Pro Choice there’s no other issues.

OK?! 

Nothing fake about Ron Paul. He calls it like he sees it.

I am in favor of jobs and prosperity as a way to reduce abortions. I certainly think its worth trying.

The only fake I seen in this.. O’Donnell thinking he is some sort of Journalist?

Here’s why the ‘leave to the states’ argument is bull shit: 

If it’s under the Constitution, then either a right is a right of US CITIZENSHIP, no matter where you live, or it’s no right at all. Leaving it to states means leaving it to states to take away; they maybe won’t take away that right, but eventually, given time, they will, rest assured of that – because in democratic political systems the tyranny of the majority becomes like the tyranny of the mob, rising up periodically against minorities to strike out at them. This is not a matter of the way republics work, it’s a matter of how HUMANS work, & probably all member of the Great Ape family – hell, probably all animals, no matter how remote from human or strange to us (California? Meet Prop 8.) 

[Is this “under the Constitution”? The Supreme Court says there’s a right to privacy under the Constituion. I know of no one who disagrees with that … okay, no one except maybe identity thieves, Google, & the National Security Agency. But other than them … Anyway, the Supreme Court extended that right to privacy to choice in what you do with your body. You’re all for that, right? Or at least, FOR YOUR OWN SELF – you just don’t like what OTHERS do with that choice. But here’s the thing: that’s tough for you, but that’s the way it’s got to be. If you want your OWN privacy, you’ve got to grant the same privacy to others. That’s the deal with rights – if they’re rights, everyone gets them, not just you.

You don’t know much about Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is pro-Liberty.

1st, Ron Paul did run on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.
2nd, does ending the drug wars sound socially conservative to you?  What about ending the ban on prostitution?

LOL, what a moronic thing to say.

No, you didn’t hear that.

Killing unborn babies is not a Libertarian value.  Try again.  Or don’t.  I won’t be watching either way.

Except that Ron Paul supports defining life as beginning at conception under federal law. That hardly fits with “leave it to the states to decide”.

of course he’s not a libertarian!! thats why he’s fighting to be the republican nominee and not on the libertarian ticket duh!!

of course he’s not a libertarian!! thats why he’s fighting to be the republican nominee and not on the libertarian ticket duh!!     

Rand for VP not enough but if it comes with Paul becoming the FED Chairman we may take it.  Highly, highly unlikely considering Romney is at the opposite end of the spectrum.  Dr. Paul attacks Santorum because Santorum started spreading lies about Dr. Paul, just the way Newt did.  If  Romney does that his fate is similar.  Don’t fall into the Bromance trap, it was created by Hannity, Limbaugh and we all know how much they like Dr. Paul.

http://ronpaulflix.com/2012/01/senior-campaign-advisor-doug-wead-with-andrea-mitchell-on-msnbc-jan-12-2012/

^^^CHING CHING! we have a winner!

Then read his statement I quoted above.

considering it’s the delegates who choose and most so far are so called “paul bots”  i don’t think we have to worry about being sold to romney because most of us are off the attitude of ron paul or none at all, and were just not going to choose someone we see as being a sort of obamney, oops i meant robama oops imean were not gonna choose the same old shit americans have been choosing for 50 years cuz the way we see it every one else is just the same shit from a different asshole

The hell if he does

“early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after
pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special
manner.”

Well, there is Republican, there is democrat, Liberitarian….and there is RonPaulican a blend of the best from all parties.

why is it moronic?

For those that care to find the truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY 

Does O’Donnell mean fake like 90% of the media coverage on Ron Paul? This tv talking head is just as guilty as majority of FOX news.

You just made turk281′s point!

No I didn’t. I refuted it.

Rand as V.P. and Ron finishing out as Secretatry of Treasury or Chairman of the Fed…. I could live with that.
Romney does have management skills, and may be a savvy politician if he realizes he can’t advance without Paul’s youth movement!

Ron Paul knows what is best for women.  He’s an OB/Gyn. 
He’s got more time between women’s legs than Wilt Chamberlain!

 Very True, and I am glad to see that he takes the pragmatic position on this.

I didn’t know he ran as Libertarian in 1988. I have heard he favors legalizing marijuana. I know he would want USA out of United Nations. I also know he believes in Mises School of Economics and supports DOMA. I know enough about Ron Paul to believe his view of economics would raise the interest rate and the resulting additional debt would be devastating.

If I had to vote Republican, I’d vote for Paul; but I don’t have to vote Republican.

Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced the “Sanctity of Life Act” in the House, which would “provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception”. It’s failed all five times he’s proposed it, but the fact that he’s proposed it five times is a pretty good sign it’s something he believes in.

Wouldn’t Ron Paul becoming the Fed Chairman be a massive act of selling out? After all, he wants to abolish the Fed.

Then there is some bad information circulating. That quote is suppose to be from his book “Liberty Defined”

http://www.dailypaul.com/180123/can-no-longer-support-ron-paul-morning-after-pill

Here is a quote from the Washington Times, regarding the debate:

“Paul noted that the morning after pill is nothing more than birth control.”

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/feb/23/2012-cnn-arizona-gop-debate-solid-ending/

Noticed his use of the word ‘immorality’ too. But he continued reaffirming his stance on gov’s interference in people’s private business.

Not inconsistent with libertarianism stating where one stands but drawing the line at government mandating behavior. His support of legalizing drugs does not mean he endorses their use

Someone needs to rewrite old Larry O’Doodles playbook.  This has got to be some of the most patently dishonest, cherry-picking, ninja-style audio/video editing “reporting” of all time.  For this knucklehead to claim Paul is anti-sex is just plain absurd.  O’Donnell knows good and well that when Paul speaks to the “immorality” of sex he is speaking in terms of sex out of marriage, sex with multiple partners, one-night stands, etc.  He is calling these actions immoral; not any sex had without the strict plan for procreation.  And to call his pro-life views fake libertarianism is equally ridiculous.  The pro-choice position is right in line with many libertarians who feel that the civil liberties of the unborn child should be protected from harm.  Again, O’Donnell knows this.  He is just desperate to get something on Paul.  And because no one can call him out his record, Larry has to resort to this type of bullish!t argument to try and take him down a peg.  Why doesn’t O’Donnell try calling out Obama.  He says he’s anti-war?  Obama escalates wars.  He’s with OWS?  Obama is in cahoots with Wall Street fat cats.  He’s for equal rights for gays?  Obama won’t do more than basic low-level pandering to the gay community.  He’s certainly not out there championing their right to marry.  He may find that this “fake” libertarian has more in common with him than he’d like to admit.  But he’ll never admit that b/c he’s not about the policies; he’s about the guy wearing his jersey.  To O’Donnell it’s just red vs blue.  Gotta score as many points for blue no matter what.  If anyone is a fake, it’s this dipsh!t.

Oh, and I just love how he name-drops Penn Jillette like that gives him some sort of instant cred with the libertarian crowd.  Trust me, Larry, Penn may agree with you on abortion rights, but he would school your skinny white tail all over Rockefeller Center on every other position you hold.

You’re missing his point.  He is saying that it is not a matter for the federal government.  His position isn’t dependent on whether he thinks life begins at conception or birth.  It’s whether it’s constitutional for the federal government to dictate the legality of abortion.  And he clearly believes that the abortion issue is not a federal issue.  The same as he would say that legalized gambling or drugs would also be issues to be decided by the state.

Abolish the FED is a long term goal.  He is not going to abolish it overnight.  That would cause chaos.  Politics is a chess game.  You need to keep sight of the end goal.   So what can Paul do as FED Chairman.
1.  When the politicians create the deficit they turn to the FED to print money.  With Ron Paul in charge he will deny them the money.  So what choice do the politicians have?  Cut spending.   Small government, check.2.  When America wants to go to war they need the FED to print the money.  Again same argument as case 1.  No unconstitutional wars, check.
Just a side note http://www.bombiran.org/ 

3. Return power to states.  I am not sure how Ron Paul can accomplish this as a FED chairman. But he could allow competing currencies.  States can issue their own currency, some states are trying to get legislation like that right now.  This may be a first step.  

But I think accomplishing 1 and 2 will be great and that would provide plenty of time to educate rest of the sheeple.

Because what you are implying is not true.

Today the Libertarian Party is pro Choice and supports keeping Big Brother out of a woman’s womb. Something seemed odd about Paul being on the Libertarian ticket … but you are right. Back in 1988, there was a “conservative” and “liberal” split in the Libertarian Party. Today, Paul is more GOP than Libertarian. I believe in balance somewhere between 100% privatization and 100% public ownership … and Paul does not represent balance.

“Competing currencies” are flagrantly unconstitutional.

Abortion is the only issue he appears to be less than libertarian on and now Ron Paul, the avid economic and social libertarian, is a “fake” one. Please, this argument is whack. 

Must every member of every party toe the party line on every issue? I am a pro-choice, affirmative action, semi-isolationist  Teabagger. There only seems to be 2 choices on election day though.

I think both of those are actually conservative ideas.

Drugs for example, you could double the budget for the Drug Enforcement Agency and it probably wouldnt change the price or availability of illegal drugs one little bit. Abolishing the DEA would accomplish the same thing, nothing. Quit passing unenforcable laws and creating government agencies to enforce them.

francis is gonna have to do better than that to make people forget about “the obama deception.”

peace and happy 420

Ron Paul 2012 

That’s the most forced and laughable pathetic “hatchet job” ever. Watch it again for yourself O’Donnell. You were stretching so far your face looked like it would snap like a rubber band…It might have been more plausible if you were 4 years old when you (or more likely your boss) wrote it and if I’d only been 4 years old when I watched it, though to be honest, the Teletubbies have more relevance and credibility than your comments.

“I want to fundamentally change America” – Mitt.

5 minutes to go in the last debate and he blew it.

I’m libertarian on social issues and RP is NOT lib on abortion. He’s almost as far right as the craziest teahadist minus the coercion and violence. Gary Johnson to me is the true libertarian candidate. Pro gay marriage, pro-choice. RP’s position is that of a constitutional conservative NOT a libertarian. We do not want ANY government (fed, state or local) telling us how we can behave in our bedrooms or personal lives. RP thinks the local and state govts can. I do not like the use of the word morality in politics….ever! That to me is always a warning signal. 

I find Ron Paul to be sort of a compromise candidate. Both sides can find things they like and dislike about him. 

Lawrence O’Donnell, warped by his ‘personal-as-political’ progressive Marxist ideology, claims that Ron Paul’s pro-life stance makes him a ‘fake libertarian’ and that he would shove his personal views on morality down everyone’s throat! (Personally, I believe the pro-life position is the libertarian position) He, like the rest of the leftist mainstream media, has a poor understanding of libertarianism and just wanted a strawman to knock down. What he and other pro-aborts don’t realize is that you can’t have the right to liberty without the right to life!

then why do he and his weirdo son go around claiming to have libertarian views?

Ron Paul is against murder but still believes states decide punishment.

It’s the same with Abortion.  Get the Federal government out of it.

While Paul would ADVOCATE for states to make abortion a crime, 

He would take the LIBERTARIAN position of letting each state decide for itself on the

punishment for such an abortion depending on the timing of said abortion.

But I did not watch the video because I can’t stand fake Odonel.

I agree with your analysis. Exchanging tyranny from the federal government for tyranny from the states is not really making much progress.

Besides, the 14th Amendment protects the rights and freedoms recognized by the Constitution from abuse by the states. You don’t hear many states’ rights enthusiasts talking about either of these issues very much.

libertarianism is the stupidest political position one can hold. It is misses the point of social organisation, so it quickly ties itself in knots. Abortion is a tough issue. Should a government tell the woman who carries the fetus and then the baby what to do with her body and the pregnancy? Does the government has the duty to protect the unborn? When does life begin? How do you balance these things? Whatever shoice you make, someone’s rights are going to be violated. Social decisions are like that. You make choices that are less than perfect because the world is a complicated place if you don’t want a free for all. Liberterianism is a dumb idea.

Privacy does not extend to your ability to harm another person.  It also apparently doesn’t extend to your ability to ingest a large number of substances that the federal government doesn’t think you should be able to ingest, but I digress.  

If you believe a fetus is a person, then your right to “privacy” does not justify destroying the fetus anymore than it protects you drowning a three year old in your bathtub. If, however, like many people, you believe a fetus is just some tissue, or a non-human parasite like a tapeworm, then destroying it is certainly within the rights of the host.  When does an object become a person is a difficult question with no answer that will satisfy everyone; hence the belief that communities and/or states are better equipped to find consensus.  Further, if you agree that the fetus becomes a person at some point before birth, then harming one is an act of violence, no different from assault committed at your local neighborhood barroom.  Definitions and penalties for these acts are the purview of the states, not the federal government.  I believe this is Paul’s position in a nutshell.  Hardly nutty or insensitive.  

Libertarianism is far better than what the democrats or republicans have to offer, you sheep. We’re pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-civil liberties, anti-war, and fiscally responsible. 

And no, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I’m backing Gary Johnson for president.

Why? Same reason, as always, courtesy the death of Snot Boogie in season 1 of The Wire: This is America! IOW: 

marketing.

It sounds cool with the idealistic yutes of the nation, turned off by politics as usual, looking to the politics of unusual: politics made of apparent rationality, or superficial; whatever man, so long as it’s consistent & doesn’t reek of hypocrisy. Alternatively, looking to the politics of the really really simpleton minded, or to the weird & the wonderful uh-uh-uh-unusual** – in deference to those hirsute loners in the plaid shirts with guns racks in their Chevy Volts (okay, pick-ups) running personal security for Muhammad Ron Paul. Indeed, it sounds so cool cool cooly cool boy, even superficially analytical [in fact merely super-informed] voters like David Weigel lately at SLATE claim to have voted for him (That’s mean of me: I’ve no reason to doubt Weigel; ignore the ‘claim to’.). [**Buh-buh-buh-Bennie & the Jets refererence]

Yeah, well, Bob Barr is definitely MORE libertarian then Ron Paul.

There are well intentioned libertarians on both sides of the abortion issue. If you don’t know that, STFU, because you probably don’t know much about libertarianism, and you are just talking out your ass.

For the “official” libertarian position on abortion, see: “Evictionism”, by Walter Block.

Well, I know when I want an authoritative judge on libertarianism, Lawrence O’Donnell is the first name I think of.

No… wait.  Libertarianism isn’t the word I’m thinking of there.  What is the word…?

Oh yeah… it’s “authoritarianism” I was thinking of.  When I want an authoritative judge on authoritarianism, Lawrence O’Donnell is the first name I think of. 

Libertarianism… he clearly knows not Jack Shit about.

You mean the “politically incorrect” newsletters that he didn’t write?

You do know the difference between a big “L” Libertarian and a small “l” libertarian, right?

Now you’re bringing in semantics; what’s ‘life’, what’s not; the line between science & religion.  

Here’s the problem: you’re not going to convince me, & you’re not going to convince another oh 100 million others, no matter what semantical or religious gymnastics you want to go into. As a practical matter, I, and others, take the view that the pregnant woman is already BEYOND ARGUMENT a life, & that other stuff that’s going on inside her is FROM life, is a FUNCTION  of life, but at some point until some other point is not a life like SHE is a life – & meanwhile, it might kill her, or she might not want it, or she might not want to sacrifice her life for it or give up any part of her life for it, or sacrifice the economic well-being of her other children or her husband or lover or future plans …. because it’s HER LIFE that’s being cast onto the line here, satta, not yours, & not the man or boy or rapist or freak or whoever that donated the sperm. 

The Supreme Court drew a line; I don’t happen to agree with that line (Personally, I’d have liked to have seen it drawn it closer to birth, in many case, & even after in some.), but someone had to draw that line, & under our system, that’s the Supreme Court’s job. Harry Blackmun did the most screwed up yet heroic thing he ever did in his whole life drawing that line. Not everyone’s happy with where he drew it, but when tens of millions want it drawn, & where the lives of hundreds of millions of the indisputably “live” – women capable of getting pregnant – are on the line. 

But the fact that this line is drawn where you don’t like it being drawn, at a place that PISSES YOU OFF, is no reason to deny me or more to the point any women who disagrees with you the right to demand of government actors that they do their freaking jobs & draw the necessary line. Governments, no matter whether administrations or legislatures or judiciaries, are there to serve the maintenance of the political system FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE, not to serve some mess of scientistic debating points & religiotic control freakitude on what qualifies as “life”. Slime moulds are life; piles of elephant poop are life; leave your dirty dishes in the sink too long, you get life. Stop with the sanctamony on what’s life; you clearly don’t REALLY rely on science, or else you wouldn’t have your panties in a bunch denying global warming.

We got real no-doubt about it no room to argue live fully formed women here, whose interests & lives are critically, primarily & continually at stake in this, & whose bodies & futures are fully on the line in this exercise. Those woman  are where I start & here I finish as far as setting priorities & drawing lines. Where do you want to draw the line here, ma’m? That’s just fine by me.

Any Libertarian who espouses states rights as a fallback position is a fake. States Rights are more antithetical to individual liberty than the Federals on almost any issue you can name.. Slavery, womens sufferage, voting rights. Throwing issues to the states erodes the individuals freedom as a citizen of the USA and gives it back to Joe Billy Bob and the slap an aspirin between you knees crowd who run the state and local oligarchies that run all the states and remember the fifties as a time when coloreds knew their place and women were ok with being perpetually  barefoot and pregnant. (Was that sentance long enough?)

RP is just another shill for the Gold/survivalist/militia crowd who need something to rage against to define their own lives.

Think it through. 

The spin is so good these days I can’t wait for the final product….Romney or Obama or O’Donnell or O’Reilly. Same shite, different face.

The wonderful thing about libertarianism is you can believe anything you want as long as you do not force your beliefs on others. When did Ron Paul say he wanted to ban birth control pills? Oh wait….

I have a libertarian friend that I discuss things with on a regular basis. My impression is that libertarians are very big on principles and I can respect that. The problem I see is that sometimes it doesn’t easily mesh with the reality of life, mainly because in real life principles collide in certain situations and then we as a functioning society have to choose exactly how we’ll compromise these principles.

I fail to see how allowing states to decide is more in line with libertarian principles. IMO, that would result in terrible inequalities throughout the nation. 

State rights!! said the segregationist.

O’Donnell is ignorant on this subject.  I have been studying the libertarian philosophy for years.  The abortion issue is one of the few issues where you can be “for” or “against” depending on which premises you start with.  Ron Paul’s position is perfectly consistent…just as someone who believes that a fetus is not human or that a woman’s right to control her own body trumps the rights of the baby.

right. because you’re not allowed to hold any views that differ even slightly from your proclaimed party platform. pretty sure it’s the law. 

 …then so is the FED.

Wrong Lawrence:  Libertarians on Sex are NOT libertines — do not equate the two.  Wrong Lawrence, libertarians are not SEX haters either and WRONG again, Ron Paul was NOT saying that all the sex is the immorality.  He was saying and referring to the IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR during Sex the leads to “unwanted pregnancy”.  And gee, the HATE that Lawrence O’Donald feels for Ron Paul is so strong its overpowering to most listeners. But fake newsman we’ve got your number, you hate Ron Paul and ALL libertarians so much because you are an OPENLY ADMITTED SOCIALIST.     We get it.   Socialists vs Libertarians is where the real political battle is and you guys loose.  You Socialist lose on economics, you lose on individual rights.  You lose.  Finally, a full half of libertarians do not support the “right to chose” death for their “unwanted pregnancy”.  Why, because as Ron Paul wrote in his book addressed to libertarians, the libertarian principle is all based upon respecting LIFE and erring on the side there of. You can find Pauls book for free, here:  http://media.ronpaul.se/2012/01/Ron-Paul-Abortion-and-Liberty.pdf      There has been NO answer from those libertarians over at Reason & Cato (not even half the libertarian movement) that explains how you derive a ProChoice position from libertarian first principles which we all know is based upon Life.    Lawerence OD, ….. Bugger Off.

Couldn’t you make the whole “principles vs. reality” argument against  any ideology? I don’t think its unique to libertarians.

While Ron Paul’s failure to point out major flaws in Romney’s fiscal conservative record call into question his “consistency”, O’Donnell completely misses the point.  Ron Paul is a libertarian in the mold of J.S. Mill.  He believes in the harm principle.  As long as it doesn’t directly harm someone else, you can do it.  This does not mean Ron Paul has to jettison his own personal moral views.  Indeed, J.S. Mill himself was quite a prude–even though he was an active supporter of women’s rights.

sorry lawrence i’m gonna have to disagree with you on this. His views on abortion don’t qualify him as a “fake libertarian” that’s utterly absurd. 

I think you could make it against anyone who is excessively zealous about their particular ideology and the principles involved, yes. My observation is that libertarians tend to be that way. That said, I respect Paul’s consistency and people who live by principles in general , far more than people who merely give lip service to principles and then violate them quickly in serving their own interests.

Ayn Rand would be very disappointed.

 It’s pretty unique for libertarianism.  The basis of libertarianism is adherence to principle, specifically liberty and the NAP, and reason, which does not always, as Dan put it, mesh well with reality. 

There’s a reason why science, our best way of understanding everything in the natural world, relies more on inductive empiricism and parsimony rather than deductive reasoning.

By saying I’m not a paul fan, but……..automatically ‘outs’ you as a obvious paulbot. Your comment is exactly why Americans are so scared of the wishy washy, vague libertarian no answer, answers. Paul’s anti-choice ,but it’s up to the State. Does that actually have any meaning? And who exactly is the ‘State’? Who would that be?Well,it does. It means if we get a far reichwing christian nutcases like Paul as dictator or boss or senator or mayor, or whatever libertarians would call the pple who would run and make the laws for each State, we will have States making abortion illegal. That would mean women who have lived all their lives in the same State would have to move if they get an abortion. And where? What if all the States get reichwing nazi’s like paul, where would a woman go? Same if they make homosexuality illegal.. Lived all their lives in the same State and now have to find a new State….and again….what State? What if all the States made it illegal? This is the major part of libertarianism being a bit in fantasy land. And the only answer libs give to what I’ve said above is either ‘they can move anywhere they want’ or ‘that would never happen, trust us’.. That’s the intelligent answer???!!!! You guys are scary human specimens

Yes interest rates would rise under Ron Paul.  You think that is bad?  Well, it is not. 

Currently the banks borrow money from the FED for 0% interest.  Then they loan it back to the government at 3% interest on bonds.

When I was growing up, you could save your money in a passbook account at the local babnk and they paid you 5% interest on your savings.  This encouraged people to save money.  People counted on being able to get a 5% return on their savings.  They planned part of the retirement on that income.

You know how much the bank pays me on my savings today?  0.1%.  You might as well say zero.  Why should they borrow from me when they get the money for nothing from the FED?

The current interest rate are FAKE, just like the value of the dollar is FAKE.

When you allow the government to artifically set the interest, you are saying you trust some idiot in the FED more than you trust the marketplace.

Again, you have your facts wrong.  The Libertarian Party makes NO policy preference about “choice” or abortion.  The main policy of the Libertarian is, “Using FORCE against others except for self defense is wrong”  Using forceps to cut someone’s body into little pieces sounds like force to me.

Balance?  You say that as if “balance” is always a good thing.  That’s like saying let’s have some sin to balance out the good things people do.  Let’s have a little government tyranny to balance out all that liberty stuff.

There should be as little public ownership as possible.  That is the balance we should strive for.  When the public owns something, it means the government used its power to force someone to contribute to a project that they do not support.

There is nothing that the government can do better than free enterprise except enslaving people.  The government should do only those things that the people authorized them to do in the constitution.

First of all , All Capital offenses are state tried , Not federal , o’donnell is slime , he chops sound bites up to make his point , Dr Paul is the most honest , consistent person who has stuck to his guns when it was not cool. For Adolf Odonnell to challenge him is silly , i cant figure out who and what odonnell stands for , he has no values except for his own agenda

Dumbass.  He didn’t say the “State”  he said the “states”  Everyone but you understands that to mean the 50 states.

Larry’s a turd bucket.

****

Why did a blogger unmask Obama’s cousin: Abdullah al-Ahmadi?

And be the one to publish his photo with the Saudi royal prince. Why is a

blogger the only one who found Obama’s uncle’s web address?????

Why did a blogger have to vet Obama and find his uncle worked with Hillary,

Vince Foster and the Bushes…drug running in Mena

Arkansas…electronically clearing bunk securities on 9/11…

WTF is going on with the MSM. Are they retarded?

Read all 8 chapters:

http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/answers/

Wow, one issue that breaks from the Libertarian platform and that makes Ron Paul a fake? I guess under that logic Obama is a “fake liberal” because he doesn’t support gay marriage and Elliot Spitzer is a “fake liberal” since he supports the Citizen United decision. Lawrence O’Donnell is the biggest tool and partisan hack on TV and that’s saying A LOT.

Well said.

O’Donnell stands for one thing: Get Democrats elected.

Lets look at the Federal track record on civil rights: Dredd Scott, Plessy v. Fergueson, segregation of the military, fugitive slave laws (an infringment on state’s rights), Japanese Internment, etc. Some Northern states attempted to nullify fugitive slave laws before the doctrine was invalidated by the Court.  

yes its morals , .the ol man wants to free your labido. .little larry wants to cuss

Liberalism is a failed idea. If you want to know what the end result of the liberal welfare state looks like, take a look at Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. Your government model is in its last days. Good riddance. 

I’m going to stay out of such a hot argument… but as a fan of words and SENSIBLE debate… I’m going to stick up for “semantics.” 

To argue that an argument is not valid or important because it’s based on interpretations of meaning is not just a dodge of the weak, it’s simply a non-sensical rebuttal. 

What, after all, are words but compact representations of complex ideas? And what are we arguing for if not to refine an interpretation or find the true meaning of an idea? 

Any good argument — as in, an argument that has a chance of being productive — will come down to the fine differentiations possible in interpretation. This is how we come to define what’s true. This is, in a word, semantics.

No arguments left huh? O’Donnell completely destroyed Paul and you know it.

From my perspective it is a discussion of legal status, not just semantics.  I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do recognize the ambiguity of the situation and the hypocrisy of those who subscribe to one of the two positions without any doubts or sympathy for those who disagree.  

The important difference between pure semantics and legal status of “personhood” is that all of our protections and our most basic human rights identified in the Constitution come to us through our humanity; because we are people.  There are no natural rights for ponies or oak trees or park benches.  Rights are not conferred to people with qualification: whether they are male or female, black or white, young or old, or even whether they are inside or outside of a womb.  

There is plenty of legal precedent establishing that a fetus is a person. People are convicted of violent crime (manslaughter, murder, wrongful death, etc.)  all the time where the victim is a fetus.  Doctors can be charged with wrongful death if they kill a fetus in the course of treating a pregnant woman.  And yet, you would argue that a woman has every right to terminate her pregnancy – kill that which has legal status as a person in some settings – without penalty or other consideration.  Can you not see the ambiguity and logical inconsistency of such a position?

Here is a thought experiment for you: Imagine a pregnant women is driving to a clinic to have her pregnancy terminated.  On the way she is struck by a drunk driver and neither she nor her fetus survives, although the drunk driver is unharmed.  The police arrest the drunk driver and charge him with a series of crimes including two counts of homicide.  That’s right.  The driver is charged with killing the fetus as if it was a person because according to the law it is a person.  Now, if the drunk driver had stayed at the bar for one more drink, and the pregnant woman had arrived safely at the clinic and had her pregnancy terminated, there is no crime because there is no victim because the fetus is not considered a person.  So are we witnessing some miraculous transubstantiation of the fetus between the car and the clinic or are we hypocrites for sending someone to jail or suing them for “murdering”  a lump of unwanted tissue?

I think we need to be very circumspect of any authority that allows one’s personhood to be arbitrarily withdrawn for the purpose of terminating their life.  With all due respect to the SCOTUS, I don’t think they are capable of coming up with the “right” answer, because I don’t think there is one.

Ron Paul is a fake libertarian. That’s just the way it is. And I know it’s hard but try to defend Ron Paul without mentioning Obama.

Pro-life is a libertarian position?? HA HA!! You don’t seem to understand what libertarians believe in.

Sure he is. Funny coming from a fake Cuban.

 uh…maybe….because….he….has….libertarian….”VIEWS”?!?  idiot alert!!

thank you ! somewhere with a brain on this website

Uhm, when did Ron Paul say the government should stop all abortions? He doesn’t…does Lawrence O’Donnell do research?

 You know that site you keep pushing all over this place is administered by a woman with links to Obama, don’t you?  Go see who the ambassador to the Dominican Republic is…yup, assigned by Obama.  LOL.

I wish you would tell the other libertarians who post here that, because they dont seem to know it. Most of the libertarians I have heard are almost militantly the opposite of most of what you said.

As an OB doctor…

(1) RP was taught in Med School that a pregnant woman is two patients, not one.  With that belief, RP has advocated that both have rights under the constitution.  With that established, abortion would be understood as a violent crime against one of those patients, and violence is punished at the state level.

(2) RP knows that the morning after pill is different that abortion.  It does one of three things:Kill all the sperm which lives in the female up to five days after ejaculation.
Prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Prevent or delay the release of the egg.

…..riiiiight..   .. and how many people watch this fools show ( 5 maybe ) ?!! 

who cares if he’s not a true libertarian??  I’m certainly not a Republican.  Nor am I a democrat.  I’m closest to a Libertarian, but I happen to be pro choice.  So, what am I?  I am the worst sort of person for you pundits; someone you can’t pigeonhole!  =D

Yet Republicans have a real gift for waving the flag and appealing to people who want to return to a simpler time. The problem is that most people who vote Republican want to return to the 1950s. The Republican party wants to return to the 1890s.l

Can anyone here actually point to a libertarian state that is the in the first world? No, so libertarians are really like hippies and free love, and you know how long that lasted.

 There is not right to an abortion in the Constitution.  In fact, the Constitution is completely silent on abortion.  What does the Constitution say about things that it’s silent on?   It says that it leaves those issues SPECIFICALLY to the states.  You can find that language in the 10th Amendment.

 Let me guess.  Public school, right?

 We vote Gary Johnson! (Straight Libertarian)

 Yeah! HAHAHAHAA

Somalia’s pretty libertarian. Anything goes there, and it’s first in the world, in piracy!

And how many fools come here to comment about him while pretending not to care what he has to say?

Aren’t constitutional rights ascribed to individuals at the time of their birth? I.E. a natural born citizen is not a citizen until he or she is born.

The 14th Amendment: All persons BORN OR NATURALIZED in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside.
 
Would constitutional protections exist before citizenship, or personhood? Should they? If so, I think it would require an amendment for this to be true.

What a truly pathetic man. Libertarians reasonably disagree on the issue of abortion because libertarians can have personal beliefs on when life begins. Pro-life or pro-choice has nothing to do with being a libertarian. Like I said, truly a pathetic man, just like most Paul haters who know nothing about libertarianism.

Libertarian views. Read again. You just aren’t very smart are you? 

Thank you, that was very well said.

Citizenship is not required to have protection under the law.  The laws, derived from the constitution, govern and protect everyone within its borders.  Wouldn’t a citizen killing a foreigner on US soil be subject to the same punishment as a foreigner killing a citizen on US soil?
The real question is: does the fetus (which is scientifically alive and human) have a right to life.

I’m sorry but I think you need to look in your specimen cup as I think your sanity fell in there.

 You first, drone.

LOD is not a fake newsman.
He’s a real commentator who analyzes news.
Which is all that he claims to be.
As for Bill Maher, he makes people laugh. or in your case, uncomfortable or angry.
That’s a real comedian.

If Ron Paul were running on the Liberaterian ticket this Larry would have an argument, but Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket.  Besides, no one has to agree 100% with any party.  Ron Paul is the most consistent with the Constitution.  That’s the bottom line.  Lawrence is prejudice because he is fearful of losing his media clout.

Actually you are the dumbass here, if you read his comment, he clarified exactly what he was referring to as ‘states’.

He said this.
“make the laws for each State, we will have States making abortion illegal. That would mean women who have lived all their lives in the same State would have to move if they get an abortion.”

How can you confuse such a direct statement and have the nerve to call others ‘dumbass’.

Exactly, he didn’t write any of those newsletters, just has his signature on them, just paid the editor, publisher, writer, and every other person in that organization who never said a word when they read it and neither did any of his subscribers for many many years, will not reveal who wrote this newsletters or whether he still associates with them.

Right, the string of random amino acids after conception is same as a baby! 

So pro-liberty that he supports DOMA which DEFINES marriage at the federal level.

I’m pretty sure a “Libertarian” with fascist views isn’t a libertarian.

Or is that hard to figure out?

Pro-Liberty? So is basically every other American.

“liberty” is such a stingy trigger word. Free from what? It’s all a fear game played by politicians.

Lul a Dr. who doesn’t understand biological evolution… isn’t a woman, and he happens to know what’s best for them.

Just like I know what’s best for some random person who pays for me to put their servers together. It’s called interjecting opinion while selling your professional services.

duh, difference we have only one federal govt. If the President ever decides to play an Assad or Mao (or …) I hope you can swim! Because the fed has the power of the barrel. Do you want to be running in front of that tank?

If one state goes heywire, at least people can move to another state, and let the leadership will vanish.

don’t get so testy…. he wasn’t even arguing against abortion, he was only stating Ron Paul’s position that its up to the states. if that’s how you want to practice birth control then just move to a state where its legal.

What makes you think Ron Paul is zealous? When we find his views outside the norm yet history keeps on proofing him correct, it is our views we need to examine – not put him down by simply sticking a label on him.

 Zealous is not a necessarily a negative quality. I think politically it can lead to a little blindness to the ideas of others. I have strong opinions , which I suppose could be translated as being zealous.
It’s not an attempt to put him down at all. My limited experience with libertarians has been that they stick to a principle, which can be a good thing, but sometimes adherence to the principle becomes more important than looking at real world consequences of certain choices.
IMO, in real life, principles can conflict.
Such as , we want to help others, but helping to much can create dependency and be enabling of bad behavior. We have to choose where the line is drawn and , being human we won’t agree.
IMO, it’s similar with the abortion issue. We can believe all life , even potential life should be honored , but we also honor an individuals right to choose especially concerning their own body, so two principles , both equally valid, conflict, and we as a society have to decide where the line is drawn, even when we don’t agree.

I agree with Ron Paul on several things and disagree with him on others, but I always respect his honesty and adherence to his principles.

The Constitution should state that the sun is circling around the earth. How ridiculous!

Put them under an MRI and you’ll see a functioning brain and heart. But its not alive?

Let’s not call something what is is not, just for political convenience. This goes beyond the abortion issue. If you play a prank on somebody causing her to lose her unborn should there be no penalty? A pregnant woman binge drinking is not hurting ANYBODY but herself? It’s easy to ignore and it’s easy to mistreat but it’s there.

If the Constitution is supposed to protect Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, wouldn’t it make sense to mention when life begins?

So tell me: when do you want life to be considered “alive”? When is it convenient for you?

Politics IS nothing but morality. You’re still revolting against “any” authority. I feel sorry for you, you’re a child but you think you’re grown up.

he’s as much a fascist as obama is a socialist. in short, bs.

Yes she would have to move. How sad. How inconvenient.

But she would be ABLE to move. Compare that to countries where everybody is forced to be subject to the same laws – No choice.

Besides, why was she living there in the first place, if it is so important for her to have that option? You cannot complain in the middle of the game that the rules are better at the other poker table. Well, you can but nobody will take you seriously.

That is not true…unless you are a complete ignoramus. I am not “revolting” against *any* authority. I want to preserve my right to challenge it wherever it exists and have legal recourse. Morality in politics is ALWAYS introduced and channeled from religious dogma. Feel sorry —  for yourself —  for your own profound mental vacuity.

The conflict is an internal one. The principles may both be heartfelt. But notice that the choice between a good and a bad is obvious. Unfortunately, many times we have to choose between two goods, or two bads. That’s life. Laws, or society as you said, needs to do the same thing in regulating what people are allowed to do, and that’s a difficult task.

That’s why it needs to be done by “50 societies” doing 50 experiments in governing, not one overall society or one national government forcing whatever “they” come up with down our throat. Because every single rule will cause many to be disgruntled (and give undue power to the rule maker).

But since we are lucky to have such “50 works in progress” you and I can make the choice of a set of rules that we want to live by. That choice in itself may be a difficult one. But a lack of ability to choose shows our own limitation, not that something is wrong with the outside world.

What are valid reasons to destroy the “object” in the womb, like we remove tumor tissue? Nobody can tell you what your moral compass should indicate. And you probably want to live in a place where others feel similarly. And with a government closer by, average people can have more easily influence over it. The right to choose your government, to choose your set of rules, gives you the ultimate freedom, where nobody is left to be blamed but yourself.

vacuity….

hey, you’re the one who said “we do not want ANY government (fed, state or local) telling us how we can behave in our bedrooms”. That does not sound quite like “right to challenge” (which everybody on this site is doing).

If your state laws really do that, then just move to another state. Complaining about your own choice is irrational and neurotic (and childish). But do enlighten me about which federal laws prescribe what you can do in the bedroom. And which law is NOT related to morals?

Now, Ron Paul is only running for one office, not 3 levels of government, and nobody even wants to know what you do in your bedroom. If its up to me you can abort every month (hopefully not in the bedroom), its not killing me (pun intended). And sorry, I’m areligious. But do challenge! And grow up.

While I appreciate the point of 50 societies I don’t fully agree. Here’s where idea, or principle, vs reality comes in.

If each of 50 societies were free to make all their own calls we wind up with extreme disparities from state to state Should a state be free to introduce some sort of segregation?
That doesn’t mean I support a federal government making all the decisions and imposing their vision on the states. I think the ongoing give and take, and dialogue is what helps us find solutions, but that requires honest, fact based dialogue.
What we have now is distorted dialogue and facts often based on emotion in order to serve some more selfish agenda. Average citizens need to do more to insist on honest informative dialogue from elected officials and stop supported partisan team sport mentalities. 

Anybody who cares about politics (except those who have vested interest) should vote for Ron Paul because whatever group we are closest to, it would be much more likely to become reality at a state level. For those who represent us, it would be closer driving distance, the powers to fight would be significantly smaller, we understand the social and economic needs of our neighborhood better than those on the other side of the country, and there would be 50 governments to choose from (that really make a difference).

On the other hand, there is only one Washington which attracts corruption. Most of us have no concept of what the lobbies in DC have in terms of reasonable suggestions vs monopolistic tricks. And the congressmen who are supposed to represent us are getting paid in money and sexual favors for voting “favorably.” Worst of all, imagine a future President decides to do something like Assad, Chavez or Mao (or …). The extent of poverty now in the US makes this a frightening possibility.

The alternative to Ron Paul is another major war (possibly the first thermo-nuclear war!), more extremism, more government dependancy, more federal power. This maybe the last time Republicans have a shot before becoming permanently the minority because too many people depend on entitlements and on government jobs the Democrats are providing them thru the Health Care Reform. Democrats will “not waste a crisis” (Rahm Immanuel) and install more emergency measures and gain in the process absolute power.

I wish I could click Like more than once.

Yes, we need fact based dialogue. If your representatives live closer by (in your state, not in DC) we can 1) have a better dialogue, 2) eliminate much of the influence by Washington’s lobbyists, and 3) address issues and defend interests more specific to your state.

What you call disparity I call diversity – which offers choice. Actually, I think if something works in one state (e.g. natural gas as an alternative fuel) people in other states will demand “Lets copy that idea.” The 14th amendment prohibits segregation but if it didn’t, then we would be able to pass such an amendment. Remember, you would be able to hold their feet to the fire. Worst case, the Constitution also protects your right to move to other states. The guys in Washington have an approval rating of 9% but they’re not afraid of losing their jobs because we . just . don’t . have . a . choice, they have the power.

Rude awakening: these issues may becomes irrelevant because we are about to start another major pre-emptive war (possibly the first thermo-nuclear war!), which will be done like the ones under Bush without the required vote from Congress. They are supposed to represent us, We the people, but go along with the President violating the Constitution! The financial cost alone will lead to significant more poverty here in the US. If you’re afraid of terrorists now, just think after such a war, how many terror groups will have nuclear material!

If the Constitution no longer protects us from illegal wars, then nothing guarantees our Liberty at this point. Even without war, the Health Care Reform is intended to create so much additional dependency on entitlements and on government jobs that it will permanently tip the scale in favor of the Democrats, which means one party rule, which will enable them to do what Chavez, Mao (or …) did. As Rahm Emanuel said “never waste a good crisis” and install more emergency measures to gain in the process absolute power.

The only way to prevent either of those two scenarios is with a small constitutional federal government as Ron Paul advocates and leaving Health care, Abortion, Education and so many other functions of government to the states. Because then, We the people have choice.

“If your state laws really do that, then just move to another state.”

No…I do not need to move to another US state. I am protected by the Constitution of the US. 

“Complaining about your own choice is irrational and neurotic (and childish). ”

I am not an obsequious sheep like you apparently are. I love my individual liberties and will fight like hell when they are intruded upon. 

“But do enlighten me about which federal laws prescribe what you can do in the bedroom.”

DOMA & DADT are/were good examples of recent laws…and that is only at the federal level. The states have/had much worse laws. 

“And which law is NOT related to morals?”

The US Constitution. Are you a dunce? Does it read like the 10 commandments of the bible? 

“Now, Ron Paul is only running for one office, not 3 levels of government, and nobody even wants to know what you do in your bedroom.”

Thanks for stating the f*cking obvious. It does not change the insincerity of his libertarianism when he wants to allow the individual states to become authoritarian if they wished to be so. His platform is of a constitutional conservative. Not of a libertarian. Yes…the govt does seem to care (and has cared) about what people do/did in their bedrooms. Maybe you should revisit the Lawrence v Texas case that was struck down by scotus almost 10 years ago. How about Loving v Virginia? Tool. Change your diaper! We can smell something….

Take education. One way to move a society forward is by available, affordable education. We have a lot of disparity {what you call diversity} now in education, Turning it over entirely to the states would make it even worse. IMO.

Nothing prevents we the people from being more involved and making sure we are heard right now, except for our own lack of motivation. People still cling to the hope that superficial involvement and very cursory attention to our elected officials will be okay, and someone will come along and set things right. Liberals hoped for that with Obama and it hasn’t happened. The idea that switching from one corrupt party to another will somehow make things better is foolishness. We need to address the corrupt system that affects both parties.

I repeat, I think Paul makes some good and valuable points but I don’t agree with him or you, on everything.  I don’t think it’s the only way or even the best way.

But how? You say, Paul is not the best way, then what? what is it you don’t agree with? we need to address the corrupt system but how? you are not saying what kind of attention should be given to officials? you are not saying what would make education better?

Disagreeing is easy, a child can do it. That’s why often the opposition gets back into power. Governing is difficult. Coming up with good concepts for governing is difficult. But that’s how it works. We have to make laws and then everybody has to live by them. If it allows someone to get away with murder, then that’s our fault, not of those who followed the law. We cannot decide outcomes!

You need to come up with concrete suggestions: laws, structure, form of government. Just disagreeing isn’t helpful. I am suggesting something concrete – but it’s not to switch parties. I am suggesting to follow the law that we have. Should be easy enough. It’s called the constitution.

You want to change but you’re not giving any offers. Many politicians are the same way. They cause change by writing laws, but laws that blatantly violate the constitution. This includes Presidents who wage war without declaration ratified by Congress. That is illegal. Three Republican candidates advocate just that, and the democratic one we have is doing it. Go and pay him attention! See what good it’ll do.

you said “in the bedroom”, the only thing illegal THERE is slavery. You should find out if there is sexual discrimination about conjugal visits in prison and what Ron Paul’s position is on that.

But since the constitution is being ignored nowadays, what mechanism could be used to enforce it? Do states or We the people have any recourse?

Mediaite is hardly the place for an in depth discussion.

but briefly, to address the corruption the public needs to become more involved and recognize that it’s not a partisan issue. A dishonest politician who has abandoned his or her oath for the sake of personal gain and cronyism needs to go , regardless of party.  We need to see the value in diverse honest informed, fact based opinions and stop treating our political system like some sports event in which we’re rooting for our team. People need to pay far more attention and spend time getting informed about what their reps and Senators are doing in DC and to communicate with them. Turn off the 24/7 networks and participate in real education and information. IMO, that could mean participating in local groups that share information with an eye toward facts rather than partisan spin  I favor serious campaign finance reform and an attitude that those who don’t supprt it, or have intelligent reasons to oppose it, are going to be voted out.
We do have intelligent sincere public servants in DC already that can help. The problem is they get very little coverage. The media has abandoned their role in investigative journalism for the most part and someone has to take up the slack.
It seems to me the finance industry is in bed with , if not outright controlling, the FED. I agree with Paul the the FED needs to be audited and have far more oversight. He’s not the only one in DC that thinks so.
Nothing prevents a current sharing of ideas and workable solutions from state to state now. A leaner less
bureaucratic, more efficient government is certainly a good goal, but that doesn’t have to mean abolishing the dept of education and others.

For the record, You haven’t offered much in the way of concrete solutions either. You’ve simply asserted some principles you believe in will make things better. Is there evidence this is true?

it seems like we’re almost like buddies by now.

Absolutely, I did offer VERY concretely: “I am suggesting something concrete … follow the law that we have. It’s called the constitution!”

Thank you, though, because you made me realize that with the President and Congress ignoring the Constituttion (which is supposed to protect us) we have no more protection, WE HAVE NO MORE RIGHT TO LIBERTY because that is what the Constitution is supposed to provide! That’s it. No freedom/protection means we’re fascist!

The Federal Reserve is not just in bed with the finance industry, it is a PRIVATE bank that is OWNED by its shareholders, the big banks – and it is ABOVE the law, listen to its chairman say it (before the crash!) at 7:40, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3mEe8TH7w

What will “sharing of ideas” between states accomplish if you cannot apply them because you have to FOLLOW THE LAW called No Child Left Behind and the rest of the dept of education?

anarchy = libertarian, if  RedOnTheGreg = brain dead

do you need a label to know what you are?

Lawrence O’Donnell is a total idiot.  He needs to go away.

Hey, a child could say “Follow the Constitution ” couldn’t they?  Hardly concrete since the Constitution is , by necessity, interpreted.
Society and our laws are not static. It requires attention and maintenance. Legislation can be tweaked, improved, or done away with. We observe and we see what’s working and what isn’t  and make the necessary adjustments.

Invoking states rights to promote segregation was an attempt by racist democratic governors in southern states to control blacks after slavery. It was another attempt to keep blacks down, as were their Jim Crow laws to restore a system of white supremacy and  the same party’s creation of the KKK as its terrorist wing. To say that the construction of the Constitution – the 3 entities being limited to the federal government, state governments and the individual – is flawed instead of saying people promoting hatred is flawed – is erroneous and ignorant. States rights allows the People to have access to a more localized form of government in which they can more readily have access and impact and less vulnerability to a an overreaching federal government – effectively destorying the ability to form a national dictatorship. To say state’s rights, as in individual rights or freedom, is a bad thing is to say rights only belong to people who agree with you, which will never be the case. Moreover, to deny states rights as inately flawed because it doesn’t adequately control the people is the same argument used by dictators as to why freedom shouldn’t exist.  

Sadly, O’Donnell is a ‘seek and destroy’ militarized media person. Dig deep to uncover anything that might be construed as negative and destroy a person/party/concept/idea. Or manipulate by creating or feeding something identified as a common fear. He is slime, yes, for he has his political agenda. He is not a journalist – that involves ethics. Ethics has no place in journalism anymore – at least not regarding politics and power. How can you believe anything media says anymore – you can’t. You must do all of your own work to find the truth. They have their poison pens. Informed citizens must carry shovels. So, if we go back to the transcript from the Republican debate in February and the questions asked of the candidates regarding contraceptives, Ron Paul’s answer was straight up – just like you can’t blame guns for the behavior of those who do harm to others, you cannot blame contraception or the lack of it for why we have unwanted children, children born out of wedlock, and abortion. Oh my. What an alarming idea! Morals in society are dictated by the actions of people, not the actions of some contraceptives. And further – he thinks the more the government gets into things, the more screwed up they become. How could we have gotten through the day without O’Donnell putting Ron Paul’s stance together with the obvious notion that Dr. Paul hates sex! Ron Paul hates that anyone is having sex! That Ron Paul is a fake Libertarian! That Dr Paul is against women’s rights! Seriously, you’re a weasel, Larry O’Donnell. The overreach of the federal government is appalling, but O’Donnell’s overreach defies nature.      

Constitution – 3 entities – federal, state, individual. If you refuse to learn factual information, what, why, when, where, who and how regarding the application of law and how it applies within the 3 entities and supports liberty, all reasonable argument will be lost on you. You can have opinion based on emotional and unsupported assumptions, but it is hollow because your lack of knowledge deems it so.  

Socialism -  under the guise of you’re ‘social organization’ term - usurps freedom. America is under US Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights. America has organization in the form of federal, state and individual entities to promote and defend our country’s sovereignty and the People’s individual liberty. There is no right of the federal government or the state government to usurp individual rights beyond those which are enforced under laws against murder, assault, theft, coersion, fraud and so on. Federal law is very limited (it is limited to dealing only with the general welfare – that’s everyone’s welfare only, as in things we cannot accomplish on an individual scale, like national defense - not group pandering or coersion with powerful organizations, corporations, lobbys, etc). The US Federal government has been working far outside its lawful limits for decades and must be returned to its position under the law. States rights give individuals access and influence in their local communites, towns, cities, counties. Individual rights are your personal freedoms within law that allow you to live your life in a manner that allows you discretionary control over decisions you make and the outcome of your decisions. If you prefer to be told what to do, liberty offers you that freedom also, but the federal government and the state government do not have the legal right to limit your thoughts or actions outside of laws to protect others should you put them at risk. You are not required to think. You are not required to act. However, you will ultimately become the product of your decisions/indecisions and your actions/inactions and your outcome will be of your choosing. To hold that socialism is the answer to individual liberty is to say being locked in your home will effectively keep you from running into the street. In socialism, it is predetermined what is best for you. A few will restrict the many. Socialism will effectively spare you the daunting task of facing challenges and risks as well as reaping rewards or failures of your own making. Freedom is fear only to the caged bird.                    

Wouldn’t a ‘liberal welfare state’ be the control of liberals who promote welfare? What does that have to do with liberty under Constituional law and the Bill of Rights? If applied to America, it would be the overreach of government working outside of Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights, usurping individual rights, states rights and all the negatives it fosters – fiscal irresponsibility, unConstitutional wars, group pandering, political party pawn mindsets and other power plays that destroy freedom?   

There is no defense necessary for Ron Paul. O’Donnell though, mount a defense if you can. Try not to mention bias when you do it.

O’Donnell seeks to destroy. Truth has nothing to do with it.

One better – Ron Paul calls it like it is.

These kinds of articles really demonstrates the depth of the ignorance that pervades people’s minds nowadays. It’s always advisable to do a little objective research before shooting your mouth off on things you have no clue about. Of course Ron Paul is NOT a true libertarian in the sense of the word. When has he EVER claimed to be? If anything he would be considered a “right libertarian” at most. Keep in mind that there are “left” and “right” libertarians. Ron Paul is a “constitutionalist”, a real conservative and a true republican, not a liberal, not a neoconservative, not a libertarian or any other highly inaccurate title ignorant people want to give him. Do your research.

You people are retarded!!! LO’D is hardly in a postion to be a commentator on libertarian purist. In fact you can be Libertarian and pro life, most are lol However libertarians nor Ron paul believes that abortion is a federal issue. Its a state issue. Under a Ron Paul administration it would be ok if say california was pro choice and Texas was pro life. Also Ron Paul never said he would or that we should outlaw contraception. If fact Ron chastised Rick Santorum for blaming the pill for cause pre martial sex. O’donnell is way out of bounds here and completely wrong on libertarian ideology and Ron Paul’s postions.

A more accurate title for this article would’ve been “Bought-and-paid-for criminal propagandist Lawrence O’Donnell blasts Ron Paul as obstacle to his masters’ designs of destroying this country and instituting a one world fascist government.”
A: Much nearer to the truth.
B: Sounds better.