Reply With Quote
FUUUU OLBERMAN THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
Olbermann is on fire and 1000% right...
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 Mic e Bachmann and Jon Voight. On a daily basis that support comes from the racist and phobes 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 subs utes 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.'
FUUUU OLBERMAN THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
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- got-and-######-languag...
Death threat:
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/secret-service-probing-cons... /
Better start rounding them up and putting them in camps, like Gitmo
Why? The Party of NO! is morphing into the party of 'get off my lawn' before my eyes...
GOP Self-Destruction? Didn't the repubs all vote as one and the dems couldn't get all their members to follow along?
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.Better start rounding them up and putting them in camps, like Gitmo
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?
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
Thanks for not answering the question whottt. Nice to see some things don't change.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
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.
Last edited by whottt; 03-23-2010 at 04:27 AM.
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.
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 ).
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.
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.
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 is that complicated...and someday when I am President you will see what I mean.
Depends on if anyone is intent on carrying on his strategy of putting planes in our buildings and that kind of .
Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan?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.
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
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 s up our economy or not.
None of this will matter if barry cannot get job creation under way.
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.
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.
You assume wrong. Don't forget the preventive war doctrine.
It is still my belief that preventive war is, in theory, uncons utional (and any "Originalists" or whatever they call themselves better back me up), if not in actual practice.
Has MSNBC hired any black people yet?
They should have a cafeteria at 30 rock, no?
Keith olberman.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
