What an idiot. Why do “journalists” always believe they are the smartest people in the room.

Liberty Back For More said:
What an idiot. Why do “journalists” always believe they are the smartest people in the room.

Many are not, you are correct. However, O’Donnell is rather bright.

The Tea Party doesn’t watch A-MESS-NBC nor Socialist O’Dpnnell!

juan said:
The Tea Party doesn’t watch A-MESS-NBC nor Socialist O’Dpnnell!

Perhaps, if the Tea Partiers did they would know there is a debt ceiling. That’s why misinformed people watch FOX “News”. To become further misinformed ….

Mediaite:
“Not raising the debt ceiling, O’Donnell says, is unthinkable: “the end of the world as we know it. A world financial calamity that would plunge us into a depression unlike any we’ve ever seen.”

Actually, Obama, at least 2006 Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054

Here are a few tasty little morsels for Mediaite readers to ponder about Obama and the debt ceiling.

Senator Obama 2006 http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/ :
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.”
-Well looks like there is more failure Mr. Obama…LOL…let’s read more shall we…

“This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest.”
-And in 2010 the US government spent $360 billion Mr. President…..

“This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.”

-Well said Mr. President, or shall I say Senator Obama circa 2006. I guess things have changed huh you imbecile.

Nice lie , Larry. Give us the names- Oh, you don’t have any?

typical, lib liar.

Lawrence O’Donnell Says Most In Tea Party “Didn’t Know There Was A Debt Ceiling” Until He Told Them

…there is NO LIMIT to the self-delusions of an arrogant lunatic-left d-crat socialist.

Good Lord Mark – I’m confused by your article. You repeat what LOD had to say but didn’t bother doing any fact checking?

Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2008, and you don’t bother to call LOD on missing that fact?

Oh brother.

Dan, calling Dan for clean up on aisle 3 – the Obama suck-upery aisle.

Get a grip, post some facts and attempt to restore some level of integrity to the board, and to MSNBC.

Where is the headline:

LOD is an IDIOT??? That’s what would be posted if Sarah Palin had done what LOD did. Honestly.

*sarcastic font follows* Thank you so very much Lawrence O’Donnell for telling all of us dumb americans what a debt ceiling is. My god you saved us all because we had no clue what it was…thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!!

What most in the Tea Party don’t know could fill a complete well rounded college curriculum.

What? The socialist was a writer for West Wing? Color me shocked.

Well I didn’t know wtf a compassionate conservativy kind of Liberal Democrat President – who was actually tough on terrorists and the states who harbor them looked like, until I actually watched The Left Wing a couple times either. So Larry O’ may be right, this time.

I mean, it obviously wasn’t the writing for the show’s WH Staff, and their always ‘cutting and witty’ comebacks (to another’s snarky remarks) that made it the success it was, as Larry’s Real Life pals, like Robert “duh, Chevy F150?” Gibbs, and Joe “Three Letters J.o.b.s” Biden, or Larry’s MessNBC colleague and former peanut farmer speechwriter, Chrissy ‘Thrilla in Da’Fibula’ Matthews have proven to the world, time, after time, after time.

So it must have been the fantasy of America’s having a Democrat President who was kinda-sorta ambiguous on the death penalty for ‘some’, and for America’s having a Democrat President who had Balls relative to our National Security too.

Yeah right. Like That’s ever gonna happen. LOFL!

You know what will happen if we don’t raise the debt “ceiling”? These fricking idiots won’t be able to spend more. Period. No calamity, no depression, just a limit.

Ask Obama, as noted above HE voted against raising the debt ceiling before also.

The Real Royal King said:
Perhaps, if the Tea Partiers did they would know there is a debt ceiling. That’s why misinformed people watch FOX “News”. To become further misinformed ….

Why are you still citing that discredit piece of propaganda?

The idea that tea party activists pay any attention to Lawrence O’Donnell is ludicrous. And even more entertaining is the idea that people would learn about the national debt and on-going deficits by watching MSNBC, a network which hates to cover the bleeding in D.C., where our politicians borrow another $100 billion every month to cover their spending spree.

2006 – Barry and every Senate Democrat votes against raising debt ceiling .

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/01/goolsbee-s-debt-limit-comments-conflict-obama-s-2006-vote

2007 Barry skips vote .
2008 Barry skips vote .

Was he EVOLVING on it then or lying now ?

felixw says:
January 4, 2011 at 5:42 pm

Not only that but he knew years in advance that there was going to be a stupid Tea Party.

Damn, he’s good.

no problem, pass legislation to raise the ceiling…with Obamacare repeal attached

@PoliticalPAW

Fact: MSMBC news crews wear striaght jackets up to the point that they are put on camera! These people are completely Liberal between the ears!

Seriously Matt, how come you guys won’t do a story on Obama’s 2006 position on raising the debt ceiling? I mean at least stick it in one of your articles criticizing the Republican’s for not wanting to do it.

Sorry, I said Matt, when I meant Mark.

Well i’m betting they probably didn’t know. Usually when they quote the constitution, it’s the declaration of independence instead. Maybe Byrd should have left his copy.

Lawrence listen to me….Lawrence No one in the Tea Party watches you…it is your lefty budied who did not know.

Liberty Back For More said:
-Well said Mr. President, or shall I say Senator Obama circa 2006. I guess things have changed huh you imbecile.

Indeed they have. You might remember a giant economic melt down that happened in 2008.

I’m not sure why so many people are commenting about Obama voting against raising the ceiling as a Senator, when they address that vote and what makes a politically “convenient” vote different in the video. Then, Lawrence tries to push the Congressman not so much about his individual vote, but whether the bill will be guaranteed to pass.

Of course, if the bill was guaranteed, there’d be nothing for either side to use for negotiation, but Larry was hoping to get a guarantee from some random Congressman, who isn’t in a leadership position.

^were guaranteed^… we really could use an edit function.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Seriously Matt, how come you guys won’t do a story on Obama’s 2006 position on raising the debt ceiling? I mean at least stick it in one of your articles criticizing the Republican’s for not wanting to do it.

Does it occur to you that whether we need to raise the debt ceiling or not, is a product of many years of bad policy rather than the last two.

Looking at comments Obama made in 2006 , two years prior to the economic crisis and meltdown in 2008, isn’t really going to demonstrate anything.

O’Donnell had four TP leaders on his show as a panel.They were more reasonable than we’ve come to expect from their apologists here but they were still a bit all over the place as a group…

- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39902847#39902847
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39902862#39902862

So, at least those four watched him once. ;-)

CosmosDan said:
Does it occur to you that whether we need to raise the debt ceiling or not, is a product of many years of bad policy rather than the last two.

Looking at comments Obama made in 2006 , two years prior to the economic crisis and meltdown in 2008, isn’t really going to demonstrate anything.

You’re spoiling the narrative, Dan. ;-)

Dan says:

Does it occur to you that whether we need to raise the debt ceiling or not, is a product of many years of bad policy rather than the last two.

Looking at comments Obama made in 2006 , two years prior to the economic crisis and meltdown in 2008, isn’t really going to demonstrate anything.

Now that’s good liberal spin!

Liberty Back For More said:
Mediaite:
“Not raising the debt ceiling, O’Donnell says, is unthinkable: “the end of the world as we know it. A world financial calamity that would plunge us into a depression unlike any we’ve ever seen.”

Actually, Obama, at least 2006 Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054

Here are a few tasty little morsels for Mediaite readers to ponder about Obama and the debt ceiling.

Senator Obama 2006 http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/ :
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.”
-Well looks like there is more failure Mr. Obama…LOL…let’s read more shall we…

“This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest.”
-And in 2010 the US government spent $360 billion Mr. President…..

“This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.”

-Well said Mr. President, or shall I say Senator Obama circa 2006. I guess things have changed huh you imbecile.

The economic climate has changed since 2006, has it not? We weren’t in the position of having to provide tax breaks and extend unemployment for a record number of people just to maintain some form of economic stability.

So, I don’t think you can cry ‘hypocrite’ on this. Obama’s decision in 2006 and the mindset he has now exist in the context of the economic realities of their respective times.

Seeing 2012 From My Window said:
Dan says:

Does it occur to you that whether we need to raise the debt ceiling or not, is a product of many years of bad policy rather than the last two.

Looking at comments Obama made in 2006 , two years prior to the economic crisis and meltdown in 2008, isn’t really going to demonstrate anything.

Now that’s good liberal spin!

Or common sense and reasonable thinking, but hey! don’t let logic get in the way of bias. That’s no fun.

The only thing this doucebag is right about is the White House not caring about the Tea Party. They never has and never will.

I love being insulted by liberal MSNBC jackasses more than anything, I would be so clueless if it were not for them and their honest jourlalism.

http://crazyconservative.wordpress.com/

Stephen Hogan said:
The economic climate has changed since 2006, has it not? We weren’t in the position of having to provide tax breaks and extend unemployment for a record number of people just to maintain some form of economic stability. So, I don’t think you can cry ‘hypocrite’ on this. Obama’s decision in 2006 and the mindset he has now exist in the context of the economic realities of their respective times.

I think I can cry hypocrite on this, Obama has never said the same thing twice EVER. He is a hypocrite POS so don’t try to spin this into something it is not.

http://crazyconservative.wordpress.com/

As O’Donnell notes in the video in reference to Senator’s Obama’s vote, it’s not that he’s changed his mind, it’s that he was able to make a showy vote against it because the bill was going to pass. I’m reminded of an old vote from ’87, but I can’t find a good free link.

If memory serves and based on a half-decent article that I’ve found, the Senate was voting to override President Reagan’s veto of the highway bill. Freshman Senator Terry Sanford had been the only Democrat to vote against the highway originally and when it came time to override the veto, he initially voted “present”, then because he misunderstood whether he vote was still needed, he changed it to “no”. This caused the bipartisan effort to fall one vote short, so Robert Byrd did some kind of parliamentary move that allowed the bill to come up again and Sen. Sanford was able to change his vote for the third time, so the measure could pass.

^please excuse my editing errors, but I had to hit send or just let it go^

Awww shaduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuppp, O’Donnell.

Nobody on planet Earth watches you or LSDNBC.

When referring to Lawrence, the correct way MUST include that he is a Socialist. It’s important to make it clear for people so they know that his belief system is abnormal. So something like “Socialist Lawrence O’Donnell” would be better.

Also, it makes no difference how smart one is if they are wrong. The math is : smart * wrong = wrong.

Liberty Back For More said:
Mediaite:
“Not raising the debt ceiling, O’Donnell says, is unthinkable: “the end of the world as we know it. A world financial calamity that would plunge us into a depression unlike any we’ve ever seen.”

Actually, Obama, at least 2006 Obama, voted against raising the debt ceiling.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00054

Here are a few tasty little morsels for Mediaite readers to ponder about Obama and the debt ceiling.

Senator Obama 2006 http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/ :
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.”
-Well looks like there is more failure Mr. Obama…LOL…let’s read more shall we…

“This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest.”
-And in 2010 the US government spent $360 billion Mr. President…..

“This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.”

-Well said Mr. President, or shall I say Senator Obama circa 2006. I guess things have changed huh you imbecile.

Correct, but in the Modern Liberal/Progressive system of arguing, you cannot use facts that are opposed to the current position of the Modern Liberals/Progressives. They get mad.

Alz said:
When referring to Lawrence, the correct way MUST include that he is a Socialist. It’s important to make it clear for people so they know that his belief system is abnormal. So something like “Socialist Lawrence O’Donnell” would be better.

We’re ALL socialists, nitwit. You walk on sidewalks, drive on streets, are protected by police officers and firefighters and have access to quality emergency health care that are all products of socialism. And the gas you put in your car, the cheap Chinese crap you buy at Walmart, the natural gas you use to cook your food, and if you live in a rural district, the electricity you use and the broadband you have access to are all subsidized by taxpayers, and therefore, are socialist. The only thing abnormal is your definition of abnormal.

By the looks of your ratings O’Donnell, not very many people
know about YOU either. Just sayin”

Paul Westlake said:
We’re ALL socialists, nitwit. You walk on sidewalks, drive on streets, are protected by police officers and firefighters and have access to quality emergency health care that are all products of socialism. And the gas you put in your car, the cheap Chinese crap you buy at Walmart, the natural gas you use to cook your food, and if you live in a rural district, the electricity you use and the broadband you have access to are all subsidized by taxpayers, and therefore, are socialist. The only thing abnormal is your definition of abnormal.

No, that’s silly. Limited government doesn’t mean no government, you nitwit.

Socialism IS abnormal as it always ends up hurting people. Why do you want to hurt people?

Alz said:
No, that’s silly. Limited government doesn’t mean no government, you nitwit.

Socialism IS abnormal as it always ends up hurting people. Why do you want to hurt people?

Dude, socialism is the natural condition of human beings. Socialism came first. Rugged individualism is the natural condition of mountain lions. We’re not cats. We’re humans. We’re socialists. That’s it.

Oh course neocons do not watch MSNBC…or any other source. Only Fox News.
What is the Art of Propaganda? Single sourcing of information.
Fox News, “Everyone else in the world will lie to you, but not me. I’m the ONLY one you can trust.”

How could a person be susceptable to an ideology if they read from vastly different sources? But Fox News groupies won’t hear of it. They know deep down inside thier being lied to, to justify a bias, and deep down inside they don’t care.

Objective reality is too uncomforatable.

Alz said:
in the Modern Liberal/Progressive system of arguing, you cannot use facts that are opposed to the current position of the Modern Liberals/Progressives.

Libs are inclined by disposition to consider reasoned opposition points – perhaps more than most cons.

I’ve seen many, many more lies and misinformation posted here by right-wingers than libs/progressives. I cite “Big Oafie” as among the worst of these – people who consistently, insistently and persistently post distorted and outright fabricated “facts” for the sole purposes of spreading false information, damaging Obama politically and “poisoning the well” of general discussion.

These people wind up embarrassing themselves, since their lies can be readily discerned and debunked. Unfortunately, the damage they do often remains in the minds of those who desire to believe their lies – often with such ardor that no amount of rational persuasion or factual information will convince them to the contrary.

Probably QUITE wrong said:
By the looks of your ratings O’Donnell, not very many people
know about YOU either. Just sayin”

I’d rather watch a lower-rated network that tries to be factual than a higher-rated one that deliberately deceives. You?

Paul Westlake said:
Dude, socialism is the natural condition of human beings. Socialism came first. Rugged individualism is the natural condition of mountain lions. We’re not cats. We’re humans. We’re socialists. That’s it.

In many ways you are right, but the term “Socialist” is wrong. The natural condition is to be animals. We have the ability (if we choose) to use our reasoning and intelligence to OVERCOME what you say.

Socialism is not natural – unless you think that hurting people in the long run is a good idea. Under Socialism, in order to force everything to be “equal”, you have to treat people unequally. At multiple levels, it’s unnatural.

jrcmi said:
Libs are inclined by disposition to consider reasoned opposition points – perhaps more than most cons.

Really, I haven’t seen this. It seems to be the opposite case. Time and time again, the left ignores or controls opposition. Have you heard of Political Correctness or speech codes?

The Left is about control, not reason. If the Left used reason, it would be a bottom up system, not a top-down command and control system.

Stephen Hogan said:
The economic climate has changed since 2006, has it not? We weren’t in the position of having to provide tax breaks and extend unemployment for a record number of people just to maintain some form of economic stability.

So, I don’t think you can cry ‘hypocrite’ on this. Obama’s decision in 2006 and the mindset he has now exist in the context of the economic realities of their respective times.

You’re just making excuses for these idiots. They are hypocrites every last one. Obama is no different.

The fact is, while there is technically a “debt ceiling” there really isn’t since every time we get close to it these thieves and crooks raise it thus putting our children and grand children into even more and more debt.

Who really believes we ever going to be able to lower the debt, even by half. These politicians know it, they just are putting off the inevitable for another generation to deal with.

O’Donnell is such the ICK-DAY!

Last night reviewing Beck’s Broke, I was writing about this contradiction for Beck between worrying about the sudden collapse of our “empire,” his word in chapter 1, and how do deal with the national debt in chapter 2. I just finished writing:

“Beck never uses the word “reactionary” to describe himself, but there is no other label for someone who wants to “go back to the beginning.” Beck signals the end of chapter 2 with “Welcome to the 1700s….” He is clearly not pointing to a “way forward.” We may be broke, but frugality is not a path toward economic recovery from a recession. It is the road to a double-dip recession. Even more alarming, if the reactionary, tea party members of Congress manage to block extending the debt ceiling in March, they will be building the superhighway toward another depression, a collapse of our “empire,” our superpower status in the world. In fact, on January 4th Beck is actually discouraging Republicans from extending the debt ceiling on Fox’s Freedom Watch with his friend Judge Napolitano. “If we do raise the debt ceiling, have we learned any lesson at all?”(12) That is the blatant contradiction of Beck’s frugal economics: what he fears in chapter 1, his tea party supporters in Congress could well bring about by adopting the strong anti-debt measure and not extending the debt ceiling. ” Logically consistent, Beck is not.

12) http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-beck-and-judge-napolitano-raising-debt-ceiling-is-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-republicans/

DING DONG!!!! DING DONG!!!!!

Those Tea-partyers? Sounds like he stopped just shot of calling them astro-turf. I wonder what Pelosi thinks of the term now?
This guy isn’t suggesting that Washington shouldn’t have debt ceiling on the backs of the American taxpayer is he? God knows, those of us who do pay taxes, would like nothing more than to know that Washington has an unlimited cap on their credit-card. Yes Sir, I don’t need my hard earned money for anything. I think it should go to some Washington “make-work program”, using illegal alien workers.

Alz said:
In many ways you are right, but the term “Socialist” is wrong. The natural condition is to be animals. We have the ability (if we choose) to use our reasoning and intelligence to OVERCOME what you say.

No, that’s called instinct. Socialism is the first natural system of governance that OVERCAME the instinct to use violence to get our way. Neanderthal, cro magnon and australopithecus were all socialists. The first humans were socialists and all tribal cultures are socialist. ALL of them – even the Yanomamo who are among the most warlike of all indigenous South American societies. Feudalism is a form of socialism. Capitalism is a form of socialism. Everything that isn’t dependent on the kindness, or at least restraint, or some segment of society is socialism. That we let you out in mixed company is socialism, for instance. You can try to redefine the labeling system all you like – as the right wing is always DESPERATE to do. But the English language, while changeable, is not that fluid.

Alz said:
Socialism is not natural – unless you think that hurting people in the long run is a good idea. Under Socialism, in order to force everything to be “equal”, you have to treat people unequally. At multiple levels, it’s unnatural.

Bullshit. There’s is no forcing people to “be equal” in socialism, that’s a fantasy concocted in your anus – a self-serving fantasy that makes it seem like stealing money from the poor to enrich the already wealthy is “natural.” It isn’t. And only thieves and morons believe otherwise. So which are you, a thief or a moron?

CAconservative says:
“God knows, those of us who do pay taxes, would like nothing more than to know that Washington has an unlimited cap on their credit-card. Yes Sir, I don’t need my hard earned money for anything.”

Where the hell were you for the first 8 years of this century? Obama comes in and does what liberals do during a recession, deficit spending to stimulate the economy (which worked), and you act like Republicans haven’t been creating huge debt issues for our nation ever since Ronald Reagan. Only Clinton, who was spurred into action on the deficit by the 3rd party candidacy of the would-be dictator, Ross the Boss, Perot, raised the taxes needed to get our budget out of the red. Then Bush put his idiotic ideals before the good of the country and made a budget in the black go to red, very red and then red as hell. Were you bitching about it when Paul O’Neil, Bush’s first Treas. Sec. was fired for pointing out how irresponsible the Bush tax cuts were? Hell, even supply-sider David Stockman thinks that the Bush tax cuts should have been allowed to expire this year.

CAconservative; do you have any idea how bad it would be for everyone to not extend the debt ceiling?

Nacho said:
What most in the Tea Party don’t know could fill a complete well rounded college curriculum.

Considering that the enlightened conservatives do not watch his drivel, one must assume he is referring to the utter ignorance of his audience–this I find very believable.

78Thomas said:
Oh course neocons do not watch MSNBC…or any other source. Only Fox News.
What is the Art of Propaganda? Single sourcing of information.
Fox News, “Everyone else in the world will lie to you, but not me. I’m the ONLY one you can trust.”

The vast majority of cable news viewers choose FOX for one reason: They desire to know the TRUTH. While CNN, HLN, CPR & MSNBC craft their programming to the liking of the lunatic left, Fox provides the TRUTH. In the end, TRUTH wins out every time. How else could you explain the fact that FOX has been #1 in the ratings for more than NINE years?

Nahu Tuk says:
“The vast majority of cable news viewers choose FOX for one reason: They desire to know the TRUTH. ”

Riiiiight; sure it is. First, home-schooled clown, the “vast majority” of cable news viewers don’t choose Fox, but most do. (You believe what Fox tells you; another indication of your education’s failure.)

Fox viewers watch because they are conservative/reactionary and Fox “News” reinforces their false beliefs (about Democrats, about Obama, about progressives.) Corruption is “fair and balanced.”. Corruption is “we report, you decide” and Glenn Beck is the cornerstone of Murdoch’s propaganda machine.

I don’t know where you got your so-called education Yahu, but you should contact them pronto, and demand your money back. You came away a gullible sheep without a critical bone in your skull. Lots of fear, but you’re gullible as hell.

Yahu, you have no idea what truth is. You confuse opinion with truth.

Paul Westlake said:
No, that’s called instinct. Socialism is the first natural system of governance that OVERCAME the instinct to use violence to get our way. Neanderthal, cro magnon and australopithecus were all socialists. The first humans were socialists and all tribal cultures are socialist. ALL of them – even the Yanomamo who are among the most warlike of all indigenous South American societies. Feudalism is a form of socialism. Capitalism is a form of socialism. Everything that isn’t dependent on the kindness, or at least restraint, or some segment of society is socialism. That we let you out in mixed company is socialism, for instance. You can try to redefine the labeling system all you like – as the right wing is always DESPERATE to do. But the English language, while changeable, is not that fluid.

Bullshit. There’s is no forcing people to “be equal” in socialism, that’s a fantasy concocted in your anus – a self-serving fantasy that makes it seem like stealing money from the poor to enrich the already wealthy is “natural.” It isn’t. And only thieves and morons believe otherwise. So which are you, a thief or a moron?

I know liberals are delusional, but the ENTIRE belief system of the Left is based on forcing things to be “equal”. In any decision, you guys work a path that drives in this direction.

This is why you guys are seemingly against our system – which is based on prosperity, success, MAKING THINGS BETTER.

Liberalism always fails because of this basic flaw.

Alz said:
I know liberals are delusional, but the ENTIRE belief system of the Left is based on forcing things to be “equal”. In any decision, you guys work a path that drives in this direction.

This is why you guys are seemingly against our system – which is based on prosperity, success, MAKING THINGS BETTER.

Liberalism always fails because of this basic flaw.

Liberalism has never failed in America because it literally founded America. It is also responsible for most of the Amendments to the constitution. Liberals literally gave you life. You have nothing to back-up a single word you say about liberals or this whole notion of making things “equal.” It’s your little pet theory based on nothing and only serves to highlight your ignorance and self-serving opportunism. You know nothing. Your labeling system is unique, I’ll give you that, but it’s based only on the fantasies concocted in your colon and nothing else. I would like to see if you can make one citation to a credible source that has anything at all to do with your “make things equal” fantasy. Just wondering, are you deluding yourself, or is someone handling that for you?

Nahu Tuk said:
The vast majority of cable news viewers choose FOX for one reason: They desire to know the TRUTH. While CNN, HLN, CPR & MSNBC craft their programming to the liking of the lunatic left, Fox provides the TRUTH. In the end, TRUTH wins out every time. How else could you explain the fact that FOX has been #1 in the ratings for more than NINE years?

Well, you seemed like you wanted honest debate over on the Dept of Sanitation thread, and then I see you over here spouting off crap like this. What a waste. Remind me to ignore you next time. ;-)

In my experience most people in the USA don’t know who O’Donnell is, and don’t care. Why publish this kind of drivel. What good use does it serve?

Paul Westlake said:
Liberalism has never failed in America because it literally founded America. It is also responsible for most of the Amendments to the constitution. Liberals literally gave you life. You have nothing to back-up a single word you say about liberals or this whole notion of making things “equal.” It’s your little pet theory based on nothing and only serves to highlight your ignorance and self-serving opportunism. You know nothing. Your labeling system is unique, I’ll give you that, but it’s based only on the fantasies concocted in your colon and nothing else. I would like to see if you can make one citation to a credible source that has anything at all to do with your “make things equal” fantasy. Just wondering, are you deluding yourself, or is someone handling that for you?

Watch that video I keep mentioning: “How Modern Liberals Think” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c He talks about it there. The transcript is around somewhere…i can find it if you want.

The country was found on what is known today as Conservatism. The “liberalism” term that you use is really Classical Liberalism and that is roughly the SAME as Conservatism. Today’s liberalism is NOT Classical Liberalism.

Our system was built on Limited Government and Individual Freedom – exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe in.

dahni said:
In my experience most people in the USA don’t know who O’Donnell is, and don’t care. Why publish this kind of drivel. What good use does it serve?

It’s designed to promote O’Donnell. Mediaite is not a news site, it’s a site designed to irritate Conservatives and Liberals so as to drive up traffic. With that said, It’s designed from the liberal perspective and people like Maddow, O’Donnell and a few others are promoted.

O’Donnell can’t get noticed on MSNBC because the viewership is so small and so highly skewed to the left. Mediaite is just doing it’s part to make him look important.

Alz said:
Watch that video I keep mentioning: “How Modern Liberals Think” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c He talks about it there. The transcript is around somewhere…i can find it if you want.

I’ve seen you post that self-serving sophistry offered up by right wing lunatics before and it’s STILL just as inane and fact-free as the first time you posted it.

Alz said:
The country was found on what is known today as Conservatism. The “liberalism” term that you use is really Classical Liberalism and that is roughly the SAME as Conservatism. Today’s liberalism is NOT Classical Liberalism.

Our system was built on Limited Government and Individual Freedom – exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe in.

I know how much you need to co-opt the liberal agenda for your own bankrupt philosophy but no, kid. Conservatives have been on the wrong side of every aspect of American history, from the founding itself, to the creation of the constitution, to the abolition of slavery, to the advent of anti-trust, to the civil rights act and all the way to our championing the rights of homosexuals today. There is NOTHING in conservative philosophy OR history that has ever contributed to the success of America. Not one thing… ever. You are blue-blooded Tories and that’s all conservatives have ever been in America… and all they’ll ever be. Conservatism is antithetical to America and everything it stands for. Everything. You and everything you believe are devoid of integrity. OUr system was not built on limited government at all. In fact it was built on quite expansive government with implied powers to do such things as:

- form a more perfect union
- establish justice
- ensure domestic tranquility
- provide for the common defense
- promote the general welfare
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Where do you see “limited government” in that? In fact, where DON’T you see socialism in that? The Founders were so much smarter than anything you’ll ever encounter in life, you really need to get a better education before you go spouting off about their work.

And again, let’s see something from a reputable source, not some shillery from typical reactionary extremists and political opportunists. God, you just believe absolutely anything you see and read that has the faintest whiff of a liberal smackdown. It’s kinda spooky how gullible you are.

Geez, they left the door open again.

http://samvak.tripod.com/journal67.html

Paul Westlake said:
I’ve seen you post that self-serving sophistry offered up by right wing lunatics before and it’s STILL just as inane and fact-free as the first time you posted it.

I know how much you need to co-opt the liberal agenda for your own bankrupt philosophy but no, kid. Conservatives have been on the wrong side of every aspect of American history, from the founding itself, to the creation of the constitution, to the abolition of slavery, to the advent of anti-trust, to the civil rights act and all the way to our championing the rights of homosexuals today. There is NOTHING in conservative philosophy OR history that has ever contributed to the success of America. Not one thing… ever. You are blue-blooded Tories and that’s all conservatives have ever been in America… and all they’ll ever be. Conservatism is antithetical to America and everything it stands for. Everything. You and everything you believe are devoid of integrity. OUr system was not built on limited government at all. In fact it was built on quite expansive government with implied powers to do such things as:

- form a more perfect union
- establish justice
- ensure domestic tranquility
- provide for the common defense
- promote the general welfare
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Where do you see “limited government” in that? In fact, where DON’T you see socialism in that? The Founders were so much smarter than anything you’ll ever encounter in life, you really need to get a better education before you go spouting off about their work.

And again, let’s see something from a reputable source, not some shillery from typical reactionary extremists and political opportunists. God, you just believe absolutely anything you see and read that has the faintest whiff of a liberal smackdown. It’s kinda spooky how gullible you are.

It’s ENUMERATED powers. Those powers not in the Constitution are delegated to the States or the People. It’s called LIMITED government. And it’s with a bias towards the People, NOT the Federal government.

Alz said:
It’s ENUMERATED powers. Those powers not in the Constitution are delegated to the States or the People. It’s called LIMITED government. And it’s with a bias towards the People, NOT the Federal government.

I know how the tenth amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The powers of the government comes first, then the individual states, then the people. These are “powers” we’re talking about, not rights. There is a difference. You’re arguing the difference between enumerated and implied powers, and I’m sorry, but implied powers have been upheld by every supreme court that has visited the question. To interpret otherwise would necessitate an amendment for almost every power congress wants to exercise, which would hamstring the Congress. You may think government was designed by the Founders by in perpetual gridlock, but their experiences with the Continental Congress led them to create better checks and balances and also a more efficient system, so laws could get passed and properly executed. They weren’t anarchists, nor were they limited government conservatives. They were liberals who had a radical idea – monarchs aren’t the ones imbued with natural rights, people are. And as such, government can be of, by and for the people, not monarchs. That’s the radical idea, not “limited government.” The preamble makes the entire notion of limited government preposterous on its face.

Appears to me that most everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room. If the idea is simply that everytime the debt ceiling is about to be reached it’s just a matter of voting to raise it… else we will “jeopardize the world economy” as LOD puts it, then why have a ceiling in the first place. What is the point if everytime it is reached we simply ignore it and make it higher? Why not lift it all together so we never have to worry about a default and never have to wring our hands about raising it? Oh, but some might say…we must have a limit or there will be no way to control spending. Say what? Do you not see the stupidity of that argument if everytime we reach it (due to the spending) we increase it? For those on the left who don’t want to address the real problem (It is the SPENDING Stupid!!!!) and simply want to keep their heads stuck in the sand and scream ‘raise the limit or the world will collapse’ out of their butts remaining above ground….then be truthful with the rest of us and admit you rather there be no ceiling at all and you just want to tax and spend, tax and spend until the golden goose is dead. And for my friends on the right, I don’t think any politician (jury still out on new Tea Party Repubs) is serious about spending cuts because they either love the power and votes their spending brings them (those on the left and many RINO’s) or they are too scared (the rest of the right) of being demagogued by the main stream press that an ignorant citizenry all too often listens to with a blank stare on their face while they mumble “that’s right” to the tv screen. Per Webster: Ceiling – “An upper limit on what is allowed”. Is that so hard to understand…. a freaking LIMIT. Congress should start doing their job and abide by the limit by cutting spending to stay within it or get rid it of all together and stop playing this stupid con game with the voters about facing the difficult decision on whether to raise it. And don’t even try to say cutting spending is too difficult. I’ll believe that fairy tale when they stop crying that an increase of 3% instead of 5% is a CUT in spending. That idea is just BS. It’s a cut only in terms of the amount of the increase, it is not a spending cut in the true sense of the phrase or in the real world that our politicians and media are oblivious to or want to ignore. We must start holding all those in Congress accountable and vote them OUT if they keep showing such irresponsibility until we can get representatives who will get the job done.

Paul Westlake said:
I know how the tenth amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The powers of the government comes first, then the individual states, then the people. These are “powers” we’re talking about, not rights. There is a difference. You’re arguing the difference between enumerated and implied powers, and I’m sorry, but implied powers have been upheld by every supreme court that has visited the question. To interpret otherwise would necessitate an amendment for almost every power congress wants to exercise, which would hamstring the Congress. You may think government was designed by the Founders by in perpetual gridlock, but their experiences with the Continental Congress led them to create better checks and balances and also a more efficient system, so laws could get passed and properly executed. They weren’t anarchists, nor were they limited government conservatives. They were liberals who had a radical idea – monarchs aren’t the ones imbued with natural rights, people are. And as such, government can be of, by and for the people, not monarchs. That’s the radical idea, not “limited government.” The preamble makes the entire notion of limited government preposterous on its face.

We ARE supposed to make Amendments. That’s the deal. Otherwise, the Constitution doesn’t mean as much.

Alz said:
We ARE supposed to make Amendments. That’s the deal. Otherwise, the Constitution doesn’t mean as much.

The Bill of Rights doesn’t mean as much if we don’t add more amendments? Really. That is one dumbass statement. NO! The constitution is the PROCESS by which we make law, not law in itself. There is no provision against murder in the constitution. Does that mean it’s legal until we add an amendment? Are you high?

Total ignoramus.

Paul Westlake said:
The Bill of Rights doesn’t mean as much if we don’t add more amendments? Really. That is one dumbass statement. NO! The constitution is the PROCESS by which we make law, not law in itself. There is no provision against murder in the constitution. Does that mean it’s legal until we add an amendment? Are you high?

Total ignoramus.

No, you lefty’s really do have an alternate way to process information.

I meant that we have Constitution that can be changed through the Amendment process. If we decide to skip the Amendment process (which we have been doing), then we are making changes by finding meaning in the words that were never there. Therefore, by doing this, the original document doesn’t mean as much.

If you have ever done a business control and have had amendments, schedule, addendums, etc, then you know that for the contracts that you don’t draw up the additional language, that parts of the original contracts have less and less meaning as circumstances change. We cannot do this with our base law; we have to resist it.

Back to your comment specifically, why would murder have to be in the US Constitution? It’s a local matter.

Now come on and think about this stuff, it’s not so hard.

Penguin60 says:
“Geez, they left the door open again.”

Profound there, bird brain, utterly profound. A link that describes your deep and abiding self love. When you f#$k yourself, do you use your right hand or your left hand? Or are you bi-sexual and use both hands?

Alz said:
I meant that we have Constitution that can be changed through the Amendment process.

OH! Well, thanks for that information, Thomas Jefferson. I hadn’t considered that before.

Alz said:
If we decide to skip the Amendment process (which we have been doing), then we are making changes by finding meaning in the words that were never there. Therefore, by doing this, the original document doesn’t mean as much.

Name some laws that should have been constitutional amendments instead.

Alz said:
If you have ever done a business control and have had amendments, schedule, addendums, etc, then you know that for the contracts that you don’t draw up the additional language, that parts of the original contracts have less and less meaning as circumstances change. We cannot do this with our base law; we have to resist it.

The constitution in not a contract. Contracts are way more specific than the constitution was ever intended to be. If the constitution bore any resemblance to contracts, or had any foundation in contract law, the second amendment wouldn’t be so vague. It wouldn’t talk about necessity, it would talk about mandates. It wouldn’t say our right to keep and bear shall not infringed, it would say the people SHALL carry weapons of war and they SHALL be these types with X amount of ammo and X hours of training, etc, etc. The constitution is intentionally vague in many areas because the Founders always intended the Congress to make laws that dealt with the details. That is the case with every provision. Article one doesn’t what KIND of taxes can be levied, just that taxes can be levied. That’s the way the constitution works. It’s not law, it’s process for making law.

Alz said:
Back to your comment specifically, why would murder have to be in the US Constitution? It’s a local matter.

Ah, jurisdictional, eh? OK, how about Federal drug laws? Why haven’t those been enacted by amendment?

Alz said:
Now come on and think about this stuff, it’s not so hard.

But you sure make it look hard!

LOL

GlennBeckReview said:
Nahu Tuk says:“The vast majority of cable news viewers choose FOX for one reason: They desire to know the TRUTH. ” Riiiiight; sure it is. First, home-schooled clown, the “vast majority” of cable news viewers don’t choose Fox, but most do. (You believe what Fox tells you; another indication of your education’s failure.) Fox viewers watch because they are conservative/reactionary and Fox “News” reinforces their false beliefs (about Democrats, about Obama, about progressives.) Corruption is “fair and balanced.”. Corruption is “we report, you decide” and Glenn Beck is the cornerstone of Murdoch’s propaganda machine. I don’t know where you got your so-called education Yahu, but you should contact them pronto, and demand your money back. You came away a gullible sheep without a critical bone in your skull. Lots of fear, but you’re gullible as hell. Yahu, you have no idea what truth is. You confuse opinion with truth.

Spoken like a true welfare monkey! It is time for you to get off the porch waiting for that welfare check that I provide you and get a damn job! There’s no more free lunch moron.