Well... thanks for posting the video. Olbermann made some good points, but I immediately busted out laughing at the end of it - it's that blustered, angry look on his face - gets me every time
Some of his points were overblown too.... kinda gives the Tea Partiers some ammunition when you take things like "the Tea Party would support Bernie Madoff" out of context.
the strategy is quite brilliant ... you can tell people that they will pay zero taxes and still have everything and they will buy it ... because for the most part, most of these people lack the will to actually put those concepts to any kind of test ...
Just like the liberal concept of telling people they can have everything for free and only the "Rich" will have to pay for it. It is brilliant.
Both sides try to have their cake and eat it to. The funny thing is all of them only care about 3 things...money and power...and to get that they only care about 1 thing...getting votes. Most don't really care about the people, they only care about what they can sell them in order to keep their power and thus keep their $.
We need a wholesale changover.
thats not the liberal view, that is a left wing few, you can be right wing and liberal or centerist and liberal or left wing and liberal, the same you you can be leftwing and autocratic, right wing and auto cratic and center and autocratic, liberal and right wing are not polar opisates
Okay - here's one of the big questions I have about the Tea Party philosophy and the candidates the party has chosen to endorse:
What makes you think these people will be any better than the incumbents?
Two years ago the right was complaining that Obama lacked the necessary qualifications to be president; that he was too young and inexperienced. Now, two years later, there's a movement afoot to oust incumbent politicians and replace them with people like Meg Whitman (no political experience and allegedly knowingly employed an illegal immigrant), Christine O'Donnell (a former marketing consultant who has never held office anywhere, has been accused of misusing campaign funds and lying about her educational background, and apparently doesn't know what the First Amendment covers), and Sharron Angle (has political experience, but this year alone has alleged that Dearborn, Michigan, is under Sharia law, has said Mexicans in a campaign ad about illegal immigration are meant to represent Canadians, and called herself Nevada's first Asian politician).
I understand that some people are disappointed in incumbent politicians - but is the answer ousting them and replacing with people who have no experience and are borderline nuts? It seems like all you're doing is making a bad situation worse.
I think this is a valid question...
I think you first need to make a distinction between the President and congressional/gubernatorial seats. I don't think it's really fair to compare the two when it comes to experience. One is the leader of our country and the others are cogs in a machine or the leader of one of fifty states.
And I wouldn't lump every conservative into the same pile either. McCain lost my vote because I was terrified that Palin might become president. I think the presidential election would have been closer if he either chose someone else, or was in better health.
The tea party itself is a pretty interesting 'movement'. To no surprise it really has been hijacked by republicans and the original tea party didn't have enough leadership to stop it. And if your a high up republican, why wouldn't you? It's the perfect platform to tie yourself too. This complemented by Pres. Obama's declining approval rating makes for the perfect storm.
I think a lot of the Tea Party cliche's are being ate up by republican's because they speak to what these people want. The real debate comes in with whether or not they are feasible.
Olberman's piece was extremely one-sided, as expected. I was more interested in hearing some of his responses to what the candidates' ideas, instead of spinning them so they sound rash.
For instance, when he talks about Miller wanting to "change the constitution, he wants to repeal the 17th amendment".
When the 17th amendment was passed, it was changing the constitution. I think it's completely valid to want to repeal an amendment if you feel it isn't applicable anymore or it was a mistake. Olberman just decided to focus on him wanting to 'change' the constitution.
His rant was pretty unsubstantial and littered with insults. He always reminds me of the liberal version of O'Reily.
And one other thing that has become annoying re: Tea Party...
Yada yada is "unconstitutional because it doesn't allow for it"
The constitution doesn't spell out everything the government can do, it spells out what it can't.
If you feel like something is unconstitutional, point to a specific passage(or ruling) where it says it is prohibited... don't say it never says you can.
Comments
Some of his points were overblown too.... kinda gives the Tea Partiers some ammunition when you take things like "the Tea Party would support Bernie Madoff" out of context.
thats not the liberal view, that is a left wing few, you can be right wing and liberal or centerist and liberal or left wing and liberal, the same you you can be leftwing and autocratic, right wing and auto cratic and center and autocratic, liberal and right wing are not polar opisates
I think this is a valid question...
I think you first need to make a distinction between the President and congressional/gubernatorial seats. I don't think it's really fair to compare the two when it comes to experience. One is the leader of our country and the others are cogs in a machine or the leader of one of fifty states.
And I wouldn't lump every conservative into the same pile either. McCain lost my vote because I was terrified that Palin might become president. I think the presidential election would have been closer if he either chose someone else, or was in better health.
The tea party itself is a pretty interesting 'movement'. To no surprise it really has been hijacked by republicans and the original tea party didn't have enough leadership to stop it. And if your a high up republican, why wouldn't you? It's the perfect platform to tie yourself too. This complemented by Pres. Obama's declining approval rating makes for the perfect storm.
I think a lot of the Tea Party cliche's are being ate up by republican's because they speak to what these people want. The real debate comes in with whether or not they are feasible.
Olberman's piece was extremely one-sided, as expected. I was more interested in hearing some of his responses to what the candidates' ideas, instead of spinning them so they sound rash.
For instance, when he talks about Miller wanting to "change the constitution, he wants to repeal the 17th amendment".
When the 17th amendment was passed, it was changing the constitution. I think it's completely valid to want to repeal an amendment if you feel it isn't applicable anymore or it was a mistake. Olberman just decided to focus on him wanting to 'change' the constitution.
His rant was pretty unsubstantial and littered with insults. He always reminds me of the liberal version of O'Reily.
Yada yada is "unconstitutional because it doesn't allow for it"
The constitution doesn't spell out everything the government can do, it spells out what it can't.
If you feel like something is unconstitutional, point to a specific passage(or ruling) where it says it is prohibited... don't say it never says you can.
How is that newsworthy?
Nevermind...ready the Pulitzer.