MSNBC host knows what it is to be black

1. 61

   uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years ago

   Laurence O'Donnell puts his bigotry and racism on display by wrapping himself in the mantle of blackness in order to attack a black politician for having opinions different than his white, Irish betters.  If Barrack Obama were treated this way by Sean Hannity the shrieks of racism would be echoing through the burning streets of America's cities. 
   
   Bigotry and racism are acceptable as long as the target of the attack isn't submissive to his white liberal betters.  Lawrence O'Donnell carries the banner of liberals and, in his own words, socialists in media.  "Black man, don't run for office if you don't agree with your white liberal betters."
   
   No black can be a Republican or a conservative without offending these white liberal gate keepers.  But that is historical, it was the Democrats who fought to defend the slave trade and slavery.  It is Democrats  like Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr. and William J. Fulbright who fought against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act or, in the case of Byrd, actively recruited for the KKK.
   
   The liberal media shrieks about a painted over racial epithet on a rock on a rented piece of land in the middle of no where Texas but ignores the Anti-Semitic and anti-white rants absorbed by the POTUS from his racist pastor.  Lawrence O'Donnell and the Texas Rock trash story demonstrate that liberals think they are like their Confederacy compatriots and still own American blacks.
   
   Time to break those chains and support Herman Cain.
   
   http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odo … rman-cain/

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Lawrence O'Donnell is one of the least bigoted people in the country. Cain deserves the going over O'Donnell gave him. Cain is the one who's been "playing the race card" against Perry. No doubt he's right about Perry.

      replyreport
2. 60

   mikelongposted 12 years ago

   I watched the show yesterday, and I was surprised by the line of questioning about Cain and the Civil Rights movement...
   
   On one hand, I think Lawrence was trying to separate fact from myth..  Cain specifically said that he was in high school during that period of time, and that IF he had been in college he would have been active in the movement...  Lawrence then pointed out that Cain had been in college, and then pushed back concerning the statment that Cain had just made...
   
   He may have been pushing Cain's buttons, but he was also showing that Cain says one thing, and then does something completely different... 
   
   But, remembering what the interview began with, Herman Cain began the interview with a bunch of nonsense about how the majority of Americans have been brainwashed if they agree on increasing taxes on the wealthy...
   
   For all the "pain" that Cain might feel about "racial" remarks made on the O'Donnel show...I wonder how insulted the "brainwashed" Americans feel knowing that this is how Cain views them....
   
   Cain is a snake in the grass...

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think you still have some soap in your ears.  Taxing the wealthy is a bumper sticker but what other ideas will fit in the head of a liberal except the short, hateful and wrong ones.  All the others require more traction than the soap affords.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         mikelongposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I make a comment regarding Cain, and then you tangent onto "those liberals" and soap...
         
         I think those self-described "conservatives" should look at what their own political hacks have done, their own shortsightedness, that has wrought harm before passing themselves off as saviors and saints...
         
         Our nation's woes are far greater than the nonsensical partisan bickering...and far worse than any mouthful of soap..
         
         I wonder what kind of kool-aid/mystic punch you are drinking this evening?

         replyreport
   2. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Google "Lawrence O'Donnell flips out"  the information age is a series of endless delights.

      replyreport
   3. 93

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think Cain was responding to the sit-ins in Atlanta, since he made the reference to "downtown." Those sit-ins happened in 1960, with Atlanta college students. Cain was 14 years old at the time.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         manthyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That was what I was thinking habee

         replyreport
3. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   If you have valid arguments, why are you using insults and ad hominem attacks?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      They make me smile.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Smirk, more like.

         replyreport
   2. 77

      lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He's a CON servative, that's why. It's in the DNA.

      replyreport
4. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   If flinging incoherent insults at strangers on the internet makes you happy, you need a better hobby.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Valid arguments have no traction with liberals.  It is one of the main reasons why we are facing another Great Depression.  The foolishness of the New Deal economic policies is being repeated and on a more ambitious scale.  The end result will be ruin yet liberals rail against Wall Street when the problem originates on Pennsylvania Avenue.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Really? Originates on Pennsylvania Ave circa 2009?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh pre-dates 2009, but since you brought it up.  What economic policy his Barrack Obama pursued that is substantially different than those of GWB?  His demeanor is far more hostile but his actions are just as pro-Wall Street and bankers as GWB.  He talks rough to keep liberal dimwits in the cart but keeps funneling large sums to banks and businesses. How is that different than before?  Didn't he sign an extension of the Bush tax rates?
            
            Didn't you actually read the posting.  The New Deal was the origin of the economic catastrophe we face though the emotional arguments are as old as humanity.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Ok so helping people is the problem in your eyes, not greed?
               In my eyes, it's greed.
               
               And that is why Obama extended those Bush tax cuts...or were you sleeping?
               
               See, people needed unemployment extensions, and the GOP held them up as hostages.
               
               No tax-cut, no unemployment....do you forget?
               Do you KNOW who runs the House?
               
               They set the agenda...and what is it?
               
               Tax cuts for wealthy
               Program cuts for needy
               Say no to anything Obama proposes...even their ideas.
               
               azzhats on parade.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  When the New Deal disaster of Social Security finally hits the economy that will be the end to all problems.  There will be no money for enabling people and no value in the economy to keep people wealthy.  It is okay Barry will save us if we just believe in him.  All hale Barry.   Bless me Barry for I have sinned.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     All they have to do is remove the cap on FICA.
                     
                     NO pain, plenty of gain.
                     
                     What is the problem?? I see none.

                     replyreport
      2. 62

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are they the New Deal economic policies that saw a narrowing between the rich and poor. The new deal economic policies, correct me if I'm wrong, that left the US with a booming economy?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Write history as you want.  The economy languished for two decades at the height of New Deal policies.  The economy remained distorted by the war or stagnant during the depression not regaining its energy until the late 1940s after tax cuts(conveniently ignored).
            
            The booming economy was a product of so many things happening at once that despite the burden of increased government interference if grew steadily until the 1970s.  In the 1970s another great liberal, Richard Nixon, gave us the EPA, wage and price controls and a floundering economy.  Jimmy Carter doubled down on Nixon's errors, much like Barry has Bush's.
            
            It isn't until the kick the can Social Security reforms of the 1980s and the deep cuts in marginal income tax rates under Reagan that the economy took off again.  GHWB almost screwed that up with his "no new taxes" tax increase, thus sealing his electoral fate.  Clinton would likely have traveled down the Barry/Jimmy road except for the 1994 elections - that was also about health care.
            
            Now we face decades of manipulating, tinkering, ignoring, delaying and procrastinating regarding Social Security and Medicare reforms with no leadership possible from liberals who a wedded to FDR's disastrous policy and it will sink our economy - is sinking our economy.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I thought it was coherent. Democrats/liberals love short slogans that keep them giddy, hope and change kinda stuff. It is absent of any real substance but makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         In contrast to the non-substantive short slogans that righties employ.
         Only difference is we are capable of feeling positive emotions that connect us to other people.
         GOP slogans elicit fear, hate, intolerance, division, and my personal favorite, greed.
         Given the choice, I'll take warm & fuzzy any day.

         replyreport
      2. 62

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No child left behind?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Short bus?

            replyreport
         2. 61

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Not a slogan of conservatives but rather the name given to Bush/Kennedy education reforms.  Liberals conveniently forget that Ted Kennedy was part of the "No Child Left Behind Act."
            
            Apparently an attractive enough name to persist in the Department of Education of the great reformer - http://www.ed.gov/esea

            replyreport
            1. 93

               habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Convenient memory.

               replyreport
5. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   The interview really made me mad. O'Donnell berated Cain for not serving in Vietnam, even though Cain was doing an important job for the Navy at the time. Did O'Donnell serve in Vietnam??

   replyreport
6. 77

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Koch Brothers fund Herman Cain....always have.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wx80hJGDUE

   replyreport
7. 77

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   "You think you've read all about the billionaire brothers. Well, there's more:
   
   In 1996, an FBI agent, Richard Elroy, told my team that oil had been pilfered from the Osage Indian reservation in Oklahoma. He and other G-men filmed the filch—theft, say witnesses, personally ordered by Charles Koch. A few barrels here, a few barrels there.
   
   It all added up: to about a billion and a half dollars in looted petroleum, says one expert, a third of the Koch fortune at the time. David and Charles shared in the booty via their private company, Koch Industries.
   
   FBI man Elroy told our investigators that the Justice Department was going to let the FBI cuff Charles Koch on criminal charges for the theft of the Osage Indian oil. But then, fumes Elroy, Koch's well-funded buddies, Senators Bob Dole and Don Nickles, stepped in—and Koch walked. No charges.
   
   US Senator Dennis DeConcini wanted to know why criminal or civil charges were never brought against the Kochs. That was not a wise question to ask. The Senator told me that the Kochs threatened his political destruction if the Congressional Committee he chaired continued with its investigations of the theft of Native oil. He continued, but his political career did not.
   
   During the Clinton Administration, Koch Industries was charged with criminal violations of the Clean Water Act. Under President Bush, the charges, but not the water, were cleaned up.
   
   In other words, crime pays—if you get to pick the sheriff."
   
   http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf … e29306.htm
   
   "There's one thing that every billionaire wants: another billion. And that's threatened by Obama's plan to tax the "carried interest" tax deferment"
   
   AaaaHaaaaaa: One reason for the campaign to destroy Obama!

   replyreport