UPDATE: Olbermann suspended for Dem contributions

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by inforeal


The war is between the rich elite who have deceived millions in helping them maintain their suzerainty over everyone and everything else, and refuse to allow for the freedom of all of the American people.

Indeed, no one is free when they have no health care.

No one is free when they have fear of being on the street, or having no Job.

No one is free when forty or more of the country lives at the poverty level, at the same time the wealthy have enjoined opulence and wealth unlike anything in the history of humanity.

This is not an accident or because people are lazy and stupid.

No one is free when the fruit of their labor is taken by government and redistributed to fund someone elses healthcare.

you would rather the rich have it forcefully removed by a desperate father trying to find money to pay for his childs surgery? what would you do if someone you loved was dying and couldn't afford the surgery to save them, meanwhile, some obscene multimillionare across the street was simply flaunting their money, buying golden toilets and such?
principles end when emergency starts

No one is free when the fruits of their labor are taken by government to subsidize the lifestyle of others.

labor. lol...the ones laboring are not the ones being taken from...quite the opposite.

No one is free when government can take more and more of your money and spend it irresponsibly by providing for those who dont provide for themselves.

I double dog dare you to go to a construction worker working 60 hour weeks and tell him he isn't providing for himself and he deserves no help
dont worry, your premium health care service will pay for the claw hammer being extracted from your head shortly after

There is no right to healthcare.

there is no right to life either then...do you believe abortion is a perfectly legal and moral choice? funny, your side demands babies get born, but take no responsiblity to keep them alive or healthy.
I suggest you have no right to safety then...lets put things back to the law of the jungle...see how long you and yours keep onto your forture when suddenly there is no big sweeping social service to protect your hoarding.

oh, lemme guess, you have a right for police to be there to defend you..pfft..nope...just a wasteful social service, just like health care...can't afford security guards for your own home...oh well...work harder you hippy!

There is no right to live in a house.

nor do you, and again, I say you have no right to police or even life...I think you personally should have a house as long as you can personally defend it...sleep with one eye open mate.

There is no right to a job.

most large corporations agree with you...especially if your living outside of india or china.
btw, those corporations have no right to having my tax dollars protecting their hoarding arse..

There is no right to live above the poverty line.

this is getting silly...of course not...there is no right to food, there is no right to clean water, etc...you know what...let me introduce you to a concept called humanity.

its when a group of people get together, move out of the caves and sitting in our own feces and decide we can collectively become a greater species...so we all get together, chip in on where we find our strengths, and improve our condition
we call this civilization
now, the apes don't do this...but then again, they are still just living in a tree flinging poo at each other...are you saying we should try to devolve back into being apes? cant you ultra wingnuts find some island to fling poo at each other and let civilization continue on without the chimp speak?

Yes, we have no right to anything, yet when humans get together and try to better themselves, this is an ideal worth working for...do you not believe in ideals? all for yourself kinda thing?

moving on with the silliness then...

These are all things you EARN by WORKING for them.

edit on 5-11-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)

work all you want...I bet you have insurance...if you do, your a hypocrite...because insurance is a unity program of everyone working together to make something available that otherwise would be out of reach for the average person.
deal with it...either you go with those wacky liberal philosophies, or you are simply demanding we all go back to being monkeys in a tree.

Government is a representation of the people...corporations is a representation of a single or a few people imposing its will on everyone to consolidate resources. your going to enter into a socialist system either way, might as well be the version where you find a bit more fairness and equality in the structure

reply to post by BigTimeCheater


You have a right to your anti-human and anti-American philosophy of separation, alienation, injustice and disunity.


Things that promote the general well being of the population, such as jobs for the people and access to health care, are what is justified by a civilized society of human beings coming together in the pact of unity.

People can go off in the woods and live by themselves if they like.

All civilized societies levy taxes on their population; it is something they all do.

I don’t like paying taxes either.

But I take advantage of what Taxes do as you do and all do . . . such as using highways, bridges, law enforcement, fire safety, and the military [in defending the country from foreign enemies] garbage collection and other things that allow for a civil, peacful and hopefully a just society.

But when you have elite wealthy people using their wealth to take advantage of their position to prevent the basics of life for most, that promoted the common good and you justify this erosion of true justice and freedom with a false notion of freedom based on selfishness and greed, that is indeed anti-human and anti-American!


The Preamble to the Constitution

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We are not promoting the general welfare, or the establishment of justice, or certainly not promoting domestic tranquility of the nation with over 40 percent of the people at the poverty level.

People going bankrupt and dying because of a lack of basic health care

No more middle class jobs because the corporations are selfishly outsourcing good jobs overseas

Or the Supreme Court allowing corporations to give anonimously unlimited contributions to the candidate of their choice

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
No one is free when government can take more and more of your money and spend it irresponsibly by providing for those who dont provide for themselves.
There is no right to healthcare.
There is no right to live in a house.
There is no right to a job.
There is no right to live above the poverty line.
These are all things you EARN by WORKING for them.

so..... question here:

when anybody becomes unable to work
whether it be disability or old age or
no jobs available, then according to
the above statements, someone should
just take us out in the woods like an old dog
and shoot us so we're not a strain on
others or society???

And what happens when you are unable
to work? Will you change your mind then?
just asking

Shooting?

he has no right to a bullet...a rope will do just fine.
Why have his unworking arse soak up ammo cost? once he stops working, we hang him..pretty simple really..

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
There is no right to healthcare.

There is no right to live in a house.

There is no right to a job.

There is no right to live above the poverty line.

These are all things you EARN by WORKING for them

Ummm, have you read the 9th Amendment? Let me refresh your memory:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean we don't have the rights mentioned.

Originally posted by inforealThe Preamble to the Constitution

We the people of the United States-snip-, promote the general welfare,

What sort of progressive nazi socialist tripe is this and who wrote it...obama? mao? hitler? stalin?

reply to post by SaturnFX


That is the preamble to the constitution of the GREAT COUNTRY OF AMERICA!

AND I AM PROUD OF IT!

Hey Saturn I know you are being facetious

thanks

reply to post by SaturnFX


Apparently it was a bunch of seditious terrorists who had the gall to believe that the people mattered more than the aristocracy!

Some peoples children, huh!

~Heff

Why is it that those that think the government can do most anything-Think Pete Stark, ALWAYS refer to the preamble?

What you folks fail to realize, is that if it is NOT included in the enumerated powers, the government does not have the RIGHT to do it.

Please quit advocating breaking the law.

The next thing people are going to say is that the general welfare allows the government to do anything they want.

OH, some already do!

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


The preamble is a guide.

Freedom without a guide to what freedom should attempt to do is useless, or it is anarchy

He presumably knew the rules of his employer when he hired on, and chose to break them. Tough #.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Why is it that those that think the government can do most anything-Think Pete Stark, ALWAYS refer to the preamble?

Why is is nutty anarchist tea partiers wingnuts always refer to the consitution?

We either take this stuff seriously or not..lets not cherry pick..

Originally posted by thecinic
The thing is journalist are suppose to be non-bias (we know you cant be 100 percent NON-BIAS) but be as close as you can. This is not juan williams getting fired for stating his oppinion, This is a journalist who we already knows is in bed with Obama but it just proved how BIAS he really is by donating money to the democrats... If you know one thing about journalism it is that YOU ARE NOT a politician and ARE not to be funding campaigns that could hurt your employer (make them loose money) Hence CNN. I am no CNN fan screw CNN but I am not for journalist funding political parties.. I don't care if it's Hannity, Beck, Cooper, King, this is a BIG NO NO in that business..

Yes it is possible for a reporter to be 100% non bias. There was one on tv for decades that was a die hard liberal who never once let his political views influence his interviews no matter what party they were from. His name was Walter Cronkite and he set the standard about how reporters should act. Today we have no reporters we have people that take the job but really want to be personalities.

reply to post by SaturnFX


You CANNOT cherry pick components of the Constitution. It is meant to be taken as a whole. Yes, the preamble is part of the law. But if you only take the one component as a reference, you are misinterpreting it.

Think of it this way. Say the Constitution is only one law. If the government attempts to do something that breaks any component of it, then it breaks the law.

You cannot cherry pick what you want to follow and what you don't. Since the enumerated powers are LIMITS placed upon the government, that is the first part you look at when attempting to give a power to the government. Or to defend a power they attempt. Then you look at the rest of the Constitution.

As for your nutbag comment, you see us nutbags follow the law, because us nutbags know that we are either a nation of law or we are a nation of men.

For your information, NO ONE rules over me. I have no king, I am a sovereign citizen of this Country. We rid ourselves of royalty quite a few years ago and my family has fought for my freedom in numerous wars. I will bow to no man.

Originally posted by Aquarius1

Originally posted by dillweed
Olberman is a sanctimonious boob, with apologies to boobs. They can't possibly sanction this arsehole enough. Who likes this guy?

I do, never miss his show, whether you like him or not has nothing to with our rights to support any candidate we choose, corporations should have no right to tell us who we cannot support a candidate when they themselves openly do.

edit on 5-11-2010 by Aquarius1 because: (no reason given)

Agreed.

Olbermann's choice is his own. No corporation can stop your political beliefs or actions.

So tonight on The Rachel Maddow show she ended her show talking about what happened with Keith Olbermann. How did she cover this incident? She gave examples of Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and a few other Fox News Contributors who donated or endorsed Republican candidates.

I generally like some of her coverage, but to me this was nothing more than a feeble attempt to shift focus. This was Keith Olbermanns contract, and MSNBC stated as much. What Fox contributors have to do with Olbermanns incident is beyond me. If Olbermann and Maddow are this upset, then friggin go work for another network, or have your contract redone.

She ended her segment with the names of fox news personalities and the donations made while going on a diatribe about how Fox News is a political operation and MSNBC is not. MSNBC NOT a political operation.. How can one miss that glaring problem?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
So tonight on The Rachel Maddow show she ended her show talking about what happened with Keith Olbermann. How did she cover this incident? She gave examples of Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and a few other Fox News Contributors who donated or endorsed Republican candidates.

I generally like some of her coverage, but to me this was nothing more than a feeble attempt to shift focus. This was Keith Olbermanns contract, and MSNBC stated as much. What Fox contributors have to do with Olbermanns incident is beyond me. If Olbermann and Maddow are this upset, then friggin go work for another network, or have your contract redone.

She ended her segment with the names of fox news personalities and the donations made while going on a diatribe about how Fox News is a political operation and MSNBC is not. MSNBC NOT a political operation.. How can one miss that glaring problem?

edit on 5-11-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

What the people of MSNBC do in their personal time does not make MSNBC a political operation.

Wait... 2500 is the most allowed by an individual? WhyTF can corporations give millions?

I call for a Mutiny

So lets all assume that when Keith was offered his job at MSNBC that he was in fact smart enough to read his big ole contract. If he chose not to read the dang thing, I am sure he had at least one lawyer look it over, not to mention his agent and maybe someone else. All parties involved AGREED to the contract and Keith signed happily on the dotted line.

He isn't making what normal folks make, and for the kind of money he is making yearly, I bet he knew every single thing in his contract. From makeup to hair, to lighting, to vacation time to sick days.. he knew that contract frontwards and backwards. And company policies were well documented within that contract.

He chose not to follow it and guess what.. he is out of a job. He bit the hand that fed him. He did this to himself.

The only other plausible situation I can think of is, he wanted out, knowing this would do it. Or he is just that damn stoopid.

Now for those who are whining (yes I did say whining) about how Fox News did this or that or had people contribute or how Murdock gave money.. well folks guess what. Fox News is a different company and not all companies have the same policies. So no, this does not make MSNBC more honest, or better at reporting, nor does this make Fox News any better or more honest. Company rules are company rules. It really isn't all that hard to understand the difference, unless you simply don't want to see it.

reply to post by Mak Manto


What they do on the air is the exact same claim they made against Fox News. Hannity, Beck are just as guilty as Olbermann and Matthews are in terms of backing candidates.

Originally posted by Myendica
Wait... 2500 is the most allowed by an individual? WhyTF can corporations give millions?

I call for a Mutiny

We can thank the US Supreme Court for that little gem of a repeal. This last year they found it unconstitutional to have a limit placed on corp contributions.

That decision was right up their with their stupid ass decision on imminent domain.