Go vote

[Atreides]

idk who this new guy is but he is HOT

[Rhinox]

the guy who suspended Keith direct number

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x9491392

[Edelweiss]

Considering all the overtures the various hosts on MSNBC have been making to Cenk Uygur for the better part of a year (plus all the fill-ins for them in essentially every time slot but Rachel's and Chris O'Donnell's), it's rather surprising he isn't hosting a show. He likely would have filled in for Olbermann today (Friday) but he was filling in for their 3 PM person, and again at 6 for Ed Schultz.

*Eh, guy hosting Countdown tonight does their 3 PM slot. So I assume that's why Cenk filled today.

[Rhinox]

NBC is a Joke.

[Rhinox]

apparently Maddow is gonna point out the hypocritical double standards tonight. Not sure if she is gonna mention Phil Griffin or comcast by name. Would be epic if she did.

[Kuya]

I liked digby's opinion about this Olbermann situation:

No Stomach For The Fox Hunt

by digby

Am I the only one who finds it just a little bit interesting that every time the political zeitgeist turns, MSNBC seems to shift ideological direction? I guess there's a reason why their new slogan is "Lean Forward" (which could be interpreted as something a little bit cruder...)

I have no idea what really went on with Olberman but I suspect it may have had at least something to do with our one-sided obsession lately with "civility." He did, after all, suspend his "worst person in the world" segment last week although that may have been entirely his decision. I sense that there are misgivings about the strong anti-rightwing slant of an Olbermann or Shultz (as opposed to the populist, pox-on-both-their-houses approach of Uyger or Ratigan) and that they may be afraid of the financial consequences of being too hostile to the GOP.

Given the mores of the Village, I also expect that they do not like being seen as the liberal answer to Fox. Fox doesn't mind being Fox, because it was created as an alternative to the mainstream media with a goal of advancing an ideological message (even though they wink and nod and pretend otherwise.) But the rest of the media have been fighting the "liberal" label for so long that they reflexively recoil and withdraw when they are accused of it, and especially when they are accused of being shrill and uncivil about it. In other words, they don't have the guts to stake out a real position and when they see uncomfortable comparisons between themselves and "the crazies" they back off. It's the oldest working the ref play in the book.

I don't watch Olberman all that often, mostly because of my schedule, but I think he --- or someone like him -- is a necessary part of the media landscape in this era. He's a bombastic gasbag for sure, but he brings a point of view that's not seen elsewhere in the cable universe. And the problem is that if MSNBC doesn't want to carry that point of view, who will? .

Sadly, all the MSNBC hosts will undoubtedly be aware --- if only subliminally --- that regardless of Olberman's eccentricities, the fact that the bosses are clipping his wings over something they could have technically overlooked ("it's an opinion show") is a message, particularly since he was getting good ratings. They don't have a whole lot of rope and I'm sure they know it.

[Baha]

both sides can argue..."Who gives a shit?" Let them have the word if it means freedom to make laws without the religious breathing down their necks over it.

I'd say that's more worth it than say "We want this word, you can't have it!"

Yeah I agree, it's not worth witholding this progress just because the religious side doesn't want to concede to "marriage before god" "marriage before the state".

Except there is no law stating that they have the right to be.

For a normal job you could use equal rights, but religion is like a private club. They don't want to allow female priests? Fine. They don't want to allow gays to be married before god in holy matrimony®? Fine. It's not for the state to interfere.
They don't, however, get a say in the marriage before the state, and all the various advantages and disadvantages associated with it. I too would like to think that changing the term would be enough to appease them, but that seems unlikely. Gay couple getting access to the same easier house loans as straight couples? ABOMINATION
Besides, politicians willfully alienating people, however wrong they might be? Nah.

[Altariel]

The problem I see is that when you make a separate institution for the government, every time there is a legal inconsistency that needs to be corrected you have to have the fight over again. We already gave them civil unions, now they want joint tax filing status? We already gave them civil unions, now they want judicial evidentiary immunity? We already gave them civil unions, now they want survivor pension benefits? Etc. Etc.

[kuronosan]

Actually it's just because gay people are just as retarded as everybody else.

It's the same as the like 80% union workers in Kansas that are extremely dependent on unemployment (especially lately) in our economy that's largely based around the aircraft industry, overwhelmingly voting for Sam fucking Brownback as governor, electing Tihart over and over again, etc. etc. They believe what they hear, and one side is a hell of a lot louder than the other.

You live in Kansas? Hmph.

[Masenko]

If you haven't voted yet, according to the mail flyers, today is the day minority races are supposed to vote, so get out there!

[Melchiah]

Your joke isn't funny.

[Olo401]

If you haven't voted yet, according to the mail flyers, today is the day minority races are supposed to vote, so get out there!

If you think that's funny, I just heard from several people up in Minnesota that they received letters on Monday from Sen. Franken reminding them to vote. (Yes, I'm totally serious)

[Masenko]

Wasn't meant to be funny, was meant to be satire. For the Franken thing, probably the post office failing again, I got 8 flyers in the mail the week after election day for various things.

[Rhinox]

How's that hope and change working out for you?

[Kuya]

Only idiots thought that that would really be the deadline. Obama has to take into account the facts on the ground and he has to listen to his generals who are the ones who know what they are doing. All this raging over the deadline is stupid. This is war! You can't have deadlines!

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Obama supported this war in his campaign, what are you two bitching about?

[Atreides]

no one was bitching in either of those two posts, but LET'S FREAK OUT ANYWAY

[Rhinox]

LOL, Fuck this guy


If we can survive Bush we'll survive another Republican President in 2012

[Atreides]

Not entirely surprising, although I don't necessarily agree that the country can afford another republican president in 2012 especially since all of the potential candidates out there are horrifyingly terrible.

I have to wonder if the american people are really so stupid that they don't see what the republicans are trying to do-- lacking a clear message and afraid to put one out there for fear of pissing off the tea party, so instead of jobs they only advocate two things:

1) Tax cuts, which are universally popular, with no way of paying for them. The notion that you can lower taxes and still somehow have enough money to pay for programs is retarded, I mean it's economics 101 that making less money means you have less money.

2) Cutting spending, and I am purposely not going to clarify because republicans have yet to clarify. When asked about it they basically say "we're going to cut spending by cutting spending". When you go to the supermarket and the cashier asks how you want to pay do you tell her "well we need to lower the cost of groceries"? You can't say you want to cut spending and avoid pissing off old people with entitlement cuts, but it's like they're still in denial that the public probably realizes this already.

I don't really think the Tea Party offers much of an alternative either, since it makes people vote against their own interests and is incredibly hypocritical. You can't claim you want washington outsiders and then vote for people who have been in politics for 20 years just because they went to a few rallies. You can't say you want to go back to the constitution if you only really mean that once you've changed or eliminated a few amendments. And you can't claim you're a grassroots organization if nearly all of your candidates are being funded and co-opted by massive amounts of corporate money.

And don't even get me started on the environment, gay rights, abortion, immigration... ok enough ranting for now

[Yabby]

I have to wonder if the american people are really so stupid that they don't see what the republicans are trying to do

Think that was confirmed on the 2nd yea?