'GOP Self-Destruction Imminent'

[Nbadan]

Olbermann is on fire and 1000% right...


YKeqwD4Nno8

OLBERMANN: "Finally, as promised, a special comment in the wake of the passage of health care reform - and it's a first step, there's a lot wrong with it, but the penalty for not paying the fine, for not buying the mandatory insurance has now been reduced to nothing - so, blessings on those who took theis first step, pat yourselves on the back, and tomorrow morning get to work fixing what is STILL wrong with our Ameican health care system.

These remarks tonight are more about our political climate in the wake of this bill's passage.

Eight days ago, a sixteen-year-old kid picked up a security phone at a store in Washington Township, New Jersey, and announced over the public address system "attention Wal-Mart customers. All black people leave the store now." The boy has been arrested and charged with bias intimidation.

Two days ago, a tea party protester shouted the 'n'-word at Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, one of the heroes of 20th-century America, and Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana, and another shouted anti-gay slurs at Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts. Capitol Hill police confirmed no arrests were made, and there were no serious efforts to identify the vermin involved. Television, print, and radio news organizations will not be asked to turn over their tapes and images of the event, nor subpoenaed if necessary.

This is not to dismiss what the 16-year-old did in New Jersey, but it would seem that what was shouted at the congressman merits at least as much investigation and hopefully as much prosecution. After all it did occur inside the halls of Congress, a place at least as crowded as and as sanctified as a Wal-Mart!

But, in a backwards, sick-to-my-stomach way, I would like to thank whoever shouted at Mr. Lewis and Mr. Carson for proving my previous point. If racism is not the WHOLE of the tea party, it is in its heart - along with blind hatred, a total disinterest in the welfare of others, and a full-flowered, self-rationalizing refusal to accept the outcomes of elections, or the reality of democracy, or the narrowness of their minds and the equal narrowness of their public support.

On Saturday that support came from evolutionary regressives like Michelle Bachmann and Jon Voight. On a daily basis that support comes from the racist and homophobes of radio and television, the Michael Savages and the Rush Limbaughs. Shockingly, that support even comes on a specific basis from another congressman, Republican Devin Nunez of the Californian 21st: 'When you use totalitarian tactics, people, you know, begin to act crazy. And I think, you know, there's people that have every right to say what they want. If they want to smear someone, they can do it.'

Congressman Nunez, you should resign. You have no business opening the door for a man like John Lewis, let alone serving along side of him. And if you shouldn't resign for your endorsement, your encouragement, of the most vile, most reprehensible, and the most outdated spewings of the lizard-brained part of this country, you should resign because of your total disconnect from reality. There have been no 'totalitarian' tactics, congressman. People, these few sad people, have begun to act crazy because it has been the dedicated purpose, the sole method and sole function of the Republican Party to entice them to act crazy. Those shouts against the congressman, Mr. Nunez, were inspired not by what people like John Lewis have done in their lives, they have been inspired by what people like YOU have done in the last year.

And so, the far right escalates the rhetoric, and the level of threat just a little more, and worse, still, it escalates the level of delusion: 'The election of a Democratic president is socialism.' 'The election of a black president is an international conspiracy.' 'The enactment of any health care reform is an apocalypse.' And 'The willful denial of reality by the leader of the minority party in Congress is the only truth.'

A willful denial, incidentally, that includes the leader of the minority party in Congress ignoring the fact that his is the minority party, and that he represents the minority, and that despite having broken all the rules of decorum in place in this nation since the end of the Civil War, that despite having played every trick, mean and low, despite having the limitless financial backing of one of the biggest cartels in the world, he and his cronies, and the manufactured outrage of the tea party, failed to derail health care reform.

Failed, Mr. Boehner. Ya lost. You blew it.

'Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen,' you said last night just before the vote. The will and desire of your countrymen, Mr. Boehner? If you're one of the leaders of a party that, in four years, coughed up the Senate majority, coughed up the House majority, coughed up the White House, coughed up health care reform, and along the way ignored every poll and every election result, I would think the will and desires of your fellow countrymen should be pretty damn clear by now. Your countrymen think your policies are of the past and your tactics are of the gutter.

But Boeher's teary 'shame on you' over the tyranny of the vast majority taking a scrap back from the elite clueless minority.

That's just 'an isolated incident.'

Just as Congressman Neugebauer shouting 'baby killer' at or 'it's a baby killer' during Congressman Stupak's laudable comments is just an isolated incident.

Just as the shouting of the 'n'-words at Congressman Lewis and Carson was just an isolated incident.

Just as the spitting ... was 'just an isolated incident.'

[IronMaxipad]

FUUUU OLBERMAN THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r219/ashleighlong/confederate_flag.jpg

[Nbadan]

These people must be exposed as the nutjobs they are, and right now, the M$M is feeding the idiotic frenzy, not reporting it....In the past 72 hours, right wingers have voiced their GlennBeckesque fed outrage by threatening the president, spitting on a house member, vandalizing a Democratic party headquarters, vandalizing a House Member's office, shouting Baby Killer on the floor of the house, and shouting racial and sexual orientation slurs...

Dem Headquarters in Sedgwic County
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Rep Giffords
http://www.azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_eb24e...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns...


3 House Members' offices vandalized
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/pols.dems.vandal... /


Local Dem HQ Vandalized (Is this sedgwick above?)
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/88832782.html?storyS...

Baby Killer
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/baby_ki...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blo...

The N-word and the F-word
http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010...
http://dscriber.com/home/1382-faggot-and-######-languag...


Death threat:
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/secret-service-probing-cons... /

[whottt]

Better start rounding them up and putting them in camps, like Gitmo :tu

[Nbadan]

Why? The Party of NO! is morphing into the party of 'get off my lawn' before my eyes...

[cool cat]

GOP Self-Destruction? Didn't the repubs all vote as one and the dems couldn't get all their members to follow along?

[LnGrrrR]

Better start rounding them up and putting them in camps, like Gitmo :tu

I'd say we could put them in the same areas that other innnocent people in GTMO are, but since we can never seemingly have fair trials for GTMO inmates, I'm not quite sure who those are yet.

[whottt]

I'd say we could put them in the same areas that other innnocent people in GTMO are, but since we can never seemingly have fair trials for GTMO inmates, I'm not quite sure who those are yet.

Oh I bet you say that. I bet you do.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh I bet you say that. I bet you do.

Well... yes. I just did.

Why whottt, do you think that everyone in GTMO is guilty?

[whottt]

I don't know but I actually hope you guys do start throwing Republicans in Gitmo for being Republicans.

Go for it, I think it's a grand idea that will accomplish many good things. It'll teach them to take a page from Olberman's book and not be such hate mongers :tu

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know but I actually hope you guys do start throwing Republicans in Gitmo for being Republicans.

Go for it, I think it's a grand idea that will accomplish many good things. It'll teach them to take a page from Olberman's book and not be such hate mongers :tu

Thanks for not answering the question whottt. Nice to see some things don't change.

[whottt]

Thanks for not answering the question whottt. Nice to see some things don't change.


Sure, and I'm not in favor torturing them. I also understand that the factors that lead to them beng in Gitmo are related to a war, and not our criminal justice system. And not for one second have I ever been confused about that. War isn't supposed to not suck. And if it was a product of our criminal justice system I'm be incredibly pissed, however it isn't.


I have now answered that question about 3.6 billion times, almost as many times as I have explained why you can be critical of the decision to go into Iraq all you want, but one thing it was not, was an illegal invasion. Because the rules of warfare say it wasn't.

I do not expect answering this question will produce a different response than it has the other 3.6 billion times I have answered it...I don't think it's going to sink in. You do not think there is a difference, even though there clearly is. It's not that I was trying to be clever, I just know the response that answer gets.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, and I'm not in favor torturing them. I also understand that the factors that lead to them beng in Gitmo are related to a war, and not our criminal justice system. And not for one second have I ever been confused about that. War isn't supposed to not suck. And if it was a product of our criminal justice system I'm be incredibly pissed, however it isn't.

First off whottt, thanks for being clear. I like discussion with opposite-minded people.

Second, what, exactly, makes it a war? Couldn't we also claim to be "at war" with drug dealers, thereby limiting their civil liberties?

My problem with the whole "war on terrorism" is that it's so open-ended. If it's a war, then whose 'surrender' would we accept? Who speaks on behalf of "terrorism"?

Will there ever be a time where American can claim we've defeated "terrorism"? In other words, is there ever a possible end to this war? Give me some metrics.

[whottt]

What makes it war is the declaration of Usama Bin Laden both before and after an action that did more damage to this country than many of the wars it has been in. He declared war upon the country before 9/11, he reiterated it after 9/11.

He cited the impact of the sanctions upon innocent Iraqis and their children(and btw, I don't blame him for being pissed off about what those sanctions did [they killed far more innocent people that any of the wars did] I just don't believe he truly gives a shit).
He cited the support of Israel.
He cited our infidel army being stationed in Saudi Arabia.

Not only did he clearly make this declaration, he gave warning that it was being decalred upon all citizens of the United States, because we choose our government.

That is why it is a war. Feel free to look at his original speeches if you doubt.

And since we went there, Iraq is not an illegal war because no peace treaty existed between Iraq and the US and Iraq had fired on US planes. Just like we do not have one with North Korea and were we to invade them tomorrow, I would not even truly consider that an illegal war since we are technically at war with them as we speak, and have been for 60 years. Iran? Iran you make a legal case. You could even make a case for our cross border attacks in Pakistan. You can't do it for Iraq.

[LnGrrrR]

What makes it war is the declaration of Usama Bin Laden both before and after an action that did more damage to this country than many of the wars it has been in. He declared war upon the country before 9/11, he reiterated it after 9/11.

I don't think the Iraq War was "illegal" per se; I just think it was misguided.

Anyways, so if Osama surrended today, would you consider the war on terror over? If so, then you're consistent; however, I don't think many other people would. Even Bush himself decried the importance of Osama, and given that we've not found him nearly a decade later, I wonder of the importance of capturing him to our leadership.

I'd be ok with a war on terror, using the definitions you provided (if I've read them correctly). However, I don't think the majority of people using the term "war on terror" would be kosher with pulling out after a theoretical Osama surrender.

[whottt]

Second, what, exactly, makes it a war? Couldn't we also claim to be "at war" with drug dealers, thereby limiting their civil liberties?

.

Oh yeah and this...

If drug dealer launched planes into our building along with a formal declaration war, I will consider us to be at war with them. However they would so easy to defeat I would not support any military action against them. There is a clear path to their defeat and it is simply legalizing marijuana and the coca plant. I support doing that already to defeat them, whether it is a war or criminal operation.

None of this shit is that complicated...and someday when I am President you will see what I mean.

[whottt]

I don't think the Iraq War was "illegal" per se; I just think it was misguided.

Anyways, so if Osama surrended today, would you consider the war on terror over? If so, then you're consistent; however, I don't think many other people would. Even Bush himself decried the importance of Osama, and given that we've not found him nearly a decade later, I wonder of the importance of capturing him to our leadership.

Depends on if anyone is intent on carrying on his strategy of putting planes in our buildings and that kind of shit.




I'd be ok with a war on terror, using the definitions you provided (if I've read them correctly). However, I don't think the majority of people using the term "war on terror" would be kosher with pulling out after a theoretical Osama surrender.

Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan?

On Iraq I've said I would support a pull out if the Iraqis or their leaders held a vote and told us to GTFO. Not becuase libs sense they all want us out, but because they used the Democratic process we said we were going to help install to get us to leave. Would be the Demococratic Process at work. Would mean did what we said we would, and our the job was done. And the sooner t hat day came, the better, but it was their call to make, not ours.

Besides unifying to get us out there would be good for them :tu



I support any pullout authorized by vote, or by the governments voted in either country, little bit tricker with Afghanistan than Iraq. Afghanistan needs a lot of help.

What I don't support is throwing the car in reverse and pretending we didn't hit anyone. And no one will ever get me to buy into that mentality. Whether it fucks up our economy or not.

[spursncowboys]

None of this will matter if barry cannot get job creation under way.

[LnGrrrR]

If drug dealer launched planes into our building along with a formal declaration war, I will consider us to be at war with them. However they would so easy to defeat I would not support any military action against them. There is a clear path to their defeat and it is simply legalizing marijuana and the coca plant. I support doing that already to defeat them, whether it is a war or criminal operation.

Agreed about the best way to "defeat" drug dealers. My point was that it would be impossible to defeat all "drug dealers" in a military sense.

[LnGrrrR]

What I don't support is throwing the car in reverse and pretending we didn't hit anyone. And no one will ever get me to buy into that mentality. Whether it fucks up our economy or not.

I definitely understand the "You broke it, you buy it" viewpoint, which is one of the strongest for staying there, unless, as you stated, the local populace votes against it.

When I think of the "War on Terror", I see it as being much more wide-open than you do. As you mention, we could (assuming Congress approved) go to war with N. Korea tomorrow. And then the next totalitarian country, etc etc.

I would rather the US does not go down that route, and is discouraged from "nation-building", as it were, through military means.

[ElNono]

When I think of the "War on Terror", I see it as being much more wide-open than you do. As you mention, we could (assuming Congress approved) go to war with N. Korea tomorrow. And then the next totalitarian country, etc etc.

You assume wrong. Don't forget the preventive war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war) doctrine.

[LnGrrrR]

You assume wrong. Don't forget the preventive war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war) doctrine.

It is still my belief that preventive war is, in theory, unconstitutional (and any "Originalists" or whatever they call themselves better back me up), if not in actual practice.

[DarrinS]

Has MSNBC hired any black people yet?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Has MSNBC hired any black people yet?

They should have a cafeteria at 30 rock, no?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Keith olberman. :lmao

[Spurminator]

Rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Someone should tell inspector Keith that Tim mcveigh was white. The DC sniper was black. A Hispanic lady killed Selena. Andrea yates drowned her 4 kids. Now that's a special ed comment I'd like to see him ridicule those races and genders. I'm waiting Keith

[Marcus Bryant]

The left-wing Limbaugh.

[EmptyMan]

Ah so when you have only two sides and one's ideas will realistically fuck things up (they take turns), the other side will self-destruct.

Makes sense.

[Marcus Bryant]

Such is the retarded dialectic in our national politics.

[TeyshaBlue]

These people must be exposed as the nutjobs they are, and right now, the M$M is feeding the idiotic frenzy, not reporting it....In the past 72 hours, right wingers have voiced their GlennBeckesque fed outrage by threatening the president, spitting on a house member, vandalizing a Democratic party headquarters, vandalizing a House Member's office, shouting Baby Killer on the floor of the house, and shouting racial and sexual orientation slurs...


And nbadan shakes his tiny fists in anger on a bbs.

[jacobdrj]

I remember 5 years ago, my extreme right wing friends said that the Democratic party was on 'life support'. I remember when Ross Perot ran the 1st time, almost everyone said that both the Dems and the Repubs were on life support.

Why is now any different?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs will persist, like some kind of MRSA.

But getting their butts kicked in 2006, 2008, and self-excluding from health care reform, they aren't America's Party. They're America's Anus.

Now, they are gonna get their butts kicked on immigration reform, lose even more of the Latino vote, but it sounds like Magic Negro STILL THINKS he can get a bi-partisan agreement. what a dumbfuck.

[DarrinS]

Repugs will persist, like some kind of MRSA.

But getting the butts kicked in 2006, 2008, and self-excluding health care reform, they aren't America's Party.

Now, they are gonna get their butts kicked on immigration reform, lose even more of the Latino vote, but it sounds like Magic Negro STILL THINKS he can get a bi-partisan agreement. what a dumbfuck.




Meh,


It took a hated Republican and a hated war to produce Jimmy Carter. Just like it took another hated Republican and another hated war to give us Obama. I'm just hoping history will repeat itself and we'll end up with another Reagan. Unfortunately, THIS particular Nobel prize winner, along with his sleazy Consitution-hating comrades in congress, has left us with a giant clusterfuck entitlement that will be all but impossible to repeal.

[boutons_deux]

"another Reagan"

a fucking disaster, as intended by Movement Conservatives. The current shithole the planet finds itself in initiated by St Ronnie The Diseased.

[DarrinS]

"another Reagan"

a fucking disaster, as intended by Movement Conservatives. The current shithole the planet finds itself in initiated by St Ronnie The Diseased.



lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Meh,


It took a hated Republican and a hated war to produce Jimmy Cater. Just like it took another hated Republican and another hated war to give us Obama. I'm just hoping history will repeat itself and we'll end up with another Reagan. Unfortunately, THIS particular Nobel prize winner, along with his sleazy Consitution-hating comrades in congress, has left us with a giant clusterfuck entitlement that will be all but impossible to repeal.

And it took a hated Jimmy Carter to produce Reagan. you act as if it doesnt work both ways.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm just hoping history will repeat itself and we'll end up with another Reagan.You want to run up the deficit even more?

[symple19]

The left-wing Limbaugh.

:lol

[DarrinS]

You want to run up the deficit even more?


I'd take Reagan's defict as % of GDP vs what we have now. Not to mention what's projected for the next few years.

[clambake]

I'd take Reagan's defict as % of GDP vs what we have now. Not to mention what's projected for the next few years.

you're willing to abandon all your current feelings about terra?

ron ron was as weak as it gets.

[boutons_deux]

Darrin,

your boy dickhead said "deficits don't matter".

St Ronnie bailed out Chrysler and his financial deregulation induced S&L disaster, which was a $200B bailout in 1980s dollars.

He also cut taxes on his wealth class, and raised salary head taxes, while endorsing the govt he headed as THE PROBLEM and started The War On The Middle Class and Employees.

Yeah, St Ronnie, what's not to love?

[ChumpDumper]

I'd take Reagan's defict as % of GDP vs what we have now. Not to mention what's projected for the next few years.Reagan raised the deficit and debt. He didn't lower it.

[DarrinS]

Reagan raised the deficit and debt. He didn't lower it.


Everything's relative.

[ChumpDumper]

Everything's relative.Reagan raised the deficits and debt relative to the president before him.

You want that again.

Good for you.

[Winehole23]

Everything's relative.Clintonesque, truly.

[Nbadan]

I remember 5 years ago, my extreme right wing friends said that the Democratic party was on 'life support'. I remember when Ross Perot ran the 1st time, almost everyone said that both the Dems and the Repubs were on life support.

Why is now any different?

Ross Perot? are you high again?

It didn't look good for Democrats after Jimmy Carter, but Clinton was the best President since FDR...now if Obama keeps kicking GOP arse and can win in 2012..

[Marcus Bryant]

Clinton was, perhaps, the most conservative president since Coolidge.

[Nbadan]

In all fairness, Newt and Clinton were on the same page....unfortunately, there's no Newt in the GOP now

[Marcus Bryant]

...and no Clinton on the Dem side. Looking back, Bush41 and WJC surpass the last two and it's not even close.

[Nbadan]

Bush41 paid the political price for raising taxes, but ultimately raising taxes led to a proposed balance budget under Clinton...on the other hand, raising taxes didn't help any particular voting coalition..the health-care reform right out of the gate could help millions of prospective or future voters..

[Marcus Bryant]

or could result in rising premiums, taxes, and stagnant health care quality for large swaths of the population and result in a permanent dependent class. Not to mention the increased invasion of privacy.

That two tone deaf politicians followed two rather good ones is the price we pay, I suppose.

[Nbadan]

or could result in rising premiums, taxes, and stagnant health care quality for large swaths of the population and result in a permanent dependent class. Not to mention the increased invasion of privacy.

That two tone deaf politicians followed two rather good ones is the price we pay, I suppose.

Rising premiums is one of the reasons that we need health-care reform, it is the cost that is primarily driving the federal deficit, but we need a public option to break the back of regional monopolies in Insurance/health-care and create more competition...

[Marcus Bryant]

Or health care insurance companies could face out of state competition.

And sure, "reform" is needed, and the recently passed law heads in the opposite and wrong direction.

[Nbadan]

Or health care insurance companies could face out of state competition.


It's called a monopoly for a reason...

[Nbadan]

And sure, "reform" is needed, and the recently passed law heads in the opposite and wrong direction.

It certainly lacks in regulation to control health-care premiums, but opening the books of health-care giants won't hurt..

[Marcus Bryant]

It's called a monopoly for a reason...

Sure. How about opening it up to competition from without?

[Marcus Bryant]

It certainly lacks in regulation to control health-care premiums, but opening the books of health-care giants won't hurt..

Opening the "giants" up to competition is better. Now the giants lock in profits and ensnare more.

[Nbadan]

Sure. How about opening it up to competition from without?

Without were? China?

[Nbadan]

Opening the "giants" up to competition is better. Now the giants lock in profits and ensnare more.

I agree, but you can't do that until you break up the regional monopolies or they will crush the competiton...

[Marcus Bryant]

Without were? China?

Out of state.

[Marcus Bryant]

I agree, but you can't do that until you break up the regional monopolies or they will crush the competiton...

Monopolies are ultimately granted by the state. Individuals end up with health care insurance plans they don't necessarily want due to the exclusion of those benefits from the income tax. Third party payers are the principal cause of health care inflation. All the new "reform" does is double down on this flawed system.

[Nbadan]

Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian.

- Mitt Romney

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course. And it's nonsensical, as libertarians are not anarchists.