I can small the Republican fear!

that clip is a great video of russel brand taking her to task and shutting her self important trap
 
well that would be fair seeing as mika is a lightwieght so are they,


Mika was leaning Joes way when Bush was in office.


she wavers with where ever the wind blows.

Oh I can't stand her entire shtick. She's a moron, or plays one very well. I don't really care which, but I find it hard to believe she's smart IRL. I can't stand her mommy sighing when "the boys' act up and degrade her with their disgusting sexism. She is like the show's clown. You couldn't pay me enough not to verbally castrate that mf'er Scarborough on that show. Obviously, they pay her enough to play his idiot. What a great example she is setting. I hate when women admire her. I am always like, wtf are you admiring?

Also she is an anorexic alcoholic, a little fact that slipped out during an interview where the reporter actually committed the faux pas of reporting that she had straight vodka for lunch and no food. The moron must have been drunk so she actually explained her diet which consists of coffee for breakfast, vodka for lunch, and a steamed vegetable for dinner. So actually, she may not be stupid, she may just not have enough energy to form a thought, or a defense.
 
I wish they would dump both her and Mathews.


he Is a hack stuck in the past.


He says stupid crap all the time.

he is a terrible interviewer
 
All Matthews does is yell...

SP, who chose the moderators for the repub primaries last time? I think it's whatever organization hosts them. I don't remember them being particularly partisan, but I don't think they were chosen by the RNC. They probably have veto power though.
 
Who the hell wants to watch a debate with a neutral moderator?

Id like an idiot rabid conservative to moderate like Sarah Palin to moderate the Democratic Debates... let the American people see how she can be handled in such a situation.
 
Who the hell wants to watch a debate with a neutral moderator?

Id like an idiot rabid conservative to moderate like Sarah Palin to moderate the Democratic Debates... let the American people see how she can be handled in such a situation.

Debates crossed with World Wide Wrestling....
 
I think it would be good for our nation if the networks would run/sponsor a series of debates over the issues of the day. I think people would watch, I just don't think that the Corporate media wants the public to see such a spectacle.

Who would you match up for debates?

Id put...

Palin v. Maddow
Santorum v. Weiner
Boner v. Pelosi
 
The 'debates' .. and I use that word loosely .. are just scripted responses that don't mean shit. Everybody on stage is going to lie their asses off .. and the American people will hold no one accountable.

In fact, they'll even applaud the blatant lies their candidate tells.

'Debates' between corporate-owned party 1 .. and corporate-owned party 2.

Putrid
 
The 'debates' .. and I use that word loosely .. are just scripted responses that don't mean shit. Everybody on stage is going to lie their asses off .. and the American people will hold no one accountable.

In fact, they'll even applaud the blatant lies their candidate tells.

'Debates' between corporate-owned party 1 .. and corporate-owned party 2.

Putrid

I agree with you about the presidential debates, but if we could get honest debates on the issues with participants who are not currently involved in a campaign it would be so informative to the American People.

Not these silly shows the networks put on every fourth October..... Real debates where follow up questions are asked and where the moderator can point out when the candidate avoided the question.
 
I think it would be good for our nation if the networks would run/sponsor a series of debates over the issues of the day. I think people would watch, I just don't think that the Corporate media wants the public to see such a spectacle.

Who would you match up for debates?

Id put...

Palin v. Maddow
Santorum v. Weiner
Boner v. Pelosi

How about opening up the process to more than just corporate-owned political parties?

Other candidates will talk about issues the corporate-owned puppets won't talk about ... because they both support it .. like war, poverty, and of course, the corporate ownership of the American government.
 
How about opening up the process to more than just corporate-owned political parties?

Other candidates will talk about issues the corporate-owned puppets won't talk about ... because they both support it .. like war, poverty, and of course, the corporate ownership of the American government.

I like the idea, who would you suggest. The thing is that you need someone with some star power to get a big enough audience.
 
I agree with you about the presidential debates, but if we could get honest debates on the issues with participants who are not currently involved in a campaign it would be so informative to the American People.

Not these silly shows the networks put on every fourth October..... Real debates where follow up questions are asked and where the moderator can point out when the candidate avoided the question.

If we were looking for honesty we would open up the process.

BOTH corporate-owned parties spend millions of dollars each year locking out other parties and choices from the ballot.

How is that democracy .. how is that honest?
 
If we were looking for honesty we would open up the process.

BOTH corporate-owned parties spend millions of dollars each year locking out other parties and choices from the ballot.

How is that democracy .. how is that honest?

So, it sounds like a fun project.. how would you get some such forum started?
 
I like the idea, who would you suggest. The thing is that you need someone with some star power to get a big enough audience.

Stars not required. They get in the way of truth.

Open up the process to candidates from all parties with a demonstrated and sizable constituency.
 
Stars not required. They get in the way of truth.

Open up the process to candidates from all parties with a demonstrated and sizable constituency.

Okay, but how do we get around the corporate interests? How do we produce such a program and how do we get people to pay attention?
 
So, it sounds like a fun project.. how would you get some such forum started?

OPEN UP THE BALLOT

Currently democracy in America is fully controlled by two corporate-owned political parties .. a threat that was envisioned by the Founders.

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." -- John Adams

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
-- George Washington

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." -James Madison

Benjamin Franklin favored the Albany Plan of Union, patterned after American Indian society of multi-influenced governance.

As long as Americans settle for the side show .. that's not only exactly what they'll get .. it's also all they deserve.
 
OPEN UP THE BALLOT

Currently democracy in America is fully controlled by two corporate-owned political parties .. a threat that was envisioned by the Founders.

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." -- John Adams

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
-- George Washington

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." -James Madison

Benjamin Franklin favored the Albany Plan of Union, patterned after American Indian society of multi-influenced governance.

As long as Americans settle for the side show .. that's not only exactly what they'll get .. it's also all they deserve.

You don't have to convenes me that this is true, but the question is what can we do, it might be possible with new media, to change this?
 
Back
Top