Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:07:49

I'm 2 minutes in, and I'm being told this decision might lead to worse outcomes than Dred Scott, which Olbermann himself said led to the Civil War. I can't wait to see where Keith goes next!

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:09:19

kopphanatic wrote:For your consideration:

[youtube]Olbermann 1[/youtube]

[youtube]Olbermann 2[/youtube]

man, do NOT watch part 2 if you smoke up and are prone to hyperbolic paranoia

b/c there isn't enough tinfoil

by **dajafi** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:10:13

Jon Stewart beautifully eviscerated Olbermann last night on the Daily Show.

He's become unwatchable. I'm about 97 percent in agreement with the guy, have probably a bit of extra fondness for him going back to the ESPN days, and even I'd like to feed him a heaping plate of STFU.

by **traderdave** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:15:08

swishnicholson wrote:Air America is going off the air, which raises the significant question, It was still on?

Good one and it brings up something kinda funny (to me, anyway) that happened yesterday morning. I was trying to find Preston and Steve on MMR for my wife and I accidently put on this news station. I listened for a while and thought the reporting/stories were really good; seemed to have an "insiders" slant to them. Turns out I was listening to NPR's "Morning Edition" on WHYY.

I don't know why but I guess I had always thought that NPR was something communists (meaning trouble-makers) listened to. I actually enjoyed the 30 mins I had it on. Is AA the one that Maddow came from?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:30:49

Glenn Beck has nothing on Keith Olbermann. Holy crap those clips were amazing.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:32:50

dajafi wrote:Jon Stewart beautifully eviscerated Olbermann last night on the Daily Show.

He's become unwatchable. I'm about 97 percent in agreement with the guy, have probably a bit of extra fondness for him going back to the ESPN days, and even I'd like to feed him a heaping plate of STFU.

Thinking about this a little more, I realized that I'd forgotten Olbermann was in the "kill the bill because it isn't liberal enough" crowd. That bit of tactical idiocy suggests to me that he simply doesn't understand how the game should be played, and probably drops my simpatico with him to something in the 50s or 60s, percent-wise.

by **traderdave** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 13:04:59

jerseyhoya wrote:Glenn Beck has nothing on Keith Olbermann. Holy crap those clips were amazing.

Keith did kinda come off like he missed his 7pm Xanax, didn't he? I think his general point is well-taken but he sort of strayed off the reservation a bit. For the record, his comparison of the Dred Scott decision to the CU decision is an absolute disgrace.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 13:37:03

jerseyhoya wrote:Glenn Beck has nothing on Keith Olbermann. Holy crap those clips were amazing.

Glenn Beck gives a bad name to smug. He has a lower ratio of 'believes hes something/actually is something' than almost any living primate. Olbermann at his most odious is not in his league.

by **Bakestar** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 13:39:08

Comparing naughty SCOTUS rulings to either Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson is a common tactic of hysterical types on both ends of the political spectrum.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 14:16:29

So we have a government fused with corporations, a legislature run by corporate lobbyists who have just been given a massive financial gift to control the process even more deeply; we have a theory of executive power advanced by one party that gives the president total extra-legal power over any human being he wants to call an "enemy combatant" and total prerogative in launching and waging wars (remember Cheney did not believe Bush needed any congressional support to invade Iraq); we have a Supreme Court that believes in extreme deference to presidential power; we have a Congress of total pussies on the left and maniacs on the right and little in the middle; we have a 24-hour propaganda channel, run by a multinational corporation and managed by a partisan Republican, demonizing the president for anything he does or does not do; we have the open embrace of torture as a routine aspect of US government; and we have one party urging an expansion of the war on Jihadism to encompass a full-scale war against Iran, an act that would embolden the Khamenei junta and ensure that a civilizational war between the nuttiest Christianists in America and the vilest Islamists metastasizes to Def Con 3.

There's a word that characterizes this kind of polity. It's on the tip of my tongue ...

I know, I know: angry, hateful, over the top.

by **jeff2sf** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 14:20:00

So who wrote it, ptk?

by **traderdave** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 14:32:50

I think that is a preview of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment tonight.

by **Woody** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 14:35:00

I like when Olbermann gets all pissed and his voice gets close to Christian Bale's Dark Knight voice and he says things like, 'for shame, Mr. President'

by **dajafi** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 14:53:41

Fifty-nine senators, representing (as explained here) some 63 percent of the American public, accompanied by a large House majority and a president recently elected with 70 million votes, cannot enact changes in the nation's health-care system that have been debated for decades.
A 59-41 margin is not enough for a change of this magnitude.

Five Justices of the Supreme Court, outvoting their four colleagues, can work a fundamental change in election law that goes far beyond the issues presented by the parties to the case. (Among many accounts, see these two on Slate, here and here, and National Journal here.) Courts always have the option of deciding cases narrowly or broadly. The breadth of this one, reaching far beyond the merits of the case so as to enact the majority Justices' views, is staggering even to a non-lawyer like me. A one-person margin* is enough for a change of this magnitude.

In the least accountable branch of government, the narrowest margin prevails; in our elected legislative branch, substantial majorities are neutered.

link

I'll stop. My point is simply that there are some structural/theoretical issues here that confound both representative democracy and real-world problem-solving efforts, and that the actors in the system right now seem to be operating in bad faith, spinelessness, or both.

by **Woody** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 15:06:51

Can someone tell me how corporate spending is directly related to free speech. I find this all very confusing

by **Woody** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 15:11:52

And how did it ever get positioned so that the so-called liberal party is purportedly against free speech, whereas the so-called conservative party is all for it

by **Woody** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 15:12:17

Also: what's the deal with voting?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 15:14:46

Woody wrote:Can someone tell me how corporate spending is directly related to free speech. I find this all very confusing

“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

I think that's the shorthand. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. I guess they're calling corporations associations of citizens. Another assumption is labor unions probably count as people too. Maybe someone with a law degree could do better.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 15:19:13

Woody wrote:And how did it ever get positioned so that the so-called liberal party is purportedly against free speech, whereas the so-called conservative party is all for it

Liberals think everyone is dumb and can think of no other reason why people, especially poor people, would support a party that exists only to help the rich get richer and prop up corporate fat cats. Well unless they are racist. So the fewer people out there trying to trick people away from their natural inclination of voting for an all knowing, all loving state, the better these poor saps will be. Who will miss a little free speech, since it is for The Greater Good?

I can do hyperbole 2!

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 15:25:47

Woody wrote:Also: what's the deal with voting?

Don't bother. Democracy died yesterday. Supremes legalized corporations to implant a chip in everybody's head to make sure they vote for drones who will gift money to corporations unquestioningly. Since whoever gets the most money spent on them always wins elections. And populist outcries have never beaten corporate influences.

They also expelled all Democrats from the Senate in a 5-4 vote. CalvinBall isn't sure this will make much of a difference because they couldn't pass a health care bill with 60 votes. John Roberts actually gave George Bush the heads up that this was going to happen a few weeks ago, and this is what he and Jerry Jones were high fiving about in Dallas.

Should I stop? Probably.

Archived

Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread