Olbermann Rescinds Charity Offer For Cowardly Hannity,

[Flanders]

If there was a telling moment, a crossroad, in our recent history, it was the passage of President Bush's Wall Street bailout. Democrats did not significantly differenciate themselves from Republicans in that vote. If there ever was a vote to fight " for the rights of the rich and powerful to control the lives of everyone", that was it. The rich won that one.

So I take it to mean that you are confident that voting down the Bush Wall Street bailout would have produced largely benign consequences, and that there would not have been any severe repercussions in the US economically? That the middle and lower classes of society in the US would not have disproportionally taken the biggest "hit" as a result? Or is it because you have some "skin" in the game in the form of your children, and you would rather see a large amount of the more vulnerable portion of the population suffer immediate casualties now, in the hope that the young will survive it and more greatly benefit, if not flourish from a recovery a decade or so later?

It is easy to be watching from the sidelines, claiming to lean neither Republican nor Democrat, taking potshots [[supposedly) at both, yet from my observations, you tend to appear to lean to the right, rarely if ever quoting an obviously brazen, unsupported and/or obnoxious post made by any of the more extreme RWers who infrequently post replies here or post for a week or two, then disappear for a month or so, or never return at all.

[mjs]

I'm extremely confident it would have been better for America to reject the bank bailout though worse for those that limit market competition and destroy the total net worth for their own personal gain. So what if the losing high-risk banks would have to sell their assets to those that followed basic market principles? Most of those assets were acquired as the large short-term high-risk banks acquired the small long-range conservative banks. We'd simply return to the market concentration that worked for half a century. The government kept approving it because they showed improved short term profits. Then the Bush administration used a self-created panic by shouting the sky was falling. The drop occurred quickly when there was a panic, not slowly as the losers were losing and the drop continued after the magic bill passed. 331 university economists, 2/3 of the American public, and even Congress itself knew it was a bad idea. Even with the pull of the mega-contributing banking lobbyists, it couldn't pass until it was packed with ear marked pork barreling. They decided it would be better to spend $900 billion we didn't have rather than $700 billion we didn't have.

As to the vote itself, it was bipartisan but heavier to the Dems as the Senate Democrats voted 40-10, the Senate Republicans voted 34-15, the House Democrats voted 172-63, and the House Republicans voted 91-108. Come election time, forget the party affiliations for once and vote against those that approved this disaster. They're all listed below and both sides planned to have those not up for re-election do more of the yes voting because they figured we would forget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...-Amendment-147
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/bu...pagewanted=all
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=2&vote=00213
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

[Big Dog]

It's apparent you have exposed Dubby for what he is.

[oladub]

Flanders, The Nasdaq and housing bubbles created by the Clinton and Bush administrations ended. The choices were to allow the economy to correct itself or try to reinfate the bubble. Bush and Obama have chosen to do the latter. Either way there would be pain. Had Bush taken the first path, the big financial institutions would have gone into bankruptcy, smaller less greedy or corrupt banks would have bought up their worthwhle assets. A sharp recession would have probably gone the way of the 1921 depresion in which the government did nothing. Instead, Bush and Obama, tried to patch up the mess with billions of taxpayer dollars and reinflate the bubble. Without allowing a correction, this recession/depression will be extended though its effects may be muted. So its somewhat a choice between a sharp correction or an elongated financial mess. The second choice will destroy much of the spending power of the dollar. That misfortune will cause the poor and those on fixed incomes a lot more suffering than anything to date. But, hey, the big contributors to top Democrats and Republicans are doing pretty well.

Note that I cited Bush's Wall Street bailout as even worse than Obama's Porkulous, in my comments that you are criticizing. Since Bush and perhaps Republicans are history, Democrats are in power, and most posters on this site spout liberal cliches, it makes more sense to address what is going on than the shortcomings of President Bush's or President Fillmore's administrations.

You are correct that I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I voted for Nader and a third party candidate in the last two presidential elections. I don't vote for Wall Street, corruption, and wars. If enough people make that same decision there will be some real change. My kids make way more money than I ever did. I am not too worried about their financial futures but I worry about the next generation in general because they are being burdened by our generation's shortcomings. Ecologists and educators, often liberals, are doing what they can to improve the lot of the next gerneration. Its also common sense that we not steal from that same generation.

Look to California for a glimpse of our economic future. Californians voted for an unsustainable amount of government. The Governor had to end welfare. The federal government has a printing press to keep the game going for a little while like in Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic. That's the only difference. The game, as it is being played, is unsustainable.

[ccbatson]

It goes way further back than that. Carter for the housing bubble...leftist socialists preceding Carter [[FDR) laying the groundwork for all of this mess

[mjs]

Very well said, Oludub. Big money gives major contributions to both sides. They know that both sides can incorporate their interests into the party ideology and just downplay it as an unexpected consequence. Its why voters need to become less partisan. The voters are the answer to big money. The debates then focus on the issues rather than the messengers so people can listen to the facts rather than the highly advertised party lines. And I mean listen, not just hear.

[ccbatson]

And Marxists like you and Obama would prefer to eliminate this form of freedom of expression?

[Detroitej72]

And Marxists like you and Obama would prefer to eliminate this form of freedom of expression?

I'm sure Obama would approve of Keith Olberman's freedom of expression while he pointed out the cowardice of Hannity!

[ccbatson]

Referring to corporate donations not Olberman

[oladub]

mjs, Big money owns the MSM too and utilizes it as a gatekeeper. Candidates like Paul, Kucinich, and Nader are not given face time and are subjected to discrimination. In one of the debates, Kucinich was asked if he believed in flying saucers. The moderator would be looking into new careers if he had asked Hillary that same question. It succeeded in making Kucinich look silly though. Third parties are no longer allowed into presidential debates because the two parties' Presidential Debate Commission won't allow it. They booted the League of Women Voters for letting Perot into debates. The two parties do not want to be embarrassed again by the likes of Nader or Ventura.

There are some issues like abortion and prayers in public schools that big money doesn't care about. So there are some issues that separate Republicans and Democrats and distract voters from the lack of differences between Reps and Dems regarding foreign policy, the military/industrial complex, and financial scams.

-Nice work collecting facts on your post #192 by the way.

[ccbatson]

Some of the questions asked are so biased and so malicious, I am baffled that liberals don't recognize it. A few on this forum are convinced that the mainstream media is not left biased.

[mjs]

Thanks. MSM= Main Stream Media. I had to look it up. Yeah, its why my televised news comes from PBS, BBC, or CBC. Its amazing how much international news isn't covered by the MSM and they never provide background on why things happen like they do. I started to learn that when Clinton was trying to keep that American kid in Thailand from getting lashed by the government. The MSM made it sound like it was a first time offender doing a little graffiti. They must have missed all the international reporters mentioning that it was like his sixth arrest and he was leading a gang.

Though I got too frustrated to finish it, you might like this book. http://www.amazon.com/Hostile-Takeov.../dp/0307237354

[ccbatson]

Remember who is behind some of that "big money" Souros [[misspelled out of contempt), Ted Turner and their radical liberal buddies.

[mjs]

Batson, each side says the MSM is biased the other way because there's examples of it being biased both ways. They're all a bunch of sensationalists. Drop Fox's propaganda and come with us over to PBS. Its less flash and fight, but creates a hell of alot of times where it makes you say, "I didn't know that!" or "I was only told half that story!" and thats what the news is supposed to do. Its not supposed to think for you or even agree with you. Its supposed to give you what you need to think about and challenge your assumptions. I think you'll love Frontline's newest episode on the Taliban in Pakistan. It provides neutral coverage that you can use to justify the war against the Taliban. It re-airs Thursday at 7 am and Sunday at 5 am. Enjoy an episode of "The News Hour" or "PBS International" while you're at it.

http://www.dptv.org/watch/schedule.shtml

[Flanders]

Batson, each side says the MSM is biased the other way because there's examples of it being biased both ways. They're all a bunch of sensationalists. Drop Fox's propaganda and come with us over to PBS.

I believe that Fox News is biased hard right, and MSNBC is biased mildly left, as far as convincing Bats to abandon hard core conservatism/objectivism, all I can say is GL with that.

I spend much more time browsing conservative websites than reading and posting here, because I consider Republicans and their hard core RW supporters to be a very real and serious threat to my continued survival as a person with disabilities, which now prevents me from earning a living after 35 years of supporting myself...and the blogs, commentary, and the articles that I read online and subscribe to by email that are written by "leading" conservatives bear that out.

If my voting for a Democratic candidate in any local or state election instead of a third party candidate who might have a better platform and ideas, JUST to help prevent the election of a Republican is obviously wrong, so be it, there are likely many like me who have done so in the past, and will continue to vote straight party ticket for that sole reason.

Perhaps you and oladub can afford to play around and post in threads here with the idea of supporting a truly viable third party that can win elections on a national level, and I have my doubts if either of you are really physically active in your support, for example, by helping out going door to door, passing out campaign literature, or manning phone banks for any third party candidate[[s) campaigns, but IMO, the best than can be realistically achieved by electing any third party candidate, at least at this point, is still only on a local level, and to a lesser degree on a state level.

[4real]

The nicest thing I can say about dickhead Keith Olbermann, is that he is a worthless piece of shit.

[ejames01]

Why do you say that? He is a blow hard, but what has he done to make you think that he is a bad person?

[mjs]

Perhaps you and oladub can afford to play around and post in threads here with the idea of supporting a truly viable third party that can win elections on a national level, and I have my doubts if either of you are really physically active in your support, for example, by helping out going door to door, passing out campaign literature, or manning phone banks for any third party candidate[[s) campaigns, but IMO, the best than can be realistically achieved by electing any third party candidate, at least at this point, is still only on a local level, and to a lesser degree on a state level.

I am not physically active in my support. At the national level, third parties historical role has generally been the introduction of new ideas that neither party will initially adopt, yet when the ideas become popular, they get incorporated into the platforms of the primary parties. They also create the publicity needed to win on the local level. In the 1850s, the Republican party was a third party, and the Whigs and Democrats were the primary parties. Statuses change. If the Republican party does die, it will be replaced by something. We're just saying, let third parties be heard so they can perform their role and don't accept that you have to agree with either Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch. The First Amendment is designed to protect the market place of ideas which says that all sides should be heard.

[mjs]

I spend much more time browsing conservative websites than reading and posting here, because I consider Republicans and their hard core RW supporters to be a very real and serious threat to my continued survival as a person with disabilities. . .

If my voting for a Democratic candidate in any local or state election instead of a third party candidate who might have a better platform and ideas, JUST to help prevent the election of a Republican is obviously wrong, so be it, there are likely many like me who have done so in the past, and will continue to vote straight party ticket for that sole reason.

So why don't you track the bills and vote straight issue? If they support persons with disabilities, you vote for them regardless of affiliation. GovTrack will send you regular email links on any issue or any bill that you want and summarize it for you. You can even read the bill rather than the big money party lines on the bill. I'm tracking Cash for Clunkers and the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights.

[oladub]

Flanders, "Perhaps you and oladub can afford to play around and post in threads here with the idea of supporting a truly viable third party that can win elections on a national level, and I have my doubts if either of you are really physically active in your support, for example, by helping out going door to door, passing out campaign literature, or manning phone banks for any third party candidate[[s) campaigns, but IMO, the best than can be realistically achieved by electing any third party candidate, at least at this point, is still only on a local level, and to a lesser degree on a state level."

You guessed wrong in my case. I actively did those things in the Ron Paul campaign. Hundreds of hours and dollars involved. What an eye opening experience that was! I recommend that everyone get deeply involved in the campaign of your choice if you want a good civics lesson. Paul's campaign was alternately attacked and ignored by the MSM. However, some Republicans are shifting from a neocon message to a more libertarian one. Maybe not all was in vain. Had Paul won, we would be headed out of national bankruptcy and wars so there would have been a real chance that your state had money to implement its own health care plan. Instead of a Paul or Nader, you voted for wars and banksters who rob the Treasury and undermine the spending power of the dollar.


One of the highlights of the campaign was attending the Rally for the Republic, a sort of libertarian and anti-Republican convention held across the river from the Republican National convention and attended by 10,000. Jesse Ventura gave a great speech there. This is the first of three parts in which he addresses the two party system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79eCo6ocBEc
I think that Jesse could beat Obama and the next Republican presidential candidate if a) he was allowed on the debate stage and b) he wasn't more interested in Cuban surfing opportunities. Jesse did not go after to poor in Minnesota as Governor but he sure angered some establishment types by going after corruption.
__________________________________________________ ______


This is one of my favorite Olbermann pieces. Here he attacks Bush for things that Bush signed into law which President Obama has not reversed.
Olbermann: the beginning of the end of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs


Olbermann can also dish it out to those he supports.-
Keith Olbermann: "President Obama, You Are Wrong" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fk5wfAYX0U

[Detroitej72]

Why do you say that? He is a blow hard, but what has he done to make you think that he is a bad person?

When wackos have nothing to add to the conversation, they resort to name-calling. Its just a cry for attention.

Back to the topic, good thoughts and ideas, Oladub and Mjs, keep them coming.

[Flanders]

So why don't you track the bills and vote straight issue? If they support persons with disabilities, you vote for them regardless of affiliation. GovTrack will send you regular email links on any issue or any bill that you want and summarize it for you. You can even read the bill rather than the big money party lines on the bill. I'm tracking Cash for Clunkers and the Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights.

Thanks for the infomation mjs, I vaguely remember reading something about GovTrack maybe a year or so ago while browsing, but forgot about checking further into it.

[ccbatson]

Ron Paul...like most libertarians, could have been great if he just threw off the weak stance on defense.

[Detroitej72]

Ron Paul...like most libertarians, could have been great if he just threw off the weak stance on defense.

One of the basic principles of the Libertarian Platform is for the U.S. to be, for the most part, an isolationist country. This is why all the neo-cons on this board wouldn't support him, as they are supporters of the failed Bush Expansionist agenda.

[ccbatson]

Not a bad analysis...except for the part where you describe the Republican foreign policy as failed...and the part where you label us as neo-cons.