Television

None Dare Call Him Gasbag

|

Keith Olbermann thinks a congressional candidate should be jailed for an ad invoking the Revolutionary War, on the grounds that this standard-issue political imagery is actually a "call to treason."

Remember when Olbermann was supposed to be the second coming of Edward R. Murrow? Now he's starting to resemble someone else.

Advertisement

NEXT: You Want a Man with a Slow Hand, A Regulator With a Light Touch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s with leftists and the first amendment? I remember Sean Penn on Bill Maher’s show saying that Americans should be jailed for saying bad things about Hugo Chavez.

    But maybe it is a little bit worse for Olbermann, who has made a career of cheap shots at public figures.

    1. Yeah, I used to think I could rely on my lefty friends to champion the First Amendment, but boy was I wrong. When the guy who used to be president of our law school chapter of the ACLU started bitching about Citizens United, I quickly realized that Democrats and Republicans have the same view of the First Amendment: speech is only protected when it’s consistent with their politics.

      1. When the guy who used to be president of our law school chapter of the ACLU started bitching about Citizens United, I quickly realized that Democrats and Republicans have the same view of the First Amendment:

        Corporations aren’t people! Regardless of what the SCOTUS rules.

        I believe every person has a first amendment right. But an entity whose whole existance created by government charter is not a person and doesn’t get the same rights as you and I.

        If the executives want to use their personal wealth to fund ads more power to them. But they shouldn’t be able to use corporate monies.

        But you know why the left has a problem with the Citizens United case, and that it isn’t rooted in hatred of the 1st amendment. You are just pretending you don’t get it.

        1. So a group of people come together, exercising their right to free assembly, pool their money together to make a political statement but do not have the right to free speech?

          1. No speech should be abridged, but, and this is a very significant “but” with respect to your comment, the executives are certainly free to pool their money to express their views publicly, but this is not about pooling THEIR money, it’s about pooling the money of share holders who may or may not share their political views. You will always run into paradoxes and complications with state created abstractions like corporations with respect to civil liberties and human rights.

            1. It’s not complicated at all. If the shareholders want to sell their shares, that’s their right.

              1. You assume that the lobbying dollars are spelled out in the statements that businesses issue to the public. Most shareholders have no idea, or any way of knowing, how money is being spent by a company. Many shareholders are trying to force boards of directors to open the books on lobbying efforts, force shareholder votes on lobbying, and force more disclosure in financial statements. But all boards of directors I know of are fighting these efforts kicking and screaming.

          2. If they want to do it privately, yes. This group of people can exercise their right to free assembly OUTSIDE of a government charter.

          3. Dude, are you fucking shitting me? Tell me you don’t believe this. How many people do huge multinationals like BP have to fuck up the ass before jackoffs like yourself get a fucking clue?

        2. So an individual loses their first amendment rights the moment they team up with another individual? Or do they have to actually fill out the 527 paperwork before that happens?

          1. So an individual loses their first amendment rights the moment they team up with another individual? Or do they have to actually fill out the 527 paperwork before that happens?

            If they are using their personal funds — then by all means go ahead.

            But corporate funds aren’t their money. That’s shareholder money.

            1. And its up to the shareholders how that money is spent. And they appointed the board who hires the executives who determine it.

              Its none of the governments damn business.

              1. It IS the government’s damn business, by defintion. Corporate charters are granted by the government. When a corporation makes political donations, that’s indirectly MY tax dollars at work. If they want to make donations, they should lose corporate status and become completely private.

                1. Which “government” are talking about? The government that chartered the corporation or the federal government? The two are not necessarily the same thing.

                  And how in the hell did you come to the conclusion that corporate monies are in any way shape or form your “tax dollars”? A corporate charter does not make a corporation a part of the government.

                  Lastly, corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns. All so-called corporate donations are from PACs people associated with the corporation form and donate to. There is no direct legal connection to the corporate entity.

                  The outright ignorance on this issue always astounds me.

                  1. The government charter does limit the corporations officers exposure liability-wise. They aren’t ponying up their own money, so no they should not get free speech (Citizens United effectively shoots your PAC argument down).

                    You can finesse the argument all you want, but Shorter MU: limit my liability but not my speech. No way, that’s giving corporations rights above-and-beyond fully financially liable people.

                    Your outright self-righteousness doesn’t particularly astound me.

            2. Also, does Exxon (to pick a random example) not have Freedom of the Press because they are a corporation? And how is something published/filmed about an election not “press”?

              And how is Exxon different from the New York Times corporation?

              1. If the executives want to use their personal wealth to fund ads more power to them. But they shouldn’t be able to use corporate monies.

                Mea Culpa.

                Let me take a step back here because I mis-spoke and I was conflating two issues.

                The citizen united ruling (that allows corporations to run electioneering ads) i believe was rightfully decided. I don’t think the NY Times should have any special rights vs. Exxon. And if they want to air ads that’s their right. (although I do believe shareholders should have more control rather than just whatever the executive board decides — I would rather see some type of shareholder initiative that requires a high threshold to pass. )

                My personal beef is with political contributions and corporations being allowed to funnel money to candidates.

                1. My personal beef is with political contributions and corporations being allowed to funnel money to candidates.

                  Your personal beef is with the “no” in “Congress shall make no law …”

                  Congress has no enumerated power to tell anyone how they can spend money, however acquired, on political speech.

                  1. Congress has no enumerated power to tell anyone how they can spend money, however acquired, on political speech.

                    I don’t agree that money = speech.

                    Money can buy speech, but it isn’t the same thing.

                    Hell it’s not even considered property (with regards to takings) in this country as of right now.

                    1. I don’t understand how you come up with kind of twisted logic to conclude that if no one has a right to spend money to buy the means to amplify their speech that you still have any meaningful right to free speech.

                  2. However, I see nothing wrong with expecting corporations to follow certain standards in order to keep their legally protected (ie, government granted) status as corporations. Corporations are NOT private citizens by definition (indeed exactly the opposite), and should not be given the same protections that a private organization would enjoy.

                2. Top campaign donors.

                  The vast majority goes to state governments, and the vast majority of that is casinos (mostly tribal) and unions.

                  You have to go to number 12 before you get to a non-gaming business interest. And even there it’s primarily utilities and energy-related.

                  The amount that the top spenders put into lobbying isn’t even all that troubling either, when you consider that the figures are over 10 years.

                  For sure its something that should continue to be monitored, but the sums seem pretty small relative to the actual amount of $ these businesses have at stake. Complete prohibition seems unnecessary.

                  1. I’m an ass, lobbyist link was wrong. And they are actually totals over the last 12 years, not 20, but still not nearly as large as you would think given the way lobbying is discussed in the media.

            3. But corporate funds aren’t their money. That’s shareholder money.

              That’s just prime stupidity right there.

              So if the shareholders approve it, then it is OK? Because, ummm, that’s how it already works.

              1. So if the shareholders approve it, then it is OK? Because, ummm, that’s how it already works.

                Actually it doesn’t. There’s nothing to compel boards of directors to disclose lobbying efforts or allow shareholders leverage, i.e. votes, in guiding lobbying efforts.

        3. I believe every person has a first amendment right.

          The first amendment does not grant any rights. It restricts actions that the government can take.

        4. You’re right, it’s rooted in a hatred of corporations. (I keed… I keed. Sorta.) Seriously, though, I understand the distinction and I realize that intelligent people can disagree on the extent to which corporate speech should be protected. That being said, if you honestly suggest that limiting corporate speech does not in any way restrict individual speech then YOU’RE the one who’s pretending. However, while I don’t honestly believe people on the left hate the First Amendment, I have had one friend on the left explicitly state that we should balance free speech with the greater good of society, and that’s what I saw going on in Citizens United. I honestly thought more folks on the left took an absolutist view on the First Amendment.

          1. However, while I don’t honestly believe people on the left hate the First Amendment, I have had one friend on the left explicitly state that we should balance free speech with the greater good of society, and that’s what I saw going on in Citizens United. I honestly thought more folks on the left took an absolutist view on the First Amendment.

            I don’t think that view is exclusive to the left. Lots of people of all political persuasion defend the 1st until something that they deem indefensible comes up, then they want to balance it against arbitrary standards.

            My views are considered radical on lefty blogs. In fact I would say that I don’t know too many absolutist 1st amendments supporters other than libertarians.

            Personally (as someone who leans left around here, but gets accused of being a

            That being said, if you honestly suggest that limiting corporate speech does not in any way restrict individual speech then YOU’RE the one who’s pretending.

            Im not convinced that preventing a corporation from using corporate funds limits INDIVIDUAL freedom of speech.

            People (rich and poor alike) can pool their personal funds together, but corporate funds aren’t personal funds. (granted small business owners complicate the line but that issue can be dealt with)

            1. This line:
              Personally (as someone who leans left around here, but gets accused of being a

            2. I don’t think that view is exclusive to the left. Lots of people of all political persuasion defend the 1st until something that they deem indefensible comes up, then they want to balance it against arbitrary standards.

              It certainly isn’t exclusive with the left. Big chunks of the right are OK with banning flag burning, porn, you name it (along with a significant chunk of the left, BTW).

              They don’t want to balance it against “arbitrary” standards, they want to prohibit uses that deviate from their personal moral or political standards.

            3. Im not convinced that preventing a corporation from using corporate funds limits INDIVIDUAL freedom of speech.

              I’m sorry you have such difficulty thinking through the concept that corporations are run by individuals who have free speech rights over whatever money they control.

              Or have difficulty grasping that news media and Reason.com are corporations, too, and that unless you want to kill the freedom of the press and a vigorous watchdog of political misdoings, you can’t limit the free speech of certain kinds of corporations (that suck up to Congress) but not others (that don’t suck up to Congress).

              1. should read: “… you can’t limit the free speech of certain kinds of corporations (that don’t suck up to Congress) while allowing “free” speech for other corporations (that DO suck up to Congress).

          2. And you are conflating hating corporations (and I don’t understand what a corporation really is enough to say whether they should be hated) with hating business and free markets and even big business. The term corporation is a legal designation that has nothing, really, to do with being a business, per se. Maybe it is necessary for the free market and commerce to function for there to be corporations, I don’t know, but it does seem to me that the “corporation” is a fairly recent invention and people did not have a lot of problems doing business and conducting commerce before the invention of corporations.

        5. Corporations aren’t people!

          Robot corporations aren’t. This much is obvious. Nor are zombie corporations, because free speech rights extend only to the living, not the living dead. Dog corporations aren’t people, not because they lick themselves, but because they can’t talk and drive cars and vote for Obama. But human corporations are people, because of, you know, the people inside them. Hope this helps.

          1. free speech rights extend only to the living, not the living dead.

            Sorry, Phil Lesh. No First Amendment for you!

          2. I’ve heard that the Soylent Green Corporation is people. Is that true?

        6. So, when I’m elected, I can censor the New York Times? After all, the New York Times Company is a corporation, and a corporation doesn’t have any First Amendment rights.

          1. Well, you should get your journalist license first. I hear they’re accepting applications at Media Matters.

          2. Here’s a better idea: eliminate the concept of corporations completely. Seems like a lot of so-called libertarians like to turn a blind eye to the role of government in this institution. So much for a free market.

            1. This is completely true, and although I love H&R, a lot of posters on here have this blind spot.

          1. Why don’t you come up with an original thought instead of trolling around the board, scoring fictional points for whatever comments you deem in line with your beliefs?

            1. Get a life.

            2. -1×10^73 for Ronnie.

            3. I agree. Way to contribute to the discussion.

        7. You’re including unions in this equation, aren’t you, ChiTom?

  2. It amazes me that he still has a job.
    But then, he works for MSNBC, home of the whopper.

  3. Olberman is becoming a real life version of Howard Beale. His ratings are dying. And he just keeps getting more and more bizarre in hopes of improving them. How long before he gets up and yells “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore”. At this point I give it 50/50 odds that Olberman’s career ends when radical Islamic terrorists hired by GE gun him down on live TV.

    1. John, whoever the gunmen are, they’d be made to look like tea partiers.

  4. Now all Olbermann needs is a Kennedy to work for him.

    1. We don’t work for Olbermann dear sir, that peon works for us. Well, with the exception of Rosemary… retards are always welcome to work for the Olbermann show.

  5. Olbarmann is over-the-top but that campaign commercial does seem to be calling on somebody to assassinate the President which is bizarre even by Teabagger standards.

    1. Honestly Dan. I know plenty of gay men and none of them are violent. They are nice people. I really don’t understand why you constantly put them down on here. There sexual tastes are not for me. But that is their business not mine. It is really disgusting how you constantly talk about “tea baggers” and how violent they are.

      Maybe that kind of homophobic language passes for humor in the circles you run in. But that is really not how we role around here.

      1. Trying hard not to laugh… lest my coworkers hear.

      2. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, John. I’m just referring to members of the Tea Party, who employ tea bags as a symbol of their animosity towards government. What does this have to do with being gay?

        1. Just do a google image search for “Teabagging”, Dan T. You don’t have to turn Safe Search on. All you’re going to get is pictures of political protests. I promise!

        2. tea bags =/= truck nuts, Mr. Shit Facktory.

          1. Subtle and diplomatic.

      3. I’m glad you called Dan T out on his homophobia. What people do in the privacy of their own homes (or in their friends’ bathrooms during dinner parties) has nothing to do with violence, and I wish Dan would stop making that homophobic innuendo.

        (Of course, tea bagging isn’t exclusively gay – it just requires at least two people, one or more of them male).

        1. I suppose two females could use a bull’s testicles….

      4. John,

        This would be funny if it weren;t for the fact that the TeaBaggers referred to themselves as tea baggers quite often until the reference was brought to light.

        1. Ummm…no they didn’t…

        2. Bullsit. It is true that people used the term “tea baggers” to describe themselves. But they were not using it in the obscene sense. The term originally came from the call to send Congress tea bags in the mail on April 15th. It was never used in the sense Dan T and others use it. It was the Left that picked up on the obscenity and ran with it. A bit of history

          “The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

          I have no doubt you are sexually hip, but just in case you’re not, please know that “teabag” has a particular meaning in certain circles. In order to have a discussion of our general topic, we must be aware of that meaning, and I call on the Source of All Knowledge, Wikipedia: “‘Teabagging’ is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.” I could quote you more, but you have had enough.

          The liberal media, to use a convenient tag, went after the protesters with glee. Take Anderson Cooper, the acclaimed anchorman for CNN. He was interviewing David Gergen, the political pundit. And Gergen was saying that, after two very bad elections, conservatives and Republicans were “searching for their voice.” Cooper responded, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging.” He said this with a smirk.

          MSNBC had an outright field day. Rachel Maddow and a guest of hers, Ana Marie Cox, made teabag jokes to each other for minutes on end: having great, chortling fun at the conservatives’ expense. And here is the performance of another host, David Shuster:

          “For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15, will be Tax Day, but . . . it’s going to be Teabagging Day for the right wing, and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals. They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.”

          Shuster went on to say that Fox News personalities were “looking forward to an up-close-and-personal taste of teabagging.” Etc., etc., etc. All the while, MSNBC was picturing Republican figures, and the following words were on the screen: “TEABAG MOUTHPIECES.”

          Ma and Pa America may not have been in on the joke, but plenty of other people were. On HBO, the lefty comedian Bill Maher commented, “When the year started, ‘teabagging’ was a phrase that referred to dangling one’s testicles in someone else’s face.” And the tea-party protesters “managed to turn it into something gross and ridiculous.” Tuh-dum.

          After Cooper and the others smirked about “teabagging,” the word went utterly mainstream ? although you could say that, if Cooper used it, it started mainstream: because how much more mainstream can you get than a CNN anchor? On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, E. J. Dionne, the liberal columnist, spoke of “a right-wing candidate supported by the teabaggers.” The host himself, Stephanopoulos, followed suit. On PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, senior correspondent Gwen Ifill used “teabaggers” as well. At the New York Times, Paul Krugman used it in a column. Elsewhere, Roger Ebert used it in a movie review. And so on.

          Some politicians ? Democrats ? have talked about “teabagging” and “teabaggers” too. And that includes the biggest Democratic politicians of them all. Recently, both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton spoke to congressional Democrats behind closed doors. They were giving pep talks on health-care legislation. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse reported Clinton as saying, “The reason the teabaggers are so inflamed is because we are winning.” Rep. Earl Blumenauer reported Obama as saying, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?”

          It will be interesting to see whether the president ? or Bill Clinton, for that matter ? ever uses “teabag” and the like in public. And if not, why not?

          Some on the right are using “teabagger,” but mainly the word is a putdown from the left. Conservatives realize that nothing friendly is meant by it. You can tell by tone and context, for one thing. (Or is that two things?) Of course, some people use “teabagger” in innocence ? unaware of any vulgar connotation. One such person is, or was, Gwen Ifill. Some of her NewsHour viewers wrote to complain. And Ifill later said, “Turns out I am the only person with access to email who never knew this was a term with a sexual meaning. I used it in an offhand manner as a shorthand referring to the ‘tea party’ movement. It was a slip I was unaware of, and I regret it.”

          http://nrd.nationalreview.com/…..FiOWJmNDE=

          Come on Tom. Stop repeating talking point lies. You sometimes can be better than that.

          1. I heard that Maddows and Ana Marie Cox gave each other rimjobs all night long after using strap on teabags. Stay classy lefties.

          2. I don’t care where it came from. It’s funny and teabaggers deserve to be mocked and ridiculed because they’re all racist idiots who are throwing a piss fit because their party lost an election.

            1. it’s true, I hate asian people. And I did vote for a republican in the last election.

            2. “because they’re all racist idiots”

              Proof?

          3. Bullsit. It is true that people used the term “tea baggers” to describe themselves. But they were not using it in the obscene sense.

            Thanks for proving my point. They referred to themselves with a term that had a sexual connotation, and now they are offended that people refer to them with the name they gave themseleves.

            Just because they were ignorant of the double entendre doesn’t change the fact that they gave themseleves that label and referred to themselves as such.

            1. But notice that they referred to themSELVES as the teabaggers. Tell me, would you rather dangle your own testes in someone’s mouth, or have someone else’s nasty testes in YOUR mouth? So regardless of being aware of the term’s “real” meaning, who’s really being insulted there?

              1. So regardless of being aware of the term’s “real” meaning, who’s really being insulted there?

                Technically, you’re right. What’s wrong with putting ones testicles in another person’s mouth (assuming the consented).

                But they (and many on this board) are taking offense to it.

                Im not trying to convince anyone that it’s a derogatory term. I’m just curious why its offensive to refer to them by a term that they coined for themseleves.

        3. So, it’s now appropriate to refer to President Obama as “my nigger” because some niggers choose to refer to themselves that way?

          That is funny!

          1. So, it’s now appropriate to refer to President Obama as “my nigger” because some niggers choose to refer to themselves that way?

            The analogy is flawed.

            if the president referred to himself as “The Nigger in the White House” or “The First Nigger” then I dont see why it would be offensive for others to do so even if they mean it in a derogatory way.

        4. There’s been one picture of a kid in his early 20’s (who probably knew what the term meant) with a sign that said “Teabag Congress” or something. Which is the one pictures winners such as yourself use to make this statement. If you can show me anything other than said one pictures where Tea Party member describe themselves as teabaggers, I’ll shut up, if not why don’t you?

          How the hell do lefties get away with this? They call people teabaggers pejoratively and usually smirking. Is a certain sexual act really that funny? Or do they like the fact they finally get to call someone a fag metaphoricly without without the PC police coming to get them.

          This whole teabag thing is ridiculous. To disagree with John I don’t think teabagging is exclusively a gay term. If you have a wife with a good sense of humor (and the kids aren’t around) you can teabag her. In highschool some of my friends would teabag a guy who passed out from drinking, then wake him up at the most opertune moment usually to “Duuuuuuuuddddddeeee… oh man… oh… wft…” and hilarity ensuing.

          By the way ChiT you’re a rimmer. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I am so funny and clever.

          1. By the way ChiT you’re a rimmer. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I am so funny and clever.

            Shut up rust Trombone Player

            1. Fuck!

              that should be

              Shut up Rusty

          2. If you have a wife with a good sense of humor (and the kids aren’t around) you can teabag her.

            She doesn’t need a sense of humor (though that is always good), she just has to want to please you.

            1. She doesn’t need a sense of humor (though that is always good), she just has to want to please you.

              Or sleep with her mouth open! 🙂

    2. that campaign commercial does seem to be calling on somebody to assassinate the President

      No, it isn’t. Not even by the idiotic, literal-minded “call to treason” interpretation. (Do you “gather your armies” to commit an assassination?)

      1. I was referring to the subtle “first I would impeach him” as the camera shows a pistol…

        1. First you impeach the president, then you assassinate the president? That doesn’t make any sense.

          1. Don’t be obtuse, Mr. Walker…the video was edited to show the gun image while Barber is talking about the President (not by name, but rather because the President is the only person anybody ever wants to impeach).

          2. Oh, come on, Jesse… Clearly Barber just wants to avoid another Rasputin incident.

        2. So the troll is against imagery.
          Got it.

      2. Jesse, I am disappoint. Why feed this idiot?

        1. “I am disappoint,” LolWarty? You haz become lik teh verry kittehs u luv.

          1. WIN all around.

            1. Dag, you got snow pwn’d.

              1. Snow poon? How did you know my pet name for my sweet Dagny?

        2. Don’t be his porn.

      3. “(Do you “gather your armies” to commit an assassination?)”

        Does what we’re doing in Pakistan count?

  6. Olbermann was my favorite sportscenter anchor. Amazing how he has destroyed the reputation he once had.

    1. Him and Dan Patrick were good. But towards the end he got to be so mean about things that he wasn’t funny anymore.

    2. I don’t watch his show or have cable, but how exactly did he go from sports to politics?

      1. Sudden Expertism

    3. SportsCenter was best when Olbermann was on it, but that was due to no talent of his own. He is nearly as awful on Sunday Night Football as he is on MSNBC. It’s just that Dan Patrick was so good that he not only covered Olbermann’s flaws, but he also made people think Olbermann was decent.

      1. Dan Patrick + Kenny Mayne = Best SC anchor team ever!

  7. God, those youtube comments are disheartening.

    Example: “Free speech is limited.” Wow.

    1. Yes, it is. I mean, you can’t go around shouting “theatre” in a crowded fire.

    2. Example: “Free speech is limited.” Wow.

      Isn’t it? Last I checked the SCOTUS has ruled that it is (Not that I agree with it)

      They even have special classes of speech (commercial, political) with varying degrees of 1st amendment protections. In fact some speech isn’t protected at all (obscene speech, incitement of violence etc)

      I don’t agree with it, because to me the 1st is pretty absolute in it’s wording, but to pretend like there is something inherently flawed with the statement “free speech is limited” means you are ignorant of the law.

      1. SCOTUS doesnt determine our rights.

        1. SCOTUS doesnt determine our rights.

          Tell that to Max Hardcore

          1. What does that have to do with anything. SCOTUS participates in government abuse of our rights, I never disagreed with that.

            Rights are inalienable, SCOTUS can neither add to them nor take away from them.

            1. Rights are inalienable, SCOTUS can neither add to them nor take away from them.

              Not to get into this debate, but a right that isn’t enforceable isn’t really a right.

              The right to free speech exists in the USA, but not everywhere else. And that’s because it was enshrined in our constitution.

              You can talk all you want about inalienable rights granted by god etc, but practically speaking, rights are only useful as long as there is an enforcement mechanism.

              So on a simply theoretical level, yes free speech is absolute. In reality Free speech is quite limited.

              1. Not to get into this debate, but a right that isn’t enforceable isn’t really a right.

                All rights are enforceable, see the 2nd amendment option you were criticizing below.

              2. practically speaking

                When have I ever given a damn about that?

              3. “rights are only useful as long as there is an enforcement mechanism.”

                Silly me I thought the Government was to be that enforcement mechanism.

            2. Aren’t you precious. Those who suffered pre-Brown v. Board I’m sure were mollified by the fact that their innate rights were merely going unnoticed by everyone else.

              1. It’s post-Brown v. Board of Education, Tony. And it will never revert. Nor will we ever have slavery in America again.

                Get. Over. It.

  8. Treason doth never prosper:
    what’s the reason?
    For if it prosper,
    none dare call it treason

  9. What does this have to do with sports?

  10. “Remember when Olbermann was supposed to be the second coming of Edward R. Murrow?”

    No, I don’t.

    1. Exactly. He’s always been a lowlife douchebag who everyone hates, which is why he’s permanently barred from ever setting foot on ESPN grounds.

      1. He’s hated even more than Craig Kilborn. That’s no small achievement.

        1. I like Craig Kilborn.

          1. I like Craig Ferguson.

          2. ESPN lifers are just pissed off that their careers consist of announcing sports scores while pretending to be interested. I’m surprised that there aren’t more suicides there.

            1. C’mon, Keith, you can use your real name here.

          3. Craig Kilborn is a humorless douchebag who really holds himself in an unwarranted high regard.

            I wonder what he’s up to these days?

            1. Well, I liked The Daily Show a whole lot more when he was running it.

              1. And he did it without a studio audience providing drunken hoots and hollers.

            2. I’ve always maintained that Kilborn was perfect for the Clinton years and Jon Stewart was perfect for the Bush years. Too bad nobody at Comedy Central had the foresight to find somebody new once Obama was inaugurated.

              1. I watch maybe twice a month, but I think Jon Stewart has found his stride again. Colbert has fallen off much more than Stewart has.

                1. I watch maybe twice a month, but I think Jon Stewart has found his stride again.

                  Mainly because the Dems have given him a plethora of material.

                  1. Politicians, of either party, always give one a plethora of material. Stewart was afraid for a while of using it, but now realizes that keeping his job depends on taking swipes at some of the more egregious idiocy of the left.

                2. Colbert is still funnier than Stewart, but Stewart apparently had a “come to Yahweh” moment where he realized he couldn’t be both funny AND give leftists a complete pass now that they are in charge.

  11. Olbermann is right in one regard: they revolted due to a lack of voting representation (although they were bothered by that lack of parliamentary representation due to the tax). However, since the arch of this country has turned so much, I propose a new revolution:

    No representation without Taxation.

    Over 40% of this country currently pays no federal income tax whatsoever. Yet that 40% constitutes a near majority and that near majority will no doubt continue voting itself ever more lavish goodies and bennies since they’re immune from the burden of those. Its time we strip them from possessing the ability to bilk those of us who earn just enough to be the ones royally fucked by the gubmint-subsidy machine. No representation without taxation! (admittedly, I say this in jest as I’d rather simply no taxation and a complete erosion of the scope of federal power, but I fear that this might be the only way possible to take the first step).

    1. “No representation without Taxation.”

      I like! I like!

    2. Oh please. The majority of your 40% pay FICA/social security/medicare along with plenty of state sales taxes (in taxes that have them) and a plethora of other taxes and fees for service. They may not pay the Federal Income tax, but in many cases their overall tax burden (as a percent of income) is higher than many of the very wealthy.

      1. I fully recognize the distinctions between federal income tax and the various different payroll taxes to fund the entitlement programs (from which they will collect far more than they pay into). However, I still maintain that the central point stands and that there is something profoundly disturbing about a society in which a vast swath of citizens do not pay for the majority of gov’t services but only pay for a few specifically delegated programs (and I say that recognizing that SS has run a surplus every year since its inception and all that money was constantly used to fund the general budget).

      2. No matter what they pay, there has to be a cut off point below which they are paying for less than than get. I’d say around 30% and admit that’s a pure guess.

    3. You’re conflating income tax with being taxed. Trust me everyone gives some money to the government whether they know it or not.

  12. “Remember when Olbermann was supposed to be the second coming of Edward R. Murrow?”

    He never leaves me disappointed.

    1. you should probably get your teabag looked at.

  13. am I the only one who was sure the “resemble somebody else” was going to link to Morton Downey, Jr.?

  14. Remember when Olbermann was supposed to be the second coming of Edward R. Murrow? Now he’s starting to resemble someone else.

    Joseph McCarthy? No, Ann Coulter surely.

    1. He might resemble one of them if you added 50 points to his IQ. He may be just as dogmatic but he is a total moron.

      1. He might resemble one of them if you added 50 points to his IQ. He may be just as dogmatic but he is a total moron.

        Yes yes, Ann Coulter, Intellectual Powerhouse.

        1. Based on what I’ve read by her and what I read here by you, you might not want to challenge her to an IQ contest.

          1. Based on what I’ve read by her and what I read here by you, you might not want to challenge her to an IQ contest.

            Hers and yours together might be half of mine, PapayaSF.

            The dumps I take are smarter than you and her together. And much more interesting and less predictable.

            1. Not everyone who is evil has to be stupid, Tom. I think her and Olbermann aren’t stupid, they are just assholes.

              1. Not everyone who is evil has to be stupid, Tom. I think her and Olbermann aren’t stupid, they are just assholes.

                True.

                I just happen to think that Coulter is an asshole and stupid to boot. Or at the very least the persona she puts out there is one of an intellectual lightweight. She doesn’t debate facts and merits. She uses insults and emotional appeals and tars her opponents as traitors and anti-american and espouses racist and bigoted ideas.

                She tries to win the idea battle by screaming the most outrageous things the loudest. That isn’t someone I consider and intellectual or even moderately smart.

                And these type of people (Im looking at you Ed Schultz) exist on the left as well.

                1. “She tries to win the idea battle by screaming the most outrageous things the loudest. That isn’t someone I consider and intellectual or even moderately smart.”

                  On the other hand, if someone was fixin’ to be a wealthy cable TV star, that approach is pretty damn smart.

                2. I just happen to think that Coulter is an asshole and stupid to boot. Or at the very least the persona she puts out there is one of an intellectual lightweight. She doesn’t debate facts and merits. She uses insults and emotional appeals and tars her opponents as traitors and anti-american and espouses racist and bigoted ideas.

                  Olbermann is the left wing version of Coulter. Everything you say about her is pretty much spot on about him, too.

                  I can’t watch TV pundits, left or right — they give me fingernails on chalkboard moments.

                3. She doesn’t debate facts

                  This proves you’ve never even glanced at her books. I haven’t read more than her columns, but I’ve flipped through one or two of her books and they have dozens of pages of footnotes. One could argue with her interpretation of facts, of course, but you can’t say she doesn’t debate them.

                  She does seem to drive some people a bit batty with her intentional provocation and showmanship, but I don’t find her any more objectionable on that score than, say, Hunter Thompson.

            2. Ooh, I touched a nerve with Mr. IQ 500….

        2. The gutterbitch Anne Coulter actually defends McCarthy.

          She is a Bircher down to her tampon string.

          1. She defended him well too. Didn’t David Horowiz do the same?

            1. I’m stuck on how shrike – a supposed liberal – can use words like “cunt”, when liberals are supposed to be against hateful, stereotypical speech.

          2. She will get permanent hate for pointing out the FACT that there were communist spies in the U.S. government and that McCarthy named a few of them correctly (while also wrongly accusing many).

            Your 3rd grade history textbook approved by the Dept of Education probably doesn’t mention it.

            Hate her instead for being a Republican lacky.

        3. She never said something as stupid as the government has a right to muzzle you if you form a corporation, CT.

          1. +666 for Suki!

  15. Now he’s starting to resemble someone else.

    Finally a chance for my “People Who Look Like Eugene Levy (But Not Jewish)” site to get a link from the big boys, but nooooooooo.

  16. More people have already commented on this thread than will watch Olberman’s crap pile on MSNBC on any given night.

    The best way to get Olbermann’s goat is for everybody to completely ignore him as if he doesn’t exist.

  17. Shrieking douchebag shrieks.

  18. My favorite line of Keith’s: “Those aren’t the founding fathers, those are guys in cheap costumes.”

    No foolin?

    1. You overestimate the intelligence of Keitho’s audience.

    2. You mean they didn’t dig up film footage of the Revolutionary War?

      1. Is that the one where we beat the poor Mexicans?

        1. I hear Texans say that one sometimes.

  19. Get your head out of your ass, Dan.

    1. How can you tell the diff?

  20. I’ve said it here 100 times. Obberdoodle is waste of oxygen. The guy has burned so many bridges and pissed off so many people and is just a generally unpleasant person that there is no surprise he’s on a third rate cable network with a show that has disastrous ratings.

    He really is the worst of the worst.

  21. Whats the problem? At least he was smart enough to catch onto the fact that “those aren’t the founding fathers. Those are guys in cheap costumes and wigs.” Not certain the rest of us could have figured that out without his help.

    1. Then again, “the rest of us” (present company exempted) think Ben Franklin was the third President and women’s suffrage has something to do with high heels.

      1. Did you see the item a while back where some high school student went around with a petition to “end women’s suffrage” and got plenty of signatures from the clueless? LOL

        1. That’s awesome — thanks.

          1. Apparently this has been done several times.

        2. While we’re at it, ban the dangerous chemical dihydrogen monoxide!

    2. Yeah, you’re not going to fool Olbermann by passing actors off as Founding Fathers (at least not since he saw the episode of the Office with the Ben Franklin impersonator).

      1. You’re right. That one must have tipped him off.

      2. “Ben Franklin, you’re kind of a sleazebag.”

  22. Soon the Free Market (which he hates) will silence him forever.

    Market 1
    Gasbag 0

    1. Oh, not forever. Given a long enough time line, his price point will be in line with some low budget reality show featuring the word “Celebrity” or “Star.” He’ll be doing the egg/spoon relay with Todd Bridges or something.

      1. Soros still has mucho bucks. He’ll get a gig at Media Matters or something like that.

  23. When did liberals get so patriotic?

  24. here’s the lineup for MSNBC.
    Ed Schultz- failed CFL player
    Chris Matthews- failed congresscritter
    Keith Olberman- failed sportscaster
    Rachel Maddow- failed woman

    out of these 4, only Chris Matthews failed at something remotely connected to politics. the rest are all bluster.

    1. Don’t miss Matthews’ paranoid report, Rise of The New Right, tomorrow night. “The new right wants to take power! What does that mean for America?” I dunno, Chris…human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria?

      1. The New Right wants to take power because the Old Right fucked up so badly that they’ll never be let back in again.

      2. And will no one comment on The Rise of The Old Left?

        1. Sure.

          Maybe Bill Clinton will come back and balance the federal budget. *gasp*!

      3. “dogs and cats living together”

        Holy shit I’ve already got that now!

        1. Time to finally dig that fallout shelter, Gobbler. This could get ugly.

    2. “out of these 4, only Chris Matthews failed at something remotely connected to politics. the rest are all bluster.”

      Yeah – they need to update their lineup with more political failures.

      Bob Shrum, maybe.

    3. Rachel Maddow- failed woman
      i lol’d

      1. Yeah, but look at it this way: she was the son the Maddows always wanted.

        1. Buncha homophobic hicks. Just goes to show.

          Keep on truckin’.

  25. Threadjack:

    Drudge has dusted off the siren.gif…

    STAR MAG: GORE AFFAIR
    DEVELOPING…

    To quote barfman… *barf*

    1. I’ve got to hand it to Crazy Al, if it’s true, he certainly upgraded.

      1. Laurie David? I’d rather fuck a bag full of rabid badgers.

        1. Is she the one who chewed off Larry David’s nuts?

  26. Brazil V. North Korea World Cup moment: A sign held up in the audience that says “Kim Jong Ill thinks I’m at work.”

    1. Now that merits a lol.

      I kind of just chuckled cause I’m at work…to which I will return post haste…

    2. I wonder if Kim Jong Eun has an Uday Hussein-like relationship with the NK Soccer team.

  27. Conservatives laugh at Olbermann’s puny ratings and then complain about his “influence” and gasbaggery.

    I doubt if Olbermann has ever had an original thought in his life but at least he is not poisoning public debate with lies and propaganda 24/7 like AM radio does.

    Like its been pointed out – no one listens to him.

    1. None one listens to you, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t annoying.

      1. LOL, why not, he is clearly the biggest, pompous windbag of them all!

        Lou
        http://www.anonymity.au.tc

        1. Epic.

        2. That’s “pompousest.”

          1. No doubt you get that a lot.

    2. Exactly who has complained about Olbermann’s “influence”?

      You are just making shit up.

      As usual.

    3. That comment would have been a lot more impactful if anybody here championed AM talk radio.

      1. OK, I haven’t seen anyone here defend AM radio.

        Still, no standards exist on AM radio or Fox News and Olbermann at least pretends fact-checkers exist.

        1. Bullshit. Olberman and all of the takling heads at MSNBC say whatever inane drivel pops into their otherwise empty heads and just spew it out there as truth. They have about as much respect to truth and factual reality as Obama and his mouthpiece, Gibbs – i.e., none. Fact-checker, my sweet Aunt Fanny.

          None of Olbermann, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck or any of them have any claim to any higher purity or moral superiority over any other. They are all clever entertainers, and that’s about it. None of them are truly and genuinely stupid, no matter how much one might say so because you don’t like what they say. If they are so stupid, it’s a wonder how they’re making tens of millions of dollars while the rest of us are sitting here impotently screeching by proxy via text on a glowing screen.

        2. Who gets to set these standards, shrike?

          Politicians?

          Fuck that.

  28. LOL, why not, he is clearly the biggest, pompous windbag of them all!

    Lou
    http://www.anonymity.au.tc

    1. Look, autobot, it was brilliant the first time, but second time around, the magic’s gone.

  29. Fortunately, Olbermann has no power whatsoever. So, he’s no more dangerous than Limbaugh or any other gasbag in the media.

    1. That’s why he can attract only fellow lefties as guests.
      Normal, thinking people know he’s poison.

  30. Incoming teacher unions.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d90_1276581189

    teachers protest students, jesus christ there’s a time and place and you think adults would get this.

  31. Is there any insanity that comes from the teabaggers that the Reasonoid wont defend? Is there a line anywhere?

    Here’s Nevada teabagger and GOP senate candidate Sharron Angle :

    If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

    A democratically elected Congress is moving forward with there agenda and that somehow justifies using violence (‘Second Amendment remedies’) to turn this country around? Seriously this type of talk is considered A-OK around here? It shouldn’t even warrant a bit of criticism?

    Say what you will about the evil left, but they weren’t fetishizing armed revolution and overthrowing a democratically elected government while Bush was wiping his ass with the Constitution and expanding the power of the executive and destroying the country.

    It’s bad enough that the ridiculous charges of “socialism” get thrown around with nary a peep of pushback from people who know better, but even armed revolution talk doesn’t warrant a second look? Really?

    Talk about your identity politics. Why can’t the Reasonoids muster up the courage to rightfully criticize members of their own tribe? Is it because Cato might lose some donations?

      1. Fictional works of art that talk about alternate realities aren’t quite the same as political candidates fetishizing their supporters’ desire to used armed revolution to overthrow the government.

        Even the two examples you posted are more about taking out a despotic leader who has gone too far rather than overthrowing the government as a whole in an armed revolution because your side lost an election.

        I cant remember a Democrat or lefty political candidate that gleefully discusses armed revolution and overthrowing a democratically elected government and the left openly embracing such a thing.

    1. Is there a problem with using 2nd amendment remedies?

      There is a time and a place for them…colle…no wait, oh 1776-1781. And there may be a time and a place again.

      Are you saying you disagree with the following as a general principle (not arguing whether now is the time or not)?


      That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

      1. I don’t want people who are so delusional that they think they are living under absolute despotism right now, but not at any point in the past, running the revolution, thank you.

        1. It’s not absolute yet, Tony, but Obama is carrying on the job Bush got handed to him from his predecessor, and so on, back through the decades.

          Shit like creating an American police state takes time, y’know.

      2. Is there a problem with using 2nd amendment remedies?

        In general, the bar has to be pretty high to get to that point.

        Thinking that’s an appropriate remedy for socialized medicine is in fact a problem.

        It would be nice to see the teabaggers up in arms over the militarization of police, the National Security state, wars of aggression based on false pretenses, torture.

        But no. They want armed revolution over raising the marginal tax rate on upper income earners by a couple of percent.

        1. Are you still 8 years old sexually?

        2. First you conflate libertarians and tea partiers (only 1 more letter) and then say this “over the militarization of police, the National Security state, wars of aggression based on false pretenses, torture.”

          This site has opposed all of those. Have you even seen Balko’s posts?

        3. In general, the bar has to be pretty high to get to that point.

          See my comment up above connecting two separate sub-threads. Use of violence is the only way to enforce rights. If the government isnt going to do it, the individual has to do it themselves.

          1. In my state (not yours, if you are in the pussy state of Illinois as I would assume), the bar to using your 2nd amendment rights is reasonably low. Arson qualifies.

            1. Trespassing qualifies where I live. “Get off my lawn” carries a whole lot of weight down here.

              1. Yeah, trespassing doesnt here. Once they break the threshold of the doorway though….

            2. For the record, the bar here in Illinois is pretty low too. (See the story of the Korean War vet who shot an intruder in Chicago a couple weeks ago.) It’s just our politicians are too retarded to realize the hypocrisy of looking the other way when somebody uses a gun for good while at the same time fighting to keep said guns banned.

          2. You don’t have a right not to be taxed or governed.

            1. But we DO have a right to not be OVERtaxed or OVERgoverned, Tony.

              Which is something this president, and many who came before him, do not understand.

              1. Really? Says who? And who decides what is too much?

    2. Why don’t you go find some tea party website and ask them? I’ll care about what they think or say if and when they ever get any power.

      Not that you should even have to ask. Libertarianism, generally speaking, holds foundational the non-aggression principle, and as such, you should already know what a libertarian thinks about the use of violence.

      Next time try flipping on your other brain cell before posting.

      1. Why don’t you go find some tea party website and ask them? I’ll care about what they think or say if and when they ever get any power.

        I ask here, because they defend them tooth and nail around these parts. For all intents and purposes this is a teabagger site.

        Libertarianism, generally speaking, holds foundational the non-aggression principle, and as such, you should already know what a libertarian thinks about the use of violence.

        So either Reason isn’t really libertarian or your whole statement is a bunch of BS posturing.

        1. teabagger

          Are you still 8 years old sexually?

          1. OH I get it now. You’re angry because of the the sexy sexy premise of having somone lick your balls clean.

            It’s been pretty funny to watch you guys freak out when someone says “teabagger”. Now, I’m no troll, but if I was one I’d be all up in that. And besides, that’s what they called themselves, that’s what people now call them, and that’s how it’s gonna be. Getting mad makes you look at best, thin skinned.

            Back to the article, now I’m not sure, but is it in fact treason to threaten to kill the president? I realize in the ad it’s implied, but is it actually treason to categorically say you’re gonna kill the prez?

            If not, than Olbermann is way off base and deserves this. If it is, than he’s just being sensationalist which is his job as a cable news guy, really. In that case, “Nothing to see here, move along.”

            1. …but is it in fact treason to threaten to kill the president?

              No, it’s just a violation of a federal law that was passed either in the 60’s or 70’s – I disremember which.

            2. I agree and from now on I will refer to Oldermann as putting on a “donkey show”.

        2. your whole statement is a bunch of BS posturing

          Not at all. Once someone has violated my rights, they have broken the non-initiation of force principle. As covered above, government (even SCOTUS) does that regularly. Ergo….

        3. they defend them tooth and nail around these parts

          Im posting a lot, but there is a lot to slam upon.

          Have you seen Moynihan’s series of misrepresentations of Rand Paul? Really, dont see much defending tooth and nail there.

        4. This is a “teabagger site” only to the extent that you continue to claim that it is. I suppose that therefore, in your mind, it always shall be.

    3. Say what you will about the evil left British Royalists, but they weren’t fetishizing armed revolution and overthrowing a democratically elected God given monarchical government …

      I for one feel it is OK for serfs to use violence, as a last resort, against the masters who have stripped them of their rights.

      Whether we have reached the last resort is debateable, but to eschew “treason” as Olbermann defines it is to eschew these words:

      “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

  32. Is there any insanity that comes from the teabaggers that the Reasonoids wont defend? Is there a line anywhere that might be too far?

    Here’s Nevada teabagger and GOP senate candidate Sharron Angle :

    If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.

    A democratically elected Congress is moving forward with there agenda and that somehow justifies using violence (‘Second Amendment remedies’) to turn this country around? Seriously this type of talk is considered A-OK around here? It shouldn’t even warrant a bit of criticism?

    Say what you will about the evil left, but they weren’t fetishizing armed revolution and overthrowing a democratically elected government while Bush was wiping his ass with the Constitution and expanding the power of the executive and destroying the country.

    It’s bad enough that the ridiculous charges of “socialism” get thrown around with nary a peep of pushback from people who know better, but even armed revolution talk doesn’t warrant a second look? Really?

    Talk about your identity politics. Why can’t the Reasonoids muster up the courage to rightfully criticize members of their own tribe? Is it because Cato might lose some donations?

    1. Apologies for the double post

    2. Why can’t the Reasonoids muster up the courage to rightfully criticize members of their own tribe? Is it because Cato might lose some donations?

      Why would Cato lose donations because of something Reason does? We’re separate organizations.

      Also, I don’t know much about Barber, but my default assumption about GOP candidates is that they’re not part my “own tribe.” I’m opposed to putting people in jail over their speech regardless of whether I agree with their politics.

      1. Jesse, you do not know that the only reasons you ever defend someone or his “rights” is becuase you are in the same political camp?

  33. Standard-issue political imagery? It is becoming increasingly painful watching teabaggers play dumb whenever someone calls them out on their violent rhetoric. You people do agree that incitement to revolution and implying that assassinating the president is a good thing by a freaking candidate for public office is not exactly enlightened discourse… right?

    1. I disagree.

      1. I owned 75 black people. Owned them.

        1. Owned them, seriously! I guess I am a libertarian. Give me liberty, fuck everyone else.

    2. We don’t have to worry. The real power of violence lies with the guy currently murdering Third World goat herders with killer flying robots.

      1. And you guys have been so strong in the antiwar movement. No wait, you’ve been bitching about taxes and welfare the entire time.

    3. …but it’s okay when OUR side does it.

  34. Does Keefy have any opinion about that congressman who grabbed the two kids? If it was a Republican, he would have declared him a War Criminal by now.

  35. I think there is nothing more American than treason. I think it is unAmerican to punish people for treason.

  36. Is someone going to watch the BBC interview with Chavez today and report? Chavez is blaming US policy for Venezuala’s recession.

    1. Certainly not me. Like I said before I can’t help but to think of the damned (mildly racist) children’s song: “One little, two little, three little indians…”

  37. And to think I have to share my name with that jackass.

    Keith

    At least most people I know use my last name.

  38. What is it with Teabaggers and treason? Why do they protect those forces that wish the overthrow of the US Government?

    1. Are you still 8 years old sexually?

  39. Oh, and Olbermann is correct, Mr Walker. That’s treason….look it up in a non neocon dictionary.

    What is it about Teabagger bloggers and their inability to stick to actual facts?

    1. This troll needs training wheels.

    2. Are you still 8 years old sexually?

  40. Free speech is great, but let’s break this down. This guy made it pretty explicit that armed overthrow of the US government (i.e., treason) would be necessary, you know, in case nobody could build a strong enough case for impeachment (it certainly wasn’t made here).

    KO said he hopes he’s arrested and put in jail.

    If this makes KO an enemy of free speech, then this douchebag an enemy to the sovereign united states. Guess who the libertarians defend.

    1. Why are you here, idiot?

    2. You can’t revere the “sovereign united states” with out some respect for the principles on which they were founded.

      whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it

      Either it’s a foundational principle or it’s not.

      1. Well it certainly isn’t law. I and most of the country disagree with you that the election of Barack Obama has suddenly brought about authoritarianism and slavery.

        Teabaggers seem to be unaware of the distinction between that and a legitimate election in which their party loses.

        1. Unlike all those reasonable Democrats after Florida 2000, right?

          1. Obama won large popular and electoral votes and wasn’t appointed by the supreme court.

    3. Free speech is great, but

      Nuff said. Begone.

  41. The ad is extremely distasteful and is playing to the militant portion of this guy’s constituency.

    I would like to point out, however, that this country was founded by committing treason.

    Also, I believe the armed forces of this country take an oath to protect the constitution and not the government.

    Therefore, if an armed attempt to overthrow the government was attempted, as the founding fathers saw there might be an occasion for, we shouldn’t be fighting our own armed forces.

    I always thought it would have been interesting to see what have happened if Al Gore had simply said “I’m not stepping down.” when he lost the election to Bush.

  42. Well, once the Republicans re-capture Congress they’ll just ban Olbermann from the air.

    After all, corporations like GE that own MSNBC don’t have First Amendment Rights.

    Next problem….

  43. I always thought it would have been interesting to see what have happened if Al Gore had simply said “I’m not stepping down.” when he lost the election to Bush.

    So he would have been Bush’s VP?

    Anyway, since his tenure as VP had ended, per the Constitution he no longer could continue in that office.

    Was he to assume the Presidency?

    1. As in, he had won the popular vote and decided that the electoral college system was null and void and tried to assume the presidency despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.

      At that point, there would have been two people who had claim to the position of “Commander-in-Chief.”

      Back in the day of say, Julius Caesar, there would have been a Civil War to determine the outcome. These days, I think very few people have the balls to actually die for something like that.

      It’s just an interesting scenario that shows

    2. how far politics have come…

  44. Hmm can’t reply to comments. Oh well.

    Not all corporations are public. Let me repeat this. NOT ALL CORPORATIONS ARE PUBLIC. This means that all the bitching an moaning about shareholders is bullshit because the ones that ponied up the cash are in control of the corporation and handpicked the board. Even the public ones have shareholder votes. God some people are thick.

  45. Treason is defined in the Constitution not a “dictionary.”

    And because it’s the Supreme Law of the land, that standard is the one that has to be met.

    Advocacy isn’t sufficient: one has to actively engage in war or, ADHERING TO THE ENEMY, provide aid and comfort.

    Nothing in this stupid and ugly ad even closely approaches those requirements.

    1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      the ONLY crime that’s spelled out in the Constitution. not that douchebags like Olbermann care about that.

      1. He’s not committing treason. He’s just inciting it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that incitement of treason is a crime, and is probably protected by the first amendment (I’d prefer that it were).

        That doesn’t mean we should refrain from engaging in the conversation and calling foul when candidates for public office believe in committing treason because they don’t like the party in power.

        1. Um, Tony…

          http://www.ontheissues.org/Overthrow_Government.htm

          Shouldn’t Arianna Huffington be retroactively punished for this?

        2. STFU, Tony

          This will be the whole of the law.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.