Olbermann on Scott Brown - I'm sure LG is outraged

#3
#3
Saw on Jon Stewart last night that he was a one time ex-nude model. I thought it was a joke.

Was he really?

(pictures not necessary for proof, I'll take your word for it)
 
#4
#4
I think he appeared in Cosmo in the early 80s (not nude - maybe with shirt off).

Figures that the Daily Show would latch on to this aspect of the guy's life. Heard a WashPo pundit suggest he's winning because he's a hunk. Just imagine if a righty suggested a woman was winning due to looks.

The whole think (Olbermann) just shows their is as much hate-filled, non-supported rhetoric on the left as on the right. As in the case of moral failings for righties, it is arguably more hypocritical for lefties since they claim to be tolerant and label the right as the haters.

[/rant]
 
#5
#5
I think he appeared in Cosmo in the early 80s (not nude - maybe with shirt off).

Figures that the Daily Show would latch on to this aspect of the guy's life. Heard a WashPo pundit suggest he's winning because he's a hunk. Just imagine if a righty suggested a woman was winning due to looks.

The whole think (Olbermann) just shows their is as much hate-filled, non-supported rhetoric on the left as on the right. As in the case of moral failings for righties, it is arguably more hypocritical for lefties since they claim to be tolerant and label the right as the haters.

[/rant]

Well, the whole segment on Jon Stewart was more about the idiot that the Dems have running moreso than Brown's personal life.

That being said, I think fox and msnbc are really skin from the same cat, they just look different.
 
#6
#6
Well, the whole segment on Jon Stewart was more about the idiot that the Dems have running moreso than Brown's personal life.

In Massachusetts, the Democrats should have been able to run a sock puppet and still win.
 
#12
#12
Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat of the late Democrat Edward Kennedy, ................ and sends a warning shot to Democrats ahead of November's elections.

massachusetts420-420x0.jpg


His victory, in a state Obama won by 26 percentage points in the 2008 election, is the third recent high-profile Democratic loss. In November, the president's party lost the governor's mansions in New Jersey and Virginia. It follows decisions by five House Democrats since November to retire instead of face potentially tough races later this year.

The Massachusetts vote represents "a tsunami in American politics," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University pollster.

Ketchup Boy is Next!!!

BTW, I heard Chris Mathews was drunk and slurring his words on live TV tonight, anyone catch that???
 
#13
#13
Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat of the late Democrat Edward Kennedy, ................ and sends a warning shot to Democrats ahead of November's elections.

massachusetts420-420x0.jpg




Ketchup Boy is Next!!!

BTW, I heard Chris Mathews was drunk and slurring his words on live TV tonight, anyone catch that???

I thought that was every night.

Anyway, like clockwork Barney Frank has come out and said the filibuster rules need to be changed. Of course...every time something doesn't work out for the DNC...they just changed the rules.
 
#14
#14
I am outraged by it, its a crappy way to attack the guy. Olberman should be ashamed of such a superficial approach to the situation. I think he's really frustrated, as are many Democrats, at the lack of any singular message and the lack of the administration using its power wisely and coherently.

Personally I think that the Dems would be much better off going on offense right now, calling out the GOP and the Blue Dog Dems as in the hip pocket of the insurers. Explaining to people much better than they have the benefits of reform.

But you know who I liked this morning on the election was Joe Scarborough. He was saying, look, 75 % of the American people like healthcare just the way it is. 90 % pay their mortgages. There's this enormous middle that wants focus on the economy and reinvigorating industry because that's what matters to them right now, not coming up with ways to expand the base of social programs.

I think that is dead on and if the administration and the Dems in Congress do not see that they've got to win back the middle class, November is going to be a blood bath for them.
 
#15
#15
I am outraged by it, its a crappy way to attack the guy. Olberman should be ashamed of such a superficial approach to the situation. I think he's really frustrated, as are many Democrats, at the lack of any singular message and the lack of the administration using its power wisely and coherently.

Personally I think that the Dems would be much better off going on offense right now, calling out the GOP and the Blue Dog Dems as in the hip pocket of the insurers. Explaining to people much better than they have the benefits of reform.

But you know who I liked this morning on the election was Joe Scarborough. He was saying, look, 75 % of the American people like healthcare just the way it is. 90 % pay their mortgages. There's this enormous middle that wants focus on the economy and reinvigorating industry because that's what matters to them right now, not coming up with ways to expand the base of social programs.

I think that is dead on and if the administration and the Dems in Congress do not see that they've got to win back the middle class, November is going to be a blood bath for them.
Was it not relatively clear to you yesterday that mandated insurance and gov't run medicare for all is something that not even the megaliberals can stomach. The interviews yesterday was clearly what this was about.

People want insurance reform and readjust the medicine selection process, not government run or government provided solutions.
 
#16
#16
Was it not relatively clear to you yesterday that mandated insurance and gov't run medicare for all is something that not even the megaliberals can stomach. The interviews yesterday was clearly what this was about.

People want insurance reform and readjust the medicine selection process, not government run or government provided solutions.


There's an enormous gulf between those two things, with lots of reforms that could be made which would be cost-effective in the long run.

As it stands now, what is going to pass (if anything) is going to result in higher costs to the public, greater insurance business and profit, and basically the same healthcare as far as everyday people are concerned.

As s small business employer, the premiums are going to go up even faster than they otherwise would have, and I am going to be passing that on to the employees, who have not seen a wage increase in real terms in some time.

They sought insurance reform to reduce costs and expand coverage. They are going to end up with a minimal expansion of coverage and substantial increases in costs.
 
#17
#17
wait so it's the healthcare systems fault that you aren't giving your employees raises?

ha ha ha ha ha
 
#18
#18
Law I do agree that the healthcare system needs to be reformed, and I think a large part of America does. Howver the only plan out of the democrats has involved the Government basically taking it over. That's where i part. This is something that needs a habit change not a whose in charge change. I would love to see people finally own up that the system of having a premium and then just co pay for most if not all services is the root of all of the problems. I just wish people would realize the Gov't is the absolute last party in the world that you want providing you services... no matter how "free" it appears.

You would be amazed at how cheaper everything becomes when you walk into a medical practice and say I have catastrophic only and pay the rest out of pocket. All of a sudden that 3000 dollar MRI gets cut by more than half. If most Americans would switch from the "cadillac plans" to that, we would be well on the way.
 
#19
#19
wait so it's the healthcare systems fault that you aren't giving your employees raises?

ha ha ha ha ha


No, of course not. What I am saying is that the economy sucks and so we don't have an incentive to give raises to hang onto people whose value in the marketplace continues to dwindle. And so, when the jump in premiums gets even worse here next year, we will be passing that on to people that are not getting raises, as they did, say, five years ago.

The cost of living goes up, the deduction for health insurance continues ot rise. Salaries remain flat.
 
#20
#20
No, of course not. What I am saying is that the economy sucks and so we don't have an incentive to give raises to hang onto people whose value in the marketplace continues to dwindle.

I see. So your recognize the market forces drive salaries. Seems you disagreed with this premise with regard to Wall St. types.
 
#21
#21
I see. So your recognize the market forces drive salaries. Seems you disagreed with this premise with regard to Wall St. types.
. . . thus proving how easy it is to be cavalier with other people's money.
 
#22
#22
I see. So your recognize the market forces drive salaries. Seems you disagreed with this premise with regard to Wall St. types.


Come on, you know full well that the forces driving investment and salaries in a 12 person office represent a completely different dynamic than a board of directors giving themselves and their connections enormous bonuses in an environment where they effectively answer only to themselves.
 
#23
#23
Come on, you know full well that the forces driving investment and salaries in a 12 person office represent a completely different dynamic than a board of directors giving themselves and their connections enormous bonuses in an environment where they effectively answer only to themselves.

Then one of the two outfits is wrong.
 

VN Store



Back
Top